Special Issue Article

Structural Health Monitoring

12(5-6) 411–429

Monitoring of a civil structure’s state Ó The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
based on noncontact measurements DOI: 10.1177/1475921713487397
shm.sagepub.com

Piotr Kohut1, Krzysztof Holak1, Tadeusz Uhl1, Łukasz Ortyl2, Tomasz

Owerko2, Przemysław Kuras2 and Rafał Kocierz2

Abstract
In this article, the comparison of two noncontact measurement methods dedicated to civil engineering structures’ state
examination is presented. The vision-based method computes the displacement field of the analyzed structure by means
of the digital image correlation coefficient. The system consists of one or more high-resolution digital cameras mounted
on a head or on portable tripods. The developed methodology and created software application embedded in an MS-
Windows operating system are presented. The second system measures the deflection of the structures by means of a
radar interferometer. In both cases, it is possible to measure many points on the structure simultaneously. This article
presents a comparison of the displacement field measurement performed on a field setup, as well as the span of a steel
bridge designed for tram traffic. Both systems are described, with special attention given to their application in measure-
ments of civil engineering structures. This article demonstrates a preliminary test performed to verify both of the non-
contact systems in relation to high-accuracy measurement devices, the precise surveying level, and the electronic dial
indicator of displacement. The experiment was designed intentionally to simulate the geometric conditions of the real
structure, but the displacement values were generated and controlled by the operator. As a key study, a steel viaduct
subjected to an operational load was measured, as a type of structure for which the observation is required in terms of
structural health monitoring. It was subjected to the operational load caused by tram traffic. Both examined systems
were applied. The accuracy analysis of both systems was investigated, and the obtained results were discussed.

Keywords
Vision systems, digital image correlation, non-contact measurement systems, deflection measurement, radar interfero-
metry, bridge state monitoring

Introduction the static or dynamic test loads. This can be performed

Structural health monitoring (SHM) involves the inte-
gration of sensors, data transmission, processing, and
analysis in order to detect, localize, and assess damage
within a structure, which can lead to its failure at the
present time or in the future.1 SHM methods can be
divided into two groups: local and global methods. The
latter are applied if a global change in the geometry of
a structure can be observed. The analysis of the displa-
cement field or mode shapes plays a key role in the eva-
luation of constructions’ static states and dynamic
characteristics.
In bridge engineering, diagnostic tests are complex
processes that use broad knowledge of the considered
object. Among the various sources of information on
the structure state, in addition to the technical and
operational documentation and structure inspections, a
particularly important role is played by research under
load.2,3 Analysis of structure response may be related to
for new structures before putting them into operation,
as well as for previously used structures in order to
determine the current structure condition, for example,
after repair. However, tests during operation are often
conducted with randomly varying loads and may be a
useful basis for experimental modal analysis.4,5
In order to assess the correctness of their work and
condition, structures are submitted to static loads.6 The
results of regularly repeated static tests allow the
1
Department of Robotics and Mechatronics, AGH University of Science
and Technology, Krakow, Poland
2
Department of Engineering Surveying and Civil Engineering, AGH
University of Science and Technology, Krakow, Poland
Corresponding author:
Piotr Kohut, Department of Robotics and Mechatronics, AGH University
of Science and Technology, Mickiewicza 30 Avenue, 30059 Krakow,
Poland.
Email: pko@agh.edu.pl

