This systematic review maps AI-based crack detection in buildings, revealing advancements and ongoing challenges in the field.
Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based crack detection in buildings uses computer vision and deep learning to automatically identify structural cracks from inspection images. In recent years, many studies have explored this topic, but the overall development of the field, its methodological practices, and the remaining challenges are still not fully clear. Unlike most previous reviews that focus mainly on technical methods, this study combines a large-scale scientometric mapping of the research field with a focused technical analysis of recent AI-based crack detection methods specifically applied to building structures. This study therefore provides a dual-layer review covering research published between 2015 and 2025. A total of 146 Scopus-indexed publications were analysed using Visualization of Similarities viewer (VOSviewer) to examine publication growth, thematic evolution, collaboration patterns, and citation structures. In addition, a focused technical review of 36 highly relevant studies was carried out to analyse task formulations, model families, datasets, evaluation protocols, and methodological practices. The results show a rapid increase in research activity after 2020, largely driven by advances in deep-learning and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)-based inspections. At the same time, collaboration networks remain uneven, and citation influence is concentrated in a limited number of research communities. The technical review further shows that most studies focus on detection-level tasks, particularly You Only Look Once (YOLO)-based models, while predictive diagnostics, automated inspection reporting, and decision-oriented Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) are still rarely addressed. Current datasets and evaluation protocols also remain mostly perception-oriented, which makes it difficult to assess robustness, generalisability and long-term predictive capability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohagheghi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: