INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING

2020, VOL. 21, NO. 4, 457–463

https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2018.1485917

Automatic classification of pavement crack using deep convolutional neural network

Baoxian Lia, Kelvin C. P. Wanga,b, Allen Zhanga,b, Enhui Yanga and Guolong Wanga
a
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, People’s Republic of China; bSchool of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The classification of pavement crack heavily relies on the engineers’ experience or the hand-crafted Received 27 June 2017
algorithms. Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) has demonstrated to be useful for image Accepted 4 June 2018
classification, which provides an alternative to traditional imaging classification algorithms. This paper
KEYWORDS
proposes a novel method using deep CNN to automatically classify image patches cropped from 3D Pavement; crack
pavement images. In all, four supervised CNNs with different sizes of receptive field are successfully classification; deep learning;
trained. The experimental results demonstrate that all the proposed CNNs can perform the convolutional neural
classification with a high accuracy. Overall classification accuracy of each proposed CNN is above 94%. network; receptive field
Upon the evaluation of these neural networks with respect to accuracy and training time, we find that
the size of receptive field has a slight effect on the classification accuracy. However, the CNNs with
smaller size of receptive field require more training times than others.

1. Introduction
Crack information is a primary indicator of pavement distress
for pavement design and management purposes. As reported in
MCAG (2009), with the appearance of the pavement cracks, the
quality of road surface deteriorates 40% during its first 75% of
life, and then, if without any treatment, it decreases another
40% in the next 12% of life. Pavement cracks are usually divided
into six types (www.asphaltinstitute.org/asphalt-pavement-dis-
tress-summary/): alligator crack, block crack, edge crack, longi-
tudinal crack, transverse crack and reflection crack. Typical
examples of them are shown in Figure 1. Traditional crack
detection is conducted by skilled raters going over the road,
which is time consuming, labour intensive and expensive.
The manual inspection is dangerously risky for the personnel
due to traffic hazards. Additionally, the variability and repeat-
ability are also the major issues due to the inconsistency in
manual surveys. Hence, an automated inspection method for
detecting pavement distress becomes essential.
Over the last decades, with a rapid technological advance of
machine vision, comprehensive pavement survey systems have
been developed (Huang and Xu 2006, Wang et al. 2008). In
accordance to the application of different sensor technologies,
three approaches dominate: (1) a two-dimensional image pro-
cessing (Mahler et al. 1991, Downey and Koutsopoulos 1993);
(2) a three-dimensional cloud point scanning (Smadja et al.
2010) and (3) a three-dimensional line scanning (Wang et al.
2012, Wöhler 2013). In 1998, Australian Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organization developed an
automated road crack detection system, RoadCrack (Ferguson
et al. 1998), which was able to identify cracks wider than 1 mm
at highway speed. The emerging 3D laser-scanning technique
has been fully adopted in PaveVision3D Ultra system to achieve
30-kHz scanning rate for 1 mm resolution pavement surface
data at highway speed up to 100 km/h (Wang et al. 2008,
Wang et al. 2012). These systems have proven their technologi-
cal superiority of automatic acquisition of pavement surface
data, but there remains a need for further improvement in an
automated interpretation of pavement data, especially in
classification for the major types of pavement cracks.
Conventionally, the framework for crack detection is based
on designing a variety of feature extractors for each image pixel,
which is followed by a binary classifier to determine whether
this pixel contains a crack or not. The local image-processing
methods, such as the intensity thresholding, edge detection
and sub-window based hand-crafted feature extraction
methods (Oliveira and Lobato Correia 2008, Hu and Zhao
2010, Zou et al. 2012) are widely used in practice. However,
two major challenges of the automatic interpretation of pave-
ment image still exist: (1) extracting cracks from complex back-
ground using low-level image cues and (2) classifying the
recognised cracks into a specific category. The industry in the
pavement distress inspection has been struggling to produce
production-worthy and fully automated systems.
Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), introduced in 1980
(Fukushima 1980) and improved over the past two decades
(Behnke 2003, Simard et al. 2003), is a powerful technology
for image classification. Since the early 2000s, CNN has been
applied with great success to classification (Gao et al. 2017,
Pedraza et al. 2017), segmentation and recognition (Li et al.
2017) of objects. Face recognition is a major practical success
(Garcia and Delakis 2004). CNN has yielded full potentiality
compared with traditional methodologies. Local Connections,
Shared Weights, Pooling and the Use of Many Layers are four
key ideas behind CNN (Lecun et al. 2015). The architecture
of a typical CNN (Figure 2) is structured with convolutional,
pooling and fully connected layers.

CONTACT Kelvin C. P. Wang kcpwang@gmail.com

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
458 B. LI ET AL.
Figure 1. Examples of asphalt pavement crack.
Convolutional layers – Units in a convolutional layer are
organised in feature maps. Each unit in the feature maps is con-
nected to local patches in the feature maps of the previous layer
or the input map through a set of weights called a filter bank.
The result of this local weighted sum is then passed through
a non-linear function such as ReLu and tanh.
Pooling layers – The role of pooling layers is to select spatial
invariance by reducing the resolution of feature maps. Structu-
rally, the pooling layers are followed behind convolutional
layers. Usually, the unit in a pooling layer receives the maxi-
mum of a local patch of units in one feature map.
Fully connected layers – Fully connected layers are followed
after several stages of convolution, non-linearity and pooling.
They are the traditional multi-layer perceptron. The term
‘fully connected’ implies that all units in the feature maps are
Figure 2. Overall architecture of a typical CNN: the first stage and second stage are composed of convolutional layers and pooling layers; the classifier is composed of few
fully connected layers.
concatenated together into a form of a vector. Particularly,
the vector in the output layer (the last layer) indicates a class
that the input belongs to.
All layers of the CNN are trained using the backpropagation
algorithm. The process of backpropagating gradients is similar
to a regular deep neural network, allowing all the weights and
bias in all the filter banks to be trained.
In the context of local connections in CNN, receptive field
is one basic concept, which is important for understanding
how deep CNN works. The receptive field is the concrete
embodiment of Local Connection and Shared Weights. In
Figure 2, the red boxes represent the respective field. Since
pixels outside the receptive field do not affect the value of out-
put unit, it is necessary to carefully control the size of recep-
tive field, to ensure that it covers the entire relevant image
region. The size of receptive field can be increased in a number
of ways. One option is to stack more layers to make the net-
work deeper, which increases the size linearly by theory. On
the other hand, sub-sampling increases the size multiplica-
tively. Modern deep CNN architectures, like VGG networks
and Residual Networks (He et al. 2016), use a combination
of these techniques.
In this paper, based on the successful application of CNN for
image classification, a novel crack classification method is pro-
posed. Operating directly on raw 3D pavement images, an
image library is built as our training dataset and testing dataset.
The architecture of the proposed CNNs is stacked with nine
layers (three fully connected layers and six convolutional and
pooling layers) except for input layer. In order to explore
how the size of receptive field affects the accuracy and training
time of the CNNs, four different receptive field sizes are
employed in CNNs.
2. Related works
The current advanced pavement survey systems make it feas-
ible to collect high-resolution pavement images at highway
speed. As a result, more and more effort has been taken into
automatic crack classification by researchers at universities
and the area of industries. Many existing methods for detection
or classification are primarily based on characteristics of crack.
Due to the fact that crack pixels are darker than their neigh-
bouring pixels, a lot of intensity-thresholding methods have
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 459