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015

412
comprehensive evaluation of changes, which can indi-
cate the appearance of damage, often difficult to reveal
with other methods. A separate problem is the analysis
of bridge response under dynamic loads. The detection
of changes in the dynamic characteristics of structures
may be used to discover bridge defects, including defor-
mation, destruction, or loss of material continuity.
Each bridge structure investigated under operational
loads demands individually designed procedures of reg-
ular tests to investigate its condition. The concepts of
monitoring systems must take into consideration a few
items: the structure type, operational conditions, and
the rate of degradation processes. The techniques that
are applied to determine the response of the loaded
structure are very diverse.
Nowadays, a wide variety of measurement tech-
niques, which are based on displacement measures, are
applied in the monitoring of bridge deformations and
vibrations.7 Among them are surveying techniques: glo-
bal positioning system (GPS) or global navigation sat-
ellite system (GNSS) and electro-optical instruments.
The satellite technique is particularly useful in the
dynamic measurements of long-span bridges, which are
submitted to displacements of several centimeters.8,9
However, the accuracy of about 61 cm in the horizon-
tal direction (and 62 cm in the vertical direction) may
be disturbed by some effects. An error of a few centi-
meters may be caused by multiple signal reflections
from construction elements that cause the multipath
effect, the improper modeling of ionospheric and tro-
pospheric delay, and the unfavorable configuration and
visibility of satellites. On the contrary, measurements
made by total stations or digital levels are not disturbed
with these effects and enable deflection measurements
with an accuracy better than 0.2 mm.10,11 Nevertheless,
this technique cannot be applied in bad weather condi-
tions that limit visibility or to perform the dynamic
measurements because of the low sampling rate.
Other devices, used particularly in dynamic measure-
ments, are electronic sensors such as accelerometers,
displacement transducers (e.g. linear variable differen-
tial transformer (LVDT) and laser beam), and strain
gauges.12 These devices have to be mounted directly on
the structure and require connection with reference
points to determine the absolute displacements.11 In
the case of displacement transducers, a fixed base is
necessary to measure relative displacements. On the
contrary, the accuracy of data obtained with acceler-
ometers depends strongly on sampling rate, internal
noise of a device, sample length, and frequency content
of the signal. In order to determine the displacement
values, a double integration of acceleration data must
be calculated. This process, however, requires the use
of digital filtering and the definition of the initial condi-
tions. Their improper assumption may lead to errors in
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015
Structural Health Monitoring 12(5-6)
displacement calculation.13 Therefore, it is recom-
mended to avoid the integration process and to use the
appropriate device for direct measurement of the
required quantity.14
A significant drawback of all the above-mentioned
methods is the necessity of fixing sensors or additional
devices directly to the examined parts of objects. In
many practical cases, it may be very difficult or even
impossible on account of the working conditions.
Moreover, they provide only discrete information of
structure displacement. To get full information about
the position of the structure, it is necessary to install a
number of sensors or make measurements at many
points. Therefore, there is a necessity for the design and
implementation of noncontact measurement systems.
Two noninvasive techniques, which allow the displace-
ment measurements at many points simultaneously, are
described in detail below.
The first technique is radar interferometry. It is
widely used for imaging changes in the earth’s surface
by satellites.15 Recently, it has also been used in
ground-based imaging. It can provide information
about the movements of surfaces, such as slopes or
landslides,16 and also enables the static and dynamic
tests of engineering structures.
The ground-based synthetic radar aperture
(GBSAR) technique has been developed since 2000.17
Its main applications are land surface topography ima-
ging, and land deformation monitoring. The radar used
in this technique performs the measurement by sending
a modulated wave and analyzing the returning signal
reflected from the object. The radial component of the
object displacement is observed as a phase change of
the returning signal.
The first implementation of the GBSAR technique
was the linear synthetic aperture (LISA) radar, used for
measurement of static bridge deflection or deformation
of building facxades, among others.17,18 The concept of
using the ground-based radar to study the dynamics of
structures was proposed by Pieraccini et al.19 in 2004.
In further research, the appropriate frequency of the
carrier wave was investigated. The higher the frequency,
the higher the sensitivity of the displacement measure-
ment, but the lower the range arising from the phase
ambiguity. The commercial version of the system,
named ‘‘Image by Interferometric Survey’’ (IBIS),
implemented in 2007, adopts the center frequency of
17.2 GHz (Ku-band of microwaves) as a compromise.
This means that the maximum displacement, unam-
biguously determinable, is equal to 64.36 mm (61/4 of
the wavelength). Greater values require methods for
removing the ambiguity phase.20 Due to its features, the
IBIS system may be applied in static and dynamic mon-
itoring of structures, especially of elongated shape,
including bridges and towers.21,22
Kohut et al.
The second technique is digital image correlation,
applied in vision-based systems (VBs). The vision sys-
tems can be a good alternative to contact type transdu-
cers23–26 as easy to use, accurate, low cost, and
universal tool systems, which can be applied in vibra-
tion and deformation measurements. Nowadays, an
increase in the availability of vision systems using digi-
tal image correlation for the measurement of displace-
ments, strains, and stresses of objects has been
observed on the world markets. The most important
companies offering vision measurement systems exist-
ing at present on the market are Correlated Solution,
GOM, LIMESS Messtechnik & Software, Dantec
Dynamics, and Metris (Krypton 9000).27–34 The men-
tioned commercially available vision systems are not
dedicated to large-scale civil engineering structure mon-
itoring. They can perform only manual measurements
and have to be operated by a skilled user. They cannot
be easily used for fully automatic long-term monitoring
of the structure. Some of the systems belong to active
vision devices that involve additional sources of radia-
tion, making them expensive. However, the passive
devices require special geometric markers or random
texture and cannot carry out measurements without
the object’s preparation. Researchers have proposed
many solutions for the systems dedicated to civil engi-
neering state evaluation.
In a previous article by Olaszek,35 the method of
geometric marker’s displacement tracking is presented.
The proposed method was applied for the measurement
of a bridge’s vibrations and displacements under static
and dynamic loads. The subpixel technique of tracking
was introduced. An additional reference point was
placed on the bridge’s structural element in order to
correct errors induced by the vibration of the camera.
The marker had the shape of a circle, and its centroid
was tracked during investigation. A different monitor-
ing system for bridges was presented in a previous arti-
cle by Lee and Shinozuka.36 The system was applied for
train bridge state examination. The 1 MPixPointGrey
Fleas2 camera was used for observation of the geo-
metric marker’s displacement. The positions of the
tracked marker’s centroid generated the trajectory of
the measurement point of the bridge, which was sub-
jected to dynamic loads. The second device, a Canon S7
camera with a lens with a focal length equal to f = 140
mm, was applied to observe the girder’s deflection.
Yoneyama et al.37 proposed a method of bridge deflec-
tion measurement using digital image correlation. The
camera’s position was fixed. The random speckle pat-
tern was placed on the analyzed plane of the structure.
The examination of the structure’s deflection was car-
ried out during a loading test. The load of 20 tons was
provided by a truck. The authors reported that the
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015
413
standard deviation (SD) of the absolute difference
between the displacements measured by a vision system
and a network of tensometers was 0.31 mm. In a previ-
ous article by Tung et al.,38 the method of crack detec-
tion in masonry walls was presented. The deflection
measurement was carried out by means of a digital
image correlation coefficient. In the experimental tests,
the wall was subjected to compressive stresses. The
initiation and growth of the cracks were observed. The
cracks were detected as places in which the correlation
coefficient decreased its value abruptly. Kujawińska
et al.39 proposed a hybrid, distributed system dedicated
to construction monitoring. The images were acquired
by two types of optical sensors: one- or two-camera sys-
tems using digital image correlation as a measurement
technique and an infrared camera. The fusion of data
from two types of sensors allowed the efficiency of the
structure’s monitoring to be increased. Part of the mea-
surement system, using cameras and the digital image
correlation method, was applied in the monitoring of
the elements of civil engineering constructions, and in
the art gallery for paintings’ state observation.40 Canon
EOS 5D Mark II cameras were applied as image acqui-
sition devices. Kujawińska et al.41 proposed an intelli-
gent, hybrid vision system consisting of optical sensors
and a server controlling the operation of all measure-
ment devices. The first sensor is an active device and
consists of a structured light projector and charge-
coupled device (CCD) camera. The device reconstructs
the geometry of objects in the form of a cloud of points.
The second device makes use of the Moire Pattern anal-
ysis. The pattern, consisting of parallel lines, is placed
on the flat surface of the structure. When the construc-
tion is under the load, it deforms along with the pattern.
The reference pattern is superimposed on the image of
the deformed pattern. The interference phenomenon
creates the Moire Pattern, carrying information about
the deformation. Devices of the system were used for
monitoring of the structural elements of the Temple of
Divine Providence in Poland. An SHM system for
bridge monitoring was presented in the study by
Zaurin.42 The system consists of a digital camera and a
set of strain sensors. The vision part of the system is
used for monitoring the traffic on the bridge by detect-
ing, tracking, and classifying vehicles on the bridge. The
contact sensors measure the strains and displacements
of the construction’s elements. The registered data are
correlated with images from the cameras. The SHM
system detects abnormal states, such as exceeding of the
strain thresholds.
In this article, the developed vision system and
image processing methods dedicated to in-plane mea-
surement of civil engineering structure displacement
fields are presented. The developed vision system
414
Figure 1. Ability of observing many points (range bins) on the tested structure according to the radar range resolution.
SNR: signal-to-noise ratio.
presented is characterized by many novel features with
respect to the existing systems. First, it is dedicated to
large-scale civil engineering structures, which have two
basic modes of operations. It can be used as a manual
measurement device, like the other commercially avail-
able systems, by a skilled user. On the contrary, it can
be part of a fully automatic measurement system used
for long-term monitoring of the structure. The method
makes it possible to acquire the images of the construc-
tion from two distinct points in space, which makes the
use of costly positioning devices unnecessary.
Moreover, if the analyzed structure has a highly ran-
dom texture, the method can be applied even without a
special set of markers. The system can operate with
inexpensive single-lens reflex (SLR) digital cameras,
which reduces the cost of the system’s installation on
the object even further.
This article presents the results of the preliminary
experiment performed on an anti-flood embankment,
the field test on a tram viaduct deflected under the
weight of passing vehicles and also the comparison of
the data acquired by the radar interferometer (RI), and
the developed VB. The preliminary tests were per-
formed to verify the mutual compatibility of methods
in relation to the reference methods. As the key study,
the tram viaduct under load conditions was investigated
in order to verify the usefulness and the compatibility
of the deflections determined by both systems. The
obtained results were submitted to statistical assessment
in order to evaluate the correlation and accuracy of
methods. For the preliminary test, the SD of differences
and the Pearson correlation coefficient were calculated.
In the main experiment, the Bland–Altman test was
employed.
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015
Structural Health Monitoring 12(5-6)
Ground-based RI
The IBIS system was developed by the Italian company
IDS in order to monitor the movements of land masses
and engineering structures. The IBIS-S version is
applied to measure the displacements of buildings, of
which one dimension is significantly larger than others,
that is, tall buildings, towers, or bridge structures.
The system is based on the Ku-band radar, which
generates, transmits, and receives electromagnetic
waves of 17.2 GHz central frequency. Basing on the sig-
nals reflected from elements of a tested structure, their
displacements can be determined. The most important
abilities of the system are the remote measurement of
range up to 1000 m and sampling rate up to 200 Hz.21
The direct access to the structure is not necessary, and
many points may be observed simultaneously. The
detailed description of the applied radar techniques can
be found in the previous studies.15–22 The most impor-
tant features, necessary to explain tests presented in this
article, are summarized below.
The bandwidth used by the radar is B = 200 MHz
(from 17.1 to 17.3 GHz). In special cases, it can be
expanded to 300 MHz. This allows the maximum range
resolution DR = 0.5 m to be obtained. The concept of
range resolution shall be understood as the minimum
separation between two points on the structure at which
they may be observed as different points. This means
the ability to observe points on the structure separated
by not less than 50 cm along the radial direction, that
is, direction of wave propagation (Figure 1). If the dis-
tance between reflecting points is smaller than DR, they
are treated as one point. The single interval of DR is
called a range bin. Selection of range bins for further
Kohut et al.
Figure 2. Relation between radial and vertical displacements.
analysis is carried out based on the range profile. This
is a graph that shows the echo intensity, expressed in
decibel as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), in relation to
the distance to the observed point.
Two radar techniques are implemented in the IBIS-S
system: microwave interferometry and stepped-
frequency continuous wave (SFCW) modulation. The
first one allows high accuracy of displacement measure-
ment to be obtained. Displacement of the observed
point in the direction of wave propagation causes the
phase difference between signals received by the radar
at different times. The value of radial displacement dR
can be written as
l  Du
dR =
4p
where l is the wavelength and Du is the phase
difference.
An important fact is that the IBIS-S is a one-
dimensional (1D) system. The high accuracy of the dis-
placement measurement is related to the radial direc-
tion (radar–object). If the movement occurs in the
other direction, an assumption is required to calculate
the real displacement value. For example, to calculate
the dV value from the dR measured, the H and D dis-
tances have to be known, for example, using surveying
methods, and only the vertical movement of the
observed point must be assumed. To calculate the dV
value, dR must be multiplied by the projection factor p,
which is p = D/H (Figure 2).
It should be noted that the accuracy of displacement
measurement refers to the radial (line-of-sight) direc-
tion. The conversion causes a decrease in the accuracy
of the determined real displacements. This is particu-
larly unfavorable for low, but long-span bridges, for
which often p . 4.43 The most preferred ratio p = 1,
obtained by the accordance of dV and dR vectors, is dif-
ficult to achieve in the field, especially for bridges above
rivers, and practically eliminates the possibility of
observing a lot of points at the same time.
The second technique is SFCW modulation, which
allows the measurement of many points on the
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015
415
Figure 3. Relation between frequency and time in SFCW
modulation.
SFCW: stepped-frequency continuous wave.
structure at the same time. The radar wave, reaching
the observed structure, is scattered on the construction
elements. Subsequently reflected signals are subjected
to the appropriate processing to obtain the displace-
ment values. In order to increase the reflectivity of a
structure or to point at selected places, it is possible to
use microwave reflectors installed on the structure.
This requires, however, direct access to the structure
and may be difficult in practice, especially for high
ð1Þ tower structures.
The IBIS radar transmits signals in the form of short
pulses. The relation between pulse duration t and the
used microwave bandwidth B can be written as
tB = 1. According to equation (2), shorter pulse dura-
tion t means the higher range resolution DR can be
obtained:
ct c
DR = = ð2Þ
2 2B
where c is the speed of light.
Improving the range resolution DR value is reached
by reducing the value of t or increasing the value of B.
SFCW radars, instead of using short pulses, achieve
the wide bandwidth through the stepped, linear
increase of discrete frequency Df values. Bandwidth can
be expressed as
B = ðN  1Þ  Df ð3Þ
where N is the number of discrete frequency values
within the bandwidth B (Figure 3).
Excluding the impact of changing weather condi-
tions and the effect of signal multipath, the radial dis-
placement measurement accuracy is 0.1 mm in typical
conditions.19 However, the low SNR value, occurring
for structures that weakly reflect the radar wave,
decreases the accuracy of displacement determination.20
416 Structural Health Monitoring 12(5-6)

