Automating Visual Blockage Classification of Culverts with Deep Learning
Source abstract
Abstract
Blockage of culverts by transported debris materials is reported as the salient contributor in originating urban flash floods. Conventional hydraulic modeling approaches had no success in addressing the problem primarily because of the unavailability of peak floods hydraulic data and the highly non-linear behavior of debris at the culvert. This article explores a new dimension to investigate the issue by proposing the use of intelligent video analytics (IVA) algorithms for extracting blockage related information. The presented research aims to automate the process of manual visual blockage classification of culverts from a maintenance perspective by remotely applying deep learning models. The potential of using existing convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithms (i.e., DarkNet53, DenseNet121, InceptionResNetV2, InceptionV3, MobileNet, ResNet50, VGG16, EfficientNetB3, NASNet) is investigated over a dataset from three different sources (i.e., images of culvert openings and blockage (ICOB), visual hydrology-lab dataset (VHD), synthetic images of culverts (SIC)) to predict the blockage in a given image. Models were evaluated based on their performance on the test dataset (i.e., accuracy, loss, precision, recall, F1 score, Jaccard Index, region of convergence (ROC) curve), floating point operations per second (FLOPs) and response times to process a single test instance. Furthermore, the performance of deep learning models was benchmarked against conventional machine learning algorithms (i.e., SVM, RF, xgboost). In addition, the idea of classifying deep visual features extracted by CNN models (i.e., ResNet50, MobileNet) using conventional machine learning approaches was also implemented in this article. From the results, NASNet was reported most efficient in classifying the blockage images with the 5-fold accuracy of 85%; however, MobileNet was recommended for the hardware implementation because of its improved response time with 5-fold accuracy comparable to NASNet (i.e., 78%). Comparable performance to standard CNN models was achieved for the case where deep visual features were classified using conventional machine learning approaches. False negative (FN) instances, false positive (FP) instances and CNN layers activation suggested that background noise and oversimplified labelling criteria were two contributing factors in the degraded performance of existing CNN algorithms. A framework for partial automation of the visual blockage classification process was proposed, given that none of the existing models was able to achieve high enough accuracy to completely automate the manual process. In addition, a detection-classification pipeline with higher blockage classification accuracy (i.e., 94%) has been proposed as a potential future direction for practical implementation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Flood Risk Assessment and Management · Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes · Hydraulic flow and structures
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
SMART Infrastructure Facility, University of Wollongong, Wollongong 2500, Australia
School of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong 2500, Australia
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. Culvert blockages in two Australian flood events and implications for design10.1080/13241583.2016.1172693 ↗
2. The non-impact of debris blockages on the August 1998 Wollongong flooding10.7158/13241583.2012.11465399 ↗
3. Blanc, J. (2013). An Analysis of the Impact of Trash Screen Design on Debris Related Blockage at Culvert Inlets. [Ph.D. Thesis, School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University].
4. Weeks, W., Witheridge, G., Rigby, E., Barthelmess, A., and O’Loughlin, G. (2013). Project 11: Blockage of Hydraulic Structures, Engineers Australia, Water Engineering. Technical Report P11/S2/021.
5. Roso, S., Boyd, M., Rigby, E., and VanDrie, R. (2004, January 6–10). Prediction of increased flooding in urban catchments due to debris blockage and flow diversions. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Sustainable Techniques and Strategies in Urban Water Management (NOVATECH), Lyon, France.
6. Wallerstein, N., Thorne, C.R., and Abt, S. (1996). Debris Control at Hydraulic Structures, Contract Modification: Management of Woody Debris in Natural Channels and at Hydraulic Structures, Department of Geography, Nottingham University (United Kingdom). Technical Report.10.21236/ADA324607 ↗
7. How Computer Vision can Facilitate Flood Management: A Systematic Review10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.102030 ↗
8. Barthelmess, A., and Rigby, E. (July, January 26). Culvert Blockage Mechanisms and their Impact on Flood Behaviour. Proceedings of the 34th World Congress of the International Association for Hydro-Environment Research and Engineering, Brisbane, Australia.
9. Rigby, E., and Silveri, P. (2002, January 8–13). Causes and effects of culvert blockage during large storms. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Urban Drainage (9ICUD), Portland, OR, USA.10.1061/40644(2002)298 ↗
10. Van Drie, R., Boyd, M., and Rigby, E. (2001, January 28–30). Modelling of hydraulic flood flows using WBNM2001. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Hydraulics in Civil Engineering, Hobart, Australia.