been widely applied, such as histogram-based algorithms and accurate hand-crafted feature extractor. Without designing
iterated clipping algorithms (Kirschke and Velinsky 1992, Oh hand-crafted features extractor, Zhang et al. (2016) and Cha
et al. 1998, Li and Liu 2008). However, they cannot deliver con- et al. (2017) demonstrate that CNNs can provide high perform-
sistent good results only by setting a single threshold for the ance on pavement crack classification regardless of the intensity
entire image, especially when image intensity varies with differ- inhomogeneity and complexity of background.
ent illuminance conditions.
Edge-detection-based methods are another kind of common
techniques. The edge detectors are applied to process over the 3. Proposed method
pavement images, such as Sobel, Prewitt, Laplacian and Canny PaveVision3D Ultra made by WayLink was used to acquire 3D
(Canny 1986). In Yan et al. (2007), the morphological filters are pavement images. A great deal of data was collected at various
introduced to detect crack edges with the assistance of a sections of highways, allowing the authors to create a dataset.
modified median filter to remove noise. In most cases, detecting One thousand images were randomly selected from the col-
disjoint crack curves is the main limitation of using edge- lected database. The size of each image is 4096 × 2048 repre-
detection. senting rough 4-m by 2-m pavement surface.
Wavelet transforms are a powerful tool for pavement crack
detection in frequency-domain. Because of wavelet transforms’
high-performance on processing linear singularity in 2D signal, 3.1. Pre-processing and building dataset
in (Shan et al., 2005). Ridgelet Transform and Curvelet Trans- In order to solve the classification problem, the proposed CNNs
form are applied to image segmentation and enhancement. In are trained on square image patches. The original 3D pavement
Zhou and Huang (2006), pavement cracks are extracted from images are divided into patches with size of 512 × 512, as
background by using wavelet-based statistical criteria. How- depicted in Figure 4. Both the training dataset and testing data-
ever, due to the anisotropic characteristic of wavelets, these set are made of these small patches.
approaches may encounter difficulty in detecting cracks with In the training dataset and testing dataset, small patches are
high curvature or low continuity. classified into five types: (1) non-crack, (2) transverse crack, (3)
Machine learning based methods have attracted more and longitudinal crack, (4) block crack and (5) alligator crack.
more attention of researchers, with rapid growth of data Figure 5 presents a subset of the training dataset. The
usage involved transportation, such as traffic sign and pave-
ment surface images. In Jahangiri and Rakha (2015), the
authors adopts different supervised learning methods to
develop multi-class classifiers that identify the transportation
modes including a driving car, a riding bicycle, a bus, etc. In
Chou et al. (1995), Cheng et al. (2001) and Nguyen et al.
(2009), a vector of various features is extracted from sub-
images cropped from the whole pavement images, and the vec-
tor is used for training and classifying afterwards. In Bray et al.
(2006), the density and histogram are calculated as features that
are passed to a neural network for the classification of images
into crack maps or free-crack maps. For all the methods, the
training and classification are conducted on extracted features
rather than the raw images. Figure 3 depicts two main modules
in a traditional classification system. Due to the variability and Figure 4. An illustration for the way to crop an original 3D pavement image into
richness of image data, it is almost impossible to build an patches.

Figure 5. A subset of the training dataset: the first block diagram – non-crack; the
second block diagram – transverse crack; the third block diagram – longitudinal
Figure 3. Traditional classification system with two modules: a fixed feature crack; the fourth block diagram – block crack; the fifth block diagram – alligator
extractor and a trainable classifier. crack.
460 B. LI ET AL.

Table 1. Target values for five types of data. at the (m + 1)th layer, where the backpropagation algorithm
Type of Transverse Longitudinal Block Alligator derives its name.
crack Non-crack crack crack crack crack
Batch training vs. SGD – SGD algorithm involves ‘on-line’
Target [1 0 0 0 0]T [0 1 0 0 0]T [0 0 1 0 0]T [0 0 0 1 0]T [0 0 0 0 1]T or incremental training, which means that the network par-
value
ameters are updated after each input is presented. Perform-
ing batch training is a good choice, which means that the
average gradient is computed after a batch of inputs is fed
convergence of training is usually faster if the average of each to the network. The updating equation for the batch training
input data is close to zero (Lecun et al. 1998a), so the input algorithm is
data is normalised as follows:
I − mean(I) a
Q
∂E
N I= W(k + 1) = W(k) − , (3)
max (I) − min (I)
(1) Q q=1 ∂W