Figure 4. Digital image correlation applied to the deflection measurement. The displacement of the intensity pattern is found by
ZNCC coefficient. The method applied to all span of the beam results in the deflection curve.
ZNCC: zero-mean normalized cross-correlation coefficient.

Vision-based in-plane deflection
measurement method
The developed vision-based method of the in-plane
deflection measurement consists of the following steps:
system calibration, image acquisition, and deflection
measurement using the digital image correlation coeffi-
cient (Figure 4). Additionally, perspective distortion
removal can be carried out if the images of the struc-
ture are captured from different points in space. The
system is calibrated by calculation of the scale coeffi-
cient amm/pix from an object with known geometric
dimensions. The scale coefficient gives information
about the length corresponding to one pixel on the
image. In the next step, the reference image and one or
more images of the construction under the load are
acquired. If the photographs are taken from distinct
points in space, the homography transformation H,
calculated from a set of rectangular markers, trans-
forms the images in order to remove projective distor-
tions from the image of one particular plane of the
structure. Photographs transformed in such a way can
be spatially overlaid with the reference image. This step
is optional and can be omitted if it is not necessary.
The method has been presented by authors in their pre-
vious articles.1,26,44–49 The detailed description of the
mentioned rectification algorithm can be found in the
previous studies.44–49
The procedure of camera calibration is carried to
obtain intrinsic calibration matrix K (4):
2 3
fsx su u0
K=4 0 fsy v0 5 ð4Þ
0 0 1
where f is the focal length of the lens; u0, v0 are coordi-
nates of the principal point; sx, sy are the size of the
pixel along horizontal and vertical directions, respec-
tively; and su is a skew coefficient of the pixels. The
chessboard planar pattern with black and white
squares, even number of rows and odd number of col-
umns, is used. The set of radial and tangential lens dis-
tortion coefficients is also calculated by means of
internal calibration. It is assumed that distortions
exhibited by lens can be modeled by fourth degree
polynomial given by the following equation (5)
xd = R  xu + Dx
R = 1 + k1 r 2 + k2 r 4
  ð5Þ
2k3 xu yu + k4 (r2 + 2xu 2 )
Dx =
k3 (r2 + 2y2 ) + 2k4 xu yu
where r2 = x2 u + y2 u ; xu = ½ xu y u T are the coordinates
of undistorted points on the image; xd are the coordi-
nates of distorted points; k1, k2 are the coefficients of
radial distortions; and k3, k4 are the coefficients of tan-
gential distortions.
After computation of distortion coefficients, lens
distortions can be removed from the image of the con-
struction. It must be done in order to reduce the mea-
surement error of the vision-based method.