11. Davis, A. (2001). An Analysis of the Effects of Debris Caught at Various Points of Major Catchments during Wollongong’s August 1998 Storm Event. [Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Wollongong].
12. WBM, B. (2008). Newcastle Flash Flood 8 June 2007 (the Pasha Bulker Storm) Flood Data Compendium, BMT WBM. Prepared for Newcastle City Council.
13. Ball, J., Babister, M., Nathan, R., Weinmann, P., Weeks, W., Retallick, M., and Testoni, I. (2016). Australian Rainfall and Runoff—A Guide to Flood Estimation, Commonwealth of Australia.
14. Design for culvert blockage: The ARR 2016 guidelines10.1080/13241583.2018.1477268 ↗
15. Rigby, E., and Silveri, P. (2001, January 28–30). The impact of blockages on flood behaviour in the Wollongong storm of August 1998. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Hydraulics in Civil Engineering: The State of Hydraulics, Hobart, Australia.
16. Australian Rainfall and Runoff guidance on blockage of hydraulic structures: Numerical implementation and three case studies
17. Jones, R.H., Weeks, W., and Babister, M. (2016). Review of Conduit Blockage Policy Summary Report, WMA Water.
18. Augusto, J.C. (2020). Problem-Driven and Technology-Enabled Solutions for Safer Communities: The case of stormwater management in the Illawarra-Shoalhaven region (NSW, Australia). Handbook of Smart Cities, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-15145-4 ↗
19. Arshad, B., Ogie, R., Barthelemy, J., Pradhan, B., Verstaevel, N., and Perez, P. (2019). Computer Vision and IoT-Based Sensors in Flood Monitoring and Mapping: A Systematic Review. Sensors, 19.10.3390/s19225012 ↗
20. Redmon, J., and Farhadi, A. (2018). Yolov3: An incremental improvement. arXiv.
21. Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L., and Weinberger, K.Q. (2017, January 21–26). Densely connected convolutional networks. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1109/CVPR.2017.243 ↗
22. Szegedy, C., Ioffe, S., Vanhoucke, V., and Alemi, A. (2016). Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning. arXiv.10.1609/aaai.v31i1.11231 ↗
23. Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., and Wojna, Z. (2016, January 27–30). Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Las Vegas, NV, USA.10.1109/CVPR.2016.308 ↗
24. Howard, A.G., Zhu, M., Chen, B., Kalenichenko, D., Wang, W., Weyand, T., Andreetto, M., and Adam, H. (2017). Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications. arXiv.
25. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., and Sun, J. (2016, January 27–30). Deep residual learning for image recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Las Vegas, NV, USA.10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 ↗
26. Simonyan, K., and Zisserman, A. (2014). Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv.
27. Tan, M., and Le, Q.V. (2019). Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. arXiv.
28. Zoph, B., Vasudevan, V., Shlens, J., and Le, Q.V. (2018, January 18–23). Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.10.1109/CVPR.2018.00907 ↗
29. Zoph, B., and Le, Q.V. (2016). Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. arXiv.
30. Hypothesis testing, type I and type II errors10.4103/0972-6748.62274 ↗
31. Cui, H., and Dahnoun, N. (2019, January 10–14). Real-Time Stereo Vision Implementation on Nvidia Jetson TX2. Proceedings of the 2019 8th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO), Budva, Montenegro.10.1109/MECO.2019.8760027 ↗
32. Basulto-Lantsova, A., Padilla-Medina, J.A., Perez-Pinal, F.J., and Barranco-Gutierrez, A.I. (2020, January 6–8). Performance comparative of OpenCV Template Matching method on Jetson TX2 and Jetson Nano developer kits. Proceedings of the 2020 10th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC), Las Vegas, NV, USA.10.1109/CCWC47524.2020.9031166 ↗
33. Barthélemy, J., Verstaevel, N., Forehead, H., and Perez, P. (2019). Edge-computing video analytics for real-time traffic monitoring in a smart city. Sensors, 19.10.3390/s19092048 ↗
34. Arshad, B., Barthelemy, J., Pilton, E., and Perez, P. (2020, January 25–28). Where is my Deer?—Wildlife Tracking And Counting via Edge Computing And Deep Learning. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Sensors, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.10.1109/SENSORS47125.2020.9278802 ↗
35. Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R., and Sun, J. (2015). Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. arXiv.