where N_I denotes the normalised data and I denotes the input where Q denotes batch size.
data.
In this classification problem, the target value is a five-
dimensional column vector with value of ‘0’ or ‘1’. Each train- 3.3. The proposed architectures of CNNs
ing data and testing data is labelled with a vector according to
To maximise the performance of classification, it is essential to
Table 1.
compose CNN layers in an optimal way. With more hidden
In the term of training for deep learning, the sufficiency and
layers, the performance of classification could be improved,
diversity of training dataset are fundamental to the success of
but the speed of training may slow down. On the other hand,
training CNNs. Hence, more than 28,000 patches and corre-
high complexity of CNNs with many layers and parameters
sponding target vectors make up the training dataset and test-
may lead to overfitting. Inspired by AlexNet (Krizhevsky
ing dataset. The composition of the training dataset and testing
et al. 2012) and LeNet (Lecun et al. 1998b), four CNN architec-
dataset are listed in Table 2.
tures are proposed through some experiments, which are out-
lined in Table 3. For notational convenience, we refer to the
3.2. CNN training CNN by their names (CNN-1∼4). The parameters of convolu-
tional layer are denoted as ‘Conv < number of feature maps> −
Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) – The goal of training a CNN < size of receptive field >’ for brevity. The loss function E is the
is to find the value of all parameters, W, that can minimise a mean square error for all CNN architectures, which is defined
loss function, E. The loss function E (i) = D(D (i), F(W, Z (i))) as
measures the discrepancy between D (i), the ‘correct’ or desired
output for input Z (i), and output F(W, Z (i))) generated from the 1
Q
2
function F, that is, the CNN. The general problem of minimis- E= (D(i) − O(i) ) , (4)
Q i=1
ing a function with respect to a set of parameters is at the root
of many issues in the field of computer science and mathemat- where D (i) is the ith target vector, and O (i) is the ith output
ics. SGD algorithm has been proven a predominant method- vector.
ology (Chou et al. 1995, Bray et al. 2006, Zhang et al. 2016). ReLu and log-sigm are applied as the activation function in
The loss function can be minimised by estimating the impact convolutional layers and fully connected layers, respectively.
of small variations of the parameter values in the CNN. The Before feeding the CNNs with our training dataset, in order
simplest minimisation procedure using SGD is to save computing time, each patch is resized into 256 × 256.
The batch size Q is equal to 5. All the data processing and
∂E
W(k + 1) = W(k) − a , (2) the CNNs training were running on MATLAB platform
∂W installed in my own computer equipped with Intel Core i7-
where α is learning rate, which is a constant less than 1, and k is 6700 T microprocessor and 12GB of RAM. Once the conver-
iteration time. gence is achieved, the training process is terminated, as illus-
Since the proposed CNN is a multi-layer feedforward net- trated in Figure 6.
work, the relationship between the CNN parameters and the
implicit loss function E is complex. Hence, the chain rule of
calculus is applied to calculate derivatives. In this way, the Table 3. CNN configurations.
gradients at the mth layer are computed from the gradients CNN-1 CNN-2 CNN-3 CNN-4
Input layer 256*256 3D pavement image
Conv6-3*3 Conv6-5*5 Conv6-7*7 Conv6-9*9
Table 2. The composition of the dataset. maxpooling
Conv12-3*3 Conv12-5*5 Conv12-7*7 Conv12-9*9
Non- Transverse Longitudinal Block Alligator maxpooling
Type of crack crack crack crack crack crack Conv24-3*3 Conv24-5*5 Conv24-7*7 Conv24-9*9
Number of 5552 5184 5419 5362 5445 maxpooling
training data FC-1
Number of testing 300 300 300 300 300 FC-2
data FC-3
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 461

Figure 6. The value of loss function versus training times.

Table 4. Classification results.

Non-crack (%) Longitudinal crack (%) Transversal crack (%) Block crack (%) Alligator crack (%) Overall accuracy (%)
CNN-1 98.00 96.33 96.67 91.67 88.67 94.27
CNN-2 93.00 97.67 97.33 94.00 89.33 94.23
CNN-3 98.67 97.67 98.00 96.00 91.33 96.33
CNN-4 95.00 98.67 96.00 92.67 90.67 94.60