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015

Kohut et al.
The scale coefficient amm/pix is computed from an
object on the scene with known geometric dimensions.
The value of amm/pix can be obtained from planar circu-
lar or rectangular marker or from the certified length
standard. The scale calibration introduces Hough trans-
form50,51 for circle detection and high-accuracy ellipse
fitting technique.
In general, the digital image correlation method con-
sists of the following three steps: object preparation,
acquisition of the object’s image before and after load-
ing, and processing the acquired images to obtain the
displacement field. The speckle pattern on the struc-
ture’s surface can be a natural texture or an artificially
made special random intensity pattern attached to the
structure or painted on it. The object’s surface must be
planar flat, and the out-of-plane motion of the object
during loading should be negligible. The basic principle
of digital image correlation is matching of the same
image path between the two images acquired before
and after deformation.52–57 In order to compute the
displacement of a construction’s point, a square or rec-
tangular reference subset of pixels centered at a point is
chosen from the reference image and used to match its
corresponding location in the deformed image.
Assuming that deformations of the object are small,
only the local search is performed. The matching is car-
ried out by searching for the peak position of the corre-
lation coefficient function over the search window. In
the developed method, the zero-mean normalized cross
correlation (ZNCC) has been chosen as a correlation
criterion. This coefficient is more robust and is not sen-
sitive to changes in the scene’s illumination. The ZNCC
coefficient is given by equation (6).58,59
P 
fn ðx, yÞ  f n fd ðx  u, y  vÞ  f d
x, y
ZNCC(u, v) = rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P 2 P 
fn ðx, yÞ  f n
x, y
where fn(x, y) is an intensity value for a pixel with coor-
dinates (x, y) on the reference image; fn is the mean
value of intensities of the pattern on image before
deformation; fd(x2u, y2v) is the intensity value for a
pixel with coordinates (x, y) on the image after defor-
mation; fd is the mean value of intensities of the pattern
after deformation; x, y are the positions of the pattern
on reference image; and u, v are the displacements of
the pattern between two images.
In the process of deflection measurement, the refer-
ence image of the part of interest of the unloaded con-
struction is divided into set of rectangular intensity
patterns, whose centers are taken as measurement
points (Figures 4 and 5). Each of the pattern is matched
417
with a corresponding pixel subset on the image of the
loaded structure by means of the ZNCC coefficient.
The displacement vector for each of the measurement
point is computed as difference between calculated
positions of the pattern on two images. The method
performed on all points of interest gives a complete dis-
placement field of the analyzed object.
Correlation coefficient computes the position of the
pixel on discrete pixel grid on the image. When the sub-
pixel methods are introduced, one can interpolate posi-
tion of the pixel to floating point value, which increases
measurement accuracy up to 0.01–0.1 parts of pixel.
Developed algorithm takes integer value of pixel’s posi-
tion given by correlation coefficient and fits a second-
degree polynomial into the four-element neighborhood
of the pixel. The new subpixel location of the correla-
tion coefficient maximum is the point for which the
fitted parabola has its maximum value. An overview of
the mentioned deflection measurement is presented in
Figure 4.
Software for the construction’s deflection
measurement
The developed software enables construction deflection
measurement using digital SLR cameras for remote
image acquisition and provides image processing algo-
rithms to calculate the displacement field (Figure 5).
The software implementation has been developed in the
C + + /C# programing environment. ED-SDK libraries
provided by Canon have been used to control one or
more cameras in the system. Two modes of operation
are available: online and off-line. In the first case, the
 user specifies the date and number of measurements
and then the system works fully automatically carrying
2ffi out the image acquisition and deflection measurement.
fd ðx  u, y  vÞ  f d
x, y The off-line mode provides analysis of the images
ð6Þ stored on hard disk. There are two methods of deflec-
tion calculation implemented in the software: in the
first one, the user can specify points in which the mea-
surement will be carried out. The displacement field is
computed in these sets of points only. However, one
can use the dense measurement method in which one
specifies N—the number of points between the selected
ones. The program automatically divides the structure
between the user specified points into N equally spaced
measurement locations. The result browser module car-
ries out the visualization of calculated curves of deflec-
tion and report generation in popular formats, such as
PDF, XML, CSV, and TXT. An additional feature of
the software is detection of exceeding the allowed level
of a deflection and the sending of alerts to a client by
an e-mail.
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015
418 Structural Health Monitoring 12(5-6)

Figure 5. The developed software for vision-based measurement of construction’s deflections.

Preliminary tests
Determination of the reference method in the
laboratory
Before conducting measurement of the real structure
deformation, it was decided to perform a preliminary
test. This was carried out in order to measure the user-
defined displacements of selected points of the investi-
gated structure and to control them using different
devices. For this purpose, a heavy photographic tripod
with adjustable head height was used. A special plat-
form was attached to the upper surface of the tripod
head. This was the base for fixing the microwave reflec- Figure 6. A moving platform constructed for the preliminary
test.
tor and a plate covered with the pattern used for digital
image analysis during measurements. The aim of this
experiment was not only the comparison of the pre- Ni002 precise analog surveying level was used together
sented methods but also the determination of their with the glass surveying staff (usually used in industrial
actual accuracy in relation to the precise devices. surveying), which was attached to the moving platform.
Therefore, the vertical movement of the tripod head Its SD equals 60.2 mm/km of double-run leveling.
was controlled using the Helios DIGI-MET electronic This gives 60.09 mm error for the performed displace-
dial indicator (DI), which ensures the measurement ments (Figure 6).
range of 50 mm and the SD of 0.01 mm (and the maxi- In the case of such precise measurements, the geo-
mum permissible error of 0.02 mm). In order to per- metric conditions of the created measurement system
form an additional control of displacement and are important. The Leica TCR407 total station was
stability of the whole construction, a Carl Zeiss Jena used to control whether the attached platform was