4. Experimental results Table 5. Performance comparison of different methods.

As shown in Figure 6, CNN-1 produces the slowest conver- Overall
accuracy Input image
gence in around 17,000 times of training. CNN-3’s and No. References (%) size The number of image class
CNN-4’s errors have almost the same tendency of conver- 1 Zhang et al. 86.96 99 × 99 × 3 2
gence, and the values of their loss function converge in around (2016) Crack; Non-crack
4000 times of training. It means that the CNNs with 7 × 7 2 Cha et al. 97 256 × 256 × 3 2
(2017) Crack; Non-crack
(CNN-3) and 9 × 9 (CNN-4) size of receptive field finish to 3 Park et al. 98 32 × 32 12
train within far less iterations than the CNNs with smaller (2016)
size of receptive field. 4 Our proposed 94 256 × 256 5
method Non-crack; Longitudinal
After training, the testing dataset was fed to CNN-1∼4 aim- crack; Transverse crack;
ing at evaluating the classification performance of the proposed Block crack; Alligator crack
CNNs. Table 4 summarises the classification accuracies of the
proposed CNNs, which demonstrates that all of them can per-
form a high-accuracy classification. CNN-3 achieves the peak their CNNs contains only two nodes. So their networks are
classification performance, except for classifying longitudinal less complex than others. Our proposed method can obtain
crack. The overall accuracies of the four CNNs are above 94% accuracy, and it has a reliable power to classify pavement
94%. The classifications of alligator crack and block crack patches into five categories aforementioned.
have a lower accuracy than others. It happened several times
that the CNN confused block cracks with alligator cracks.
5. Conclusions
This may be caused by the similarity of their patterns.
Through summarising the recent research works on pave- In this study, novel CNNs are proposed for pavement cracking
ment crack classification based on deep learning methods, classification based on 3D pavement images. The proposed
Table 5 lists the performance comparison of these methods. CNNs are used to classify pavement patches into five cat-
Generally speaking, these methods show a high-performance egories, i.e. non-crack, transverse crack, longitudinal crack,
of classification using CNNs. Park et al. (2016). achieved the block crack and alligator crack. More than 28,000 patches
highest accuracy by using CNN to classify 12 types of defect (making up the training dataset and testing dataset) were col-
images, however, their input image size was 32 × 32, which lected by manual to train the CNNs.
means that fewer parameters are needed to train. Zhang et al. In total, four proposed CNNs are successfully trained. The
(2016) and Cha et al. (2017) adopted the methods based on mean square error is applied to evaluating the training process
CNN to classify pavement patches into two categories: crack of the CNNs. Classic backpropagation algorithm works on
image, or non-crack image, which means the output layer of backward propagation of parameter gradients. The overall
462 B. LI ET AL.
accuracies of four proposed CNNs are above 94%. Notably, the
overall accuracy of the CNN-3 is even above 96%. The high
performance and reliablity of classification from the proposed
CNNs demonstrate that the CNNs are powerful tools for clas-
sifying 3D pavement images.
In order to explore how the receptive field affects CNN with
respect to training time and classification performance, differ-
ent sizes of receptive field are adopted in the convolutional
layers, while the number of convolutional layers and fully con-
nected layers, and the activity functions are fixed. The results of
our experiments reveal that the size of receiptive field has an
important influence on training times. The CNNs with smaller
size of receptive field require far more iterations to converge.
On the other hand, the size of receptive field has almost no
effect on the classification performance of the proposed
CNNs. The research shows that the proposed CNN with the
receptive field size of 7 × 7 is the optimal one.
Further research should be conducted on how other hyper-
parameters impact CNNs, such as the number of convolutional
layers, and the number of nodes in the connected layer, etc.
Therefore, more experiments are needed.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Wang’s team for providing pavement
3D data.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
Funding for this research was provided by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant number U153420027, 51478398). The
authors gratefully acknowledge these supports
References
Available from: www.asphaltinstitute.org/asphalt-pavement-distress-
summary/ [Accessed 20 April 2017].
Behnke, S, 2003. Hierarchical neural networks for image interpretation.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2766 (3), 1345–1346.
Bray, J., et al., 2006. A neural network based technique for automatic
classification of road cracks. International Joint Conference on Neural
Networks. IEEE, 2006, 907–912.
Canny, J., 1986. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE
Computer Society, 679–698.
Cha, Y.J., Choi, W., and Büyüköztürk, O., 2017. Deep learning-based crack
damage detection using convolutional neural networks. Computer-
aided Civil & Infrastructure Engineering, 32 (5), 361–378.
Cheng, H., et al., 2001. Novel approach to pavement cracking detection
based on neural network. Transportation Research Record Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, 1764 (1), 119–127.
Chou, J., O’Neill, W.A., and Cheng, H., 1995. Pavement distress evaluation
using fuzzy logic and moment invariants. Transportation Research
Record, 39–46.
Downey, A.B. and Koutsopoulos, H.N., 1993. Primitive-based classifi-