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015

Kohut et al. 419

perpendicular to the tripod vertical axis. Moreover, the where n is the number of measured displacements.
condition to set the DI axis in parallel to the performed The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient
displacements was achieved. r was also determined:
In order to verify the correctness of the displacement
sensor attachment and the mutual compatibility of the covðdZDI , dZLev Þ
r= = 0:99999887 ð8Þ
two reference instruments, an independent test was car- sDI  sLev
ried out in the laboratory. The tripod head, together with
the glass staff (and microwave reflector—to simulate real where cov(dZDI, dZLev) is the covariance movements
conditions), was moved vertically over a distance of 40 from both measurement methods and s(dZ) is the SD
mm (not more than the DI range) with increments of 10 of measured displacement.
mm. The displacement values were recorded with the The obtained results fully confirm the high compat-
DIGI-MET DI and the Ni002 level. The level values are ibility of the two instruments and their use in checking
marked by the Lev symbol and the DI values by the DI the accuracy of displacements determined by the radar
symbol, and dZ means the vertical displacement. or VB.
This measuring procedure was performed twice. The
results are presented in Table 1. Simulation of measurement
In order to evaluate the agreement of both methods,
the SD of differences between the recorded displacements The geometry of test required to simulate the creation
was calculated, using the method of observation pairs: of the typical conditions that occur when measuring
the deflection of a bridge structure span (Figure 7,
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi shown from a side view, and Figure 8). Therefore, the
P 2
D main part of the preliminary test was performed on an
sD = 6 = 60:025 mm ð7Þ
n anti-flood embankment. The construction simulating
displacements of the real structure was set at the top of
Table 1. Results of verifying the geometrical stability of the the embankment, while the RI was located beneath.
moving platform. The horizontal distance between the radar and the
microwave reflector was 9.92 m (d2 in Figure 8) and the
Set Displacement values (mm) D = dZDI2dZLev (mm) height difference was 4.26 m. For this setup, the projec-
dZDI dZLev tion factor p equaled 2.5365. This was the initial value.
For every position of the moving platform, the actual
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 value of p was calculated.
10.11 10.10 0.01
20.07 20.11 20.04 During the field tests, a flat aluminum plate of the
30.14 30.11 0.03 dimensions 0.42 m 3 0.30 m was fixed to the moving
40.08 40.10 0.02 platform. The random intensity pattern was placed on
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 the measured plane of the plate. Photographs of the
9.77 9.77 0.00 object were acquired by a system of a Canon 5D Mark
19.81 19.84 20.04
30.19 30.17 0.02 II digital camera with 21.1 Mpixel image resolution
41.00 40.99 0.01 and a Canon 24–70 mm f/2.8 L lens with focal length
f ’ 70 mm adjusted. The position of the camera was

Figure 7. Field test equipment arrangement (side view).

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015

420
Figure 8. Field test equipment arrangement.
IBIS: Image by Interferometric Survey.
fixed in space. The camera had its optical axis at the
height of the displaced plate and perpendicular to it in
order to ensure the uniform imaging scale. The distance
between the camera and the plate was 15.4 m (d1 in
Figure 8). Regarding scene illumination, there were
natural lighting conditions with sunlight and cloudy
variations, so there was no need for artificial lighting.
For the purposes of an independent verification of
both measurement systems (radar and vision based), an
electronic DI and precise Ni002 level were used. The
mutual agreement of the precise NI002 level and the
DIGI-MET DI had been previously confirmed. A sche-
matic layout of all elements of the measurement system
is shown in Figure 8.
In the case of the vision system, the scale coefficient
was computed from an object on the scene with known
geometric dimensions.44 The value of 1.53 mm/pix was
obtained from an image of the certified surveying staff
using a WizScale module of the developed software.
As in the case of laboratory tests, in this experiment,
the displacements were generated at the range of 45 mm
(four movements of 10 mm and the last movement of 5
mm). The measurement was performed in two steps.
The first three runs of the moving platform were per-
formed in the following directions: downward, upward,
and downward. Displacements were observed by three
devices: precise level (Lev), DI, and RI (Table 2, tests
no. 1–3). In the second step, two runs were performed
(downward and upward). Displacements were mea-
sured additionally by the VB (Table 2, tests no. 4 and
5). In total, five runs of five displacements were carried
out.
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015
Structural Health Monitoring 12(5-6)
The values of displacements recorded by the Lev, DI,
RI, and VB systems are presented in Table 2. Due to
the high agreement of Lev and DI results, their averages
were assumed as the reference displacement values: Ref
= (Lev + DI)/2. Moreover, the differences D between
displacements obtained by different methods were cal-
culated in Table 2. Four groups of differences were
determined:
 Level versus DI (both assumed later as the
reference);
 RI in relation to the reference;
 VB in relation to the reference;
 RI in relation to the VB.
The SDs sD of four groups of differences were also
calculated according to equation (7). They are pre-
sented in the last row of Table 2.
All determined correlation coefficients indicate good
agreement of measurement results (more than 99.96%).
Their values indicate the highest compatibility of results
obtained by the Lev and the DI. This confirms the cor-
rect selection of these devices as reference sensors. The r
coefficients in the last row of Table 2 (in columns 7, 9,
10) show lower compatibility of the VB and RI systems.
Key study—tram viaduct
Field test
In order to perform the final verification of both non-
contact measurement techniques, an experiment was
Kohut et al. 421

Table 2. Vertical displacements of the moving platform recorded by the systems.