cation of pavement cracking images. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 119 (3), 402–418.
Ferguson, R., Pratt, D., and Macintyre, I., 1998. Automated detection and
classification of cracking in road pavements (RoadCrack). 19th ARRB
Transport Research Ltd conference, 1998, Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia.
Fukushima, K., 1980. Neurocognitron: a self organizing neural network
model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in
position. Biological Cybernetics, 36 (4), 193–202.
Gao, F., et al., 2017. Dual-branch deep convolution neural network for
polarimetric SAR image classification. Applied Sciences, 7 (5), 447.
Garcia, C. and Delakis, M., 2004. Convolutional face finder: a neural archi-
tecture for fast and robust face detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 26 (11), 1408.
He, K., et al., 2016. Identity mappings in deep residual networks. European
conference on computer vision, Springer, Cham, 630–645.
Hu, Y. and Zhao, C., 2010. A local binary pattern based methods for pave-
ment crack detection. Journal of Pattern Recognition Research, 1, 1
(20103), 140–147.
Huang, Y., and Xu, B., 2006. Automatic inspection of pavement cracking
distress. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 15 (1), 013017.
Jahangiri, A. and Rakha, H.A., 2015. Applying machine learning tech-
niques to transportation mode recognition using mobile phone sensor
data. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16 (5),
2406–2417.
Kirschke, K.R. and Velinsky, S.A., 1992. Histogram-based approach for
automated pavement-crack sensing. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 118 (5), 700–710.
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Hinton, G.E. 2012. ImageNet classifi-
cation with deep convolutional neural networks. International confer-
ence on neural information processing systems, 1097–1105.
Lecun, Y., et al., 1998a. Efficient BackProp. Neural Networks Tricks of the
Trade, 1524 (1), 9–50.
Lecun, Y., et al., 1998b. Gradient-based learning applied to document rec-
ognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86 (11), 2278–2324.
Lecun, Y., Bengio, Y., and Hinton, G., 2015. Deep learning. Nature, 521
(7553), 436–444.
Li, C., et al., 2017. Deepgait: a learning deep convolutional representation
for view-invariant gait recognition using joint Bayesian. Applied
Sciences, 7 (3), 15.
Li, Q. and Liu, X., 2008. Novel approach to pavement image segmentation
based on neighboring difference histogram method. Congress on image
and signal processing – CISP ’08, 27–30 May 2008. Sanya, Hainan, China.
Mahler, D.S., et al., 1991. Pavement distress analysis using image proces-
sing techniques. Computer-aided Civil & Infrastructure Engineering, 6
(1), 1–14.
MCAG, 2009. M.C.A.o.G., Pavement management Report for Merced
County.
Nguyen, T.S., Avila, M., and Begot, S., 2009. Automatic detection and
classification of defect on road pavement using anisotropy measure.
European Signal Processing Conference. IEEE, 2009, 1–5.
Oh, H., Garrick, N.W., and Achenie, L.E.K., 1998. Segmentation algorithm
using iterative clipping for processing noisy pavement images. Second
international conference on imaging technologies: techniques and appli-
cations in civil engineering, Imaging Technologies: Techniques and
Applications in Civil Engineering. Second International Conference,
Davos, Switzerland, 138–147.
Oliveira, H. and Lobato Correia, P., 2008. Supervised strategies for cracks
detection in images of road pavement flexible surfaces. European signal
processing conference, Signal Processing Conference, 2008, European.
IEEE, 2008:1–5.
Park, J.K., et al., 2016. Machine learning-based imaging system for surface
defect inspection. International Journal of Precision Engineering and
Manufacturing-Green Technology, 3 (3), 303–310.
Pedraza, A., et al., 2017. Automated diatom classification (part B): a deep
learning approach. Applied Sciences, 7 (5), 460.
Shan, T., et al., 2005. Automatic image enhancement driven by evolution
based on Ridgelet frame in the presence of noise. Berlin: Springer.
304–313.
Simard, P.Y., Steinkraus, D., and Platt, J.C., 2003. Best practices for convo-
lutional neural networks applied to visual document analysis.
International conference on document analysis & recognition,
International Conference on Document Analysis & Recognition. IEEE
Computer Society, 2003:958.

Smadja, L., Ninot, J., and Gavrilovic, T., 2010. Road extraction and
environment interpretation from LIDAR sensors. 38, 281–286.
Wang, K.C.P., et al., 2012. Potential measurement of pavement surface tex-
ture based on three-dimensional image data. Transportation Research
Board 91st Annual Meeting.
Wang, K.C.P., Gong, W., and Hou, Z. 2008. Automated cracking survey.
6th RILEM international conference on cracking in pavements,
Chicago, IL.
Wöhler, C., 2013. Triangulation-based approaches to three-dimensional
scene reconstruction, 171–187.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 463
Yan, M., et al., 2007. Pavement crack detection and analysis for high-grade
highway. International conference on electronic measurement and
instruments, 4-548–4-552.
Zhang, L., et al., 2016. Road crack detection using deep convolutional
neural network. IEEE international conference on image processing,
3708–3712.
Zhou, J. and Huang, P.S., 2006. Wavelet-based pavement distress detection
and evaluation. Optical Engineering, 45 (2), 409–411.
Zou, Q., et al., 2012. Cracktree: automatic crack detection from pavement
images. Pattern Recognition Letters, 33 (3), 227–238.
Copyright of International Journal of Pavement Engineering is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.