Test no. Lev DI D = Lev2DI Ref RI D = RI2Ref VB D = VB2Ref D = RI2VB

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

1 210.29 210.22 20.07 210.26 29.50 0.76 — — —

220.29 220.22 20.07 220.26 219.89 0.37 — — —
230.39 230.19 20.20 230.29 230.09 0.20 — — —
240.24 240.02 20.22 240.13 240.14 20.01 — — —
245.59 245.38 20.21 245.48 245.58 20.10 — — —
2 239.84 239.85 0.01 239.84 240.21 20.37 — — —
229.99 230.01 0.02 230.00 230.11 20.11 — — —
220.20 220.28 0.08 220.24 219.97 0.27 — — —
29.44 29.51 0.07 29.48 29.36 0.12 — — —
0.24 0.14 0.10 0.19 0.41 0.22 — — —
3 29.89 29.89 0.00 29.89 29.44 0.45 — — —
220.54 220.48 20.06 220.51 220.32 0.19 — — —
231.00 230.90 20.10 230.95 230.83 0.12 — — —
239.89 239.70 20.19 239.80 239.80 0.00 — — —
— 245.47 — 245.47 245.85 20.38 — — —
4 210.58 210.52 20.06 210.55 29.90 0.65 29.72 0.83 0.18
221.71 221.60 20.11 221.66 221.32 0.34 220.91 0.75 0.41
230.34 230.25 20.09 230.30 230.29 0.01 230.48 20.18 20.19
240.06 240.02 20.04 240.04 240.59 20.55 240.03 0.01 0.56
244.88 244.84 20.04 244.86 245.51 20.65 244.63 0.23 0.88
5 239.92 240.08 0.16 240.00 240.47 20.47 239.33 0.67 1.14
230.29 230.48 0.19 230.39 230.42 20.03 229.93 0.46 0.49
220.48 220.58 0.10 220.53 220.49 0.04 220.29 0.24 0.20
29.90 210.03 0.13 29.96 29.95 0.01 29.52 0.44 0.43
0.18 0.04 0.14 0.11 0.91 0.80 0.67 0.56 20.24
sD (mm) 0.121 0.378 0.506 0.561
r (—) 0.999970 0.999879 0.999811 0.999792

Lev: precise level; DI: dial indicator; RI: radar interferometer; VB: vision-based system.

performed on a real engineering structure. The test

involved monitoring of a 28-m-long steel span
(Figure 9), which is part of a tram viaduct. The
observed deflections were forced by trams of various
mass, periodically passing in the south–north direction.
The span deflections were measured with two devices:
an IBIS-S RI and a VB (in the following tables marked
as RI and VB, respectively). Span displacement mea-
surements were performed from two radar positions
relative to the structure and a constant camera
position.
The main part of the VB is a Canon EOS 5D Mark
II SLR full-frame digital camera. The camera was
equipped with a Canon EF 24–70 mm f/2.8 L lens set
to work with approximately 50 mm of focal length.
The lens was focused at infinity, and the shutter speed
was set to 1/100 s at f = 18 aperture. The high value of Figure 9. The measurement setup consisting of a digital SLR
aperture was set intentionally to obtain a large depth of camera and IBIS-S radar interferometer.
field, bearing in mind that the shutter speed was high SLR: single-lens reflex; IBIS: Image by Interferometric Survey.
enough to get blur-free images. The camera was situ-
ated at the distance of 27.77 m from the side plane of direction to the span axis. The shutter was triggered 3.9
the span to set the projection of the lens center in the times per second to record the full tram passing with
midspan of the bridge. In order to obtain a uniform the image series.
scale in the entire field of view (covering 14.5 m of the In addition, the continuous deflection measurement
span), the lens axis was aimed at a perpendicular was performed using the IBIS-S radar.11 In order to

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015

422 Structural Health Monitoring 12(5-6)

Table 3. Deflections of 10 points (for the first radar position) measured by the RI and VB systems and differences between results.

Run no. Method Measured points (from the beginning of span) (m) Dmin; Dmax
(mm)
7.5 10.6 11.2 11.7 13.9 14.5 15.0 17.1 17.6 20.8

Maximum deflections (mm)

11 LD 27.62 20.26; 0.97

RI 25.28 26.42 26.30 26.78 27.28 27.17 27.38 26.24 25.65 24.09
VB 25.58 26.85 26.94 27.02 27.21 27.17 27.12 26.66 26.48 25.06
D 0.30 0.42 0.64 0.24 20.07 0.000 20.26 0.42 0.83 0.97
12 LD 26.62 20.47; 0.80
RI 25.02 26.07 25.87 26.33 26.85 26.76 26.97 25.88 25.34 23.98
VB 25.12 26.21 26.36 26.44 26.60 26.53 26.50 26.08 25.97 24.78
D 0.10 0.14 0.49 0.11 20.25 20.23 20.47 0.20 0.63 0.80
13 LD 26.72 0.29; 1.20
RI 24.95 25.95 25.81 26.30 26.39 26.26 26.46 25.63 25.01 24.50
VB 25.46 26.46 26.64 26.77 26.88 26.82 26.76 26.34 26.22 25.00
D 0.51 0.549 0.83 0.47 0.49 0.56 0.30 0.71 1.21 0.50
14 LD 26.32 20.42; 0.60
RI 24.52 25.40 25.37 25.80 26.25 26.16 26.35 25.41 24.90 23.87
VB 24.82 25.73 25.83 25.86 26.09 25.93 25.93 25.54 25.49 24.47
D 0.30 0.33 0.46 0.06 20.16 20.23 20.42 0.13 0.59 0.60
15 LD 26.82 20.36; 0.79
RI 25.16 26.13 25.94 26.42 26.92 26.81 27.01 25.97 25.39 24.05
VB 25.38 26.34 26.43 26.58 26.75 26.67 26.65 26.12 26.04 24.84
D 0.22 0.21 0.49 0.16 20.17 20.14 20.36 0.15 0.65 0.79

RI: radar interferometer; VB: vision-based system; LD: laser distance meter.

record the bridge span deflections with this device, the
radar unit was located in the vicinity of the line of
pillars. During the first five recorded runs (runs no.
11–15, Table 3) the radar was placed in the bridge girder
plane, while during the next three runs (runs no. 21–23,
Table 4), it was set directly under the track-way axis.
The independent control of measured deflections of
the center part of the investigated girder was carried
out with a Leica DISTO D8 laser distance meter. By
connecting it in the online mode to a computer, it was
possible to record measurements continuously at a fre-
quency of 2 Hz.
In the field, the lens axis was not exactly perpendicu-
lar to the span axis. This effect may be eliminated with
analytical methods. The orientation and position of the
camera are described by the external orientation ele-
ments. In the described case, there were three local ter-
rain coordinates X, Y, Z, and three angles:60
v—vertical angle of the camera axis tilt;
u—horizontal angle that describes the camera direction
in the coordinate system (azimuth);
k—angle of fiducial plane rotation.
Knowledge of external orientation elements allows
the reconstruction of the spatial position of the camera
relative to the structure and thus the corrections neces-
sary to obtain proper displacements of the tested struc-
ture. The determination of orientation elements was
performed by the close-range terrestrial photogramme-
try procedure involving capturing the pair of conver-
ging images with the basis equaled approximately one-
fourth of the distance to the observed bridge. Both the
targets fixed to tripods and elements of optical noise
covering the bridge span were used as control points.
All points were measured in a uniform coordinate sys-
tem using the Leica TCRA1102 + total station.
Based on the knowledge of the local terrain coordi-
nates, for the pair of images, it was possible to calculate
the components of vectors in the spatial coordinate sys-
tem of images. The relation between the spatial coordi-
nates and the vector components is given by the
formula:
2 3 2 3
x x9
4 y 5 = ½ M 4 y9 5 ð9Þ
z ck

where M is the transformation matrix given by

2 3
coskcosu cosusink sinu
½ M ¼4 sinvsinucoskþcosvsink sinvsinusinkþcosvcosk sinvcosu 5 ð10Þ
cosvsinucosk þ sinvsink cosvsinusinkþsinvcosk cosvcosk

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015

Kohut et al. 423
2 3

Dmin; Dmax (mm)

x
where 4 y 5 are the spatial image coordinates, (x#,y#)

20.47; 0.79

0.89; 2.21

20.20; 1.04
z
are the image coordinates, and ck is the focal length of
camera.
After adjustment of the internal orientation, the

24.16
23.69
20.47

24.49
25.51
1.02

23.37
23.80
0.43
deflection of the tested span can be expressed by the
20.9

formula:

Y
24.40
24.32
20.08

24.82
25.84
1.02

23.64
24.10
0.46
DZ = Dz ð11Þ
20.3

ck

where DZ is the beam deflection, Y is the distance from

25.06
24.90
20.16

25.32
27.16
1.84

24.54
24.38
20.16
19.3

the object; Dz is the image representation of the beam

deflection.
Table 4. Deflections of 14 points (for the second radar position) measured by the RI and VB systems and differences between results.

Basically, this type of measurement method is used

25.09
24.98
20.11

25.51
26.61
1.10

24.70
24.68
20.02
18.8

if it is possible to direct the camera axis perpendicularly

to the plane of the occurring deformation. In practice,
it must be assumed that the component of deformation
25.69
25.47
20.22

26.10
26.99
0.89

25.35
25.15
20.20
17.2

in the direction of the camera axis is not present or

negligible. This situation occurred in the described
cases, because the plane deformation of the viaduct
25.77
26.01
0.24

26.01
27.65
1.64

25.34
25.42
0.08

was almost perpendicular to the axis of the camera and

15.1

the movement occurred in the longitudinal vertical

plane of the structure. Therefore, both of the 1D sys-
25.56
26.02
0.46

26.08
27.64
1.56

25.46
25.54
0.08

tems—IBIS-S and vision-based—observed the same

14.6

deflections of span.
In the first radar position, the displacements mea-
25.55
26.03
0.48

25.98
27.63
1.65
25.68
25.37
25.49
0.12

sured by the radar were analyzed for 10 points of the

14.0

span. The position of the points is shown in Table 3.

For these points, the SNR value (describing their inten-
25.77
26.49
0.72

25.98
27.98
2.00

25.18
25.52
0.34

sity of reflection) is from 56.1 to 85.5 dB. In the second

12.4

radar position, the displacements measured by the

Measured points (from the beginning of span) (m)

radar were analyzed for 14 points of the span. The

25.43
26.15
0.72

25.55
27.70
2.15

24.85
25.38
0.53

position of the points is shown in Table 4. For these

11.3

RI: radar interferometer; VB: vision-based system; LD: laser distance meter.

points, the SNR value is from 57.7 to 82.7 dB. Figures

10 and 11 present the results of measurements per-
25.27
26.02
0.75

25.34
27.55
2.21

24.64
25.36
0.72

formed with the RI and VB systems during a single run

10.7

recorded from the first radar position. Displacements

recorded by the VB system are determined for places,
Maximum deflections (mm)

24.88
25.50
0.62

24.97
26.84
1.87

24.43
24.95
0.52

which correspond to the points (range bins) observed

9.0

by the RI system. This was performed by identifying

and calculating these places in acquired digital images.
24.64
25.11
0.47

24.75
26.51
1.76

24.22
25.01
0.79

Slight differences may arise only from selection of the

8.4

proper points submitted to correlation calculation in

the software during processing the data from the VB
23.77
24.56
0.79

23.93
25.77
1.83

23.49
24.53
1.04

system.
7.1

Tables 3 and 4 contain the comparison of maximum

deflection obtained from the RI and VB systems for all
Method

observed points. The differences between the methods

are calculated as D = VB2RI. The minimum and max-
VB
LD

LD

LD
VB

VB
RI

RI

RI
D

imum value of the D set is presented for all runs for the
first (Table 3) and second (Table 4) radar position. In
Run no.

addition, the values of maximum deflection of the cen-

21

22

23

tral span point, measured by the laser distance meter

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015

424 Structural Health Monitoring 12(5-6)

Figure 10. Graph of the deflected bridge span obtained from the RI system illustrated every 0.5 s (observed points are marked).
RI: radar interferometer.

Figure 11. Graph of the deflected bridge span obtained from the VB system illustrated every frame (observed points are marked).
VB: vision-based system.

(LD), are also shown. All runs were observed during methods: radar interferometry and vision-based.
loading of the closer track-way. Calculations were carried out as follows.

1. The linear relation between the results of both

methods was verified.
Statistical assessment of results 2. The regression coefficient (the derivative of the
The aim of the assessment based on statistical models previously determined linear model) was calculated
is the evaluation of compatibility of two measuring as a necessity condition of method compatibility.

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015

Kohut et al. 425

Table 5. Results of statistical assessment for all eight observed runs.

Data set Linear regression Multiple t-test of F-test of Bland–Altman t-test of SD of the
R2 (—) averages variances plot fit? significance differences
Slope Intercept inequality equality for the expected (mm)
coefficient coefficient (p value) (—) (p value) (—) value
(—) (mm) of differences

11 0.620 22.218 0.884 0.591 0.230 OK No 0.352

12 0.649 22.295 0.921 0.577 0.260 OK OK 0.366
13 1.100 0.208 0.730 0.285 0.374 OK No 0.426
14 1.010 21.555 0.709 5.702e206 0.521 OK OK 0.435
15 0.679 21.815 0.736 0.180 0.411 OK OK 0.371
21 0.676 22.375 0.912 0.394 0.318 OK No 0.396
22 0.630 22.332 0.885 0.675 0.248 OK No 0.402
23 0.850 21.470 0.867 0.053 0.790 No No 0.251

SD: standard deviation.

3. The equality of the mean values from the RI data
and VB data was calculated.
4. The equality of the SD values from the RI data and
VB data was calculated.
5. The compatibility of methods was calculated using
the Bland–Altman test.
The following calculations were made for a sample
run (no. 13). The values of linear regression for all eight
runs are presented in Table 5. Initially, the compatibil-
ity between span deflections obtained from the RI and
VB systems was verified by examining the existence of
a linear correlation coefficient between the results for
the corresponding points of span. For a sample run
observed from the second radar position, a linear rela-
tion is described by a slope coefficient, which is 1.100
with 60.193 SD, and the intercept coefficient 0.208
mm. In the discussed linear model, representing the
relationship between the results obtained with two sys-
tems, the residual standard error is 0.439 mm on 12
degrees of freedom. The value of the correlation coeffi-
cient is 0.730 (multiple R2).61,62
The next step was to test the hypothesis of equality
of means. Due to the lack of assumptions about var-
iances, the Welch two sample t-test was used.63,64 The
calculated p-value is 0.285 (higher than the assumed
level of significance 0.05), so there is no reason to reject
the null hypothesis. Similarly, the equality of variances
was tested on the basis of the Fisher–Snedecor F-test.
A good result of the p-value, equaling 0.374, was
obtained. The results of both tests allow the acceptance
of the null hypotheses of equality of means and var-
iances. In order to assess the compatibility of the data
from the RI and VB systems, they were compared using
the Bland–Altman test.65,66 The results are illustrated
in Figure 12. The horizontal axis contains the vector of
means (RI + VB)/2 and the vertical axis contains the
vector of differences RI2VB. The upper agreement
limit (UAL) and lower agreement limit (LAL) indicate
the 62s value, where s means the SD of differences.
Afterward, the test of the distribution compatibility
with the normal distribution for pairs of observation
differences was performed. The obtained result (p-value
= 0.0835) is close to the level of significance of the test.
Therefore, it can be examined with the standard t-test,
which assumes that the sample has a normal distribu-
tion. As a result, the p value = 0.0206 was obtained.
This is lower than the assumed level of significance
level. Thus, it suggests that there is a systematic shift
between methods, so they are not compatible. In the
same way, as presented above, all eight runs were ana-
lyzed. The results are summarized in Table 5.
For all eight analyzed cases, the test of significance
of correlation between variables gave a positive result.
Therefore, there is a correlation between results from
both methods, but the systems do not shift the results
in relation to each other in only three out of eight cases.
The calculation of the relation between the RI and VB
methods was also performed for the values of maxi-
mum deflection of the midpoint of the span for all eight
runs (Figure 13).The horizontal axis contains the vector
of means of maximum deflections, and the vertical axis
contains the vector of differences of maximum deflec-
tions. The UAL and LAL indicate the 62s value,
where s means the SD of differences of maximum
deflections.
The expected value is zero. According to the data
related to the maximum span deflections (Figure 13),
the compatibility of methods can be concluded.
Conclusion
The developed vision measurement system based on the
digital image correlation coefficient enables assessment

Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015

426
Figure 12. Bland–Altman plot for a sample run (no. 13).
UAL: upper agreement limit; LAL: lower agreement limit.
Figure 13. Bland–Altman plot for maximum deflections of all
eight runs.
UAL: upper agreement limit; LAL: lower agreement limit.
of a structure’s static states under a load during inspec-
tions, as well as continuous deflection monitoring, to be
carried out using the change in the shape of deflection
curve analysis. The main advantages of the proposed
methods (embedded in the developed vision system) are
the simplicity of the measurement, the possibility of
obtaining a dense field of a deflection using only one
acquisition device, the application of commonly avail-
able digital cameras, the easy image acquisition process
that can be performed from different points in space, as
well as the fast and easy analysis and interpretation of
measurement results. The method can be applied to the
structures with a texture in the form of noise or natural
texture of materials as well as in the case where special
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015
Structural Health Monitoring 12(5-6)
markers are available. The developed vision system is
applied with user-friendly software, which can help one
to quickly assess the state of the construction during
inspection. Furthermore, the developed software tool
provides a high level of measurement process automa-
tion, accomplished through operations such as image
acquisition, image preprocessing, and analysis. The sys-
tem monitors the state of the structure and informs the
user when the critical level of measurement estimates
has been exceeded and a message can be sent by an
e-mail. The system provides high measurement density
without the application of active optical methods.
On the contrary, the radar interferometry can also
be used to measure the deflection of the structures. The
RI enables the observation of many points on the struc-
ture simultaneously in the remote mode, without direct
access to the structure. It provides the high sampling
frequency, especially useful for dynamic tests. In addi-
tion, the system is independent on weather conditions.
The accuracy assessment is a key factor in the per-
formance of such kinds of systems. The performed field
tests allow the determination of the applicability of the
proposed vision-based technique for measuring the
deflection of civil engineering constructions. The vision
system measurement resulted in data that matched the
points’ displacement registered by the RI.
The preliminary test arranged to simulate the displa-
cements of the observed point of the defined values
enabled the accuracy of both systems to be calculated.
The SD of the differences amounted to 0.38 mm for the
RI and 0.51 mm for the VB. The mutual accuracy of
both methods was 0.56 mm. All examined methods indi-
cated a correlation of 99.96%. As a result of the
obtained correlation, the key test on the tram viaduct
was performed. The obtained graphs of deflection of the
central point seem to indicate the greater advantage of
the VB. The curve of deflection acquired by this system
becomes more accurate and smoother than by radar
interferometry. The irregular shape of the radar results
arises from the uncertainty of the points reflecting the
radar wave. However, a theoretical, regular graph may
be fitted into this data. It must also be noted that the RI
is a 1D system. This means that, for low structures,
results may be worse because of the unfavorable projec-
tion factor, so users must be careful to avoid improper
scaling of displacements. In the main test, the SD of the
differences for the maximum deflection of the bridge
span was designated by a VB and RI and equaled 0.61
mm. On the basis of performed tests, the usefulness of
both systems for displacement measurements was found
for the purposes required in terms of SHM.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Kohut et al.
Funding
The research was supported by the OPIE project No:
01.01.02-00-013/08 co-financing by ERDF within a frame of
Operational Program Innovative Economy and MNiSW
(Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education) under
grant N N526 158838.
References
1. Uhl T, Kohut P, Holak K, et al. Vision based condition
assessment of structures. J Phys Conf Ser 2011; 305: 9–10.
2. Sustainable Bridges. Inspection of railway bridges in Eur-
ope. In: Helmerich R (ed.) Guideline for inspection and
condition assessment of existing European railway bridges.
Sixth Framework Programme. Bam, Iran: European
Commission, 2007, pp. 19–35.
3. Ryall MJ. Bridge management. 2nd ed. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
4. Alampalli S. Effects of testing, analysis, damage, and
environment on modal parameters. Mech Syst Signal Pr
2000; 14: 63–74.
5. Cunha Á, Caetano E and Magalhães F. Output-only
dynamic testing of bridges and special structures. Struct
Concr 2007; 8: 67–85.
6. Łaziński P and Salamak M. Identification of computa-
tional models in load carrying structures of concrete
bridges on the basis of making load tests. In: Proceedings
of the 7th Central European Congress on concrete engi-
neering CCC 2011, Balatonfüred, Hungary, 22–23 Sep-
tember 2011.
7. Ko JM and Ni YQ. Technology developments in struc-
tural health monitoring of large-scale bridges. Eng Struct
2005; 27: 1715–1725.
8. Larocca APC. Using high-rate GPS data to monitor the
dynamic behavior of a cable-stayed bridge. In: Proceed-
ings of the 17th international technical meeting of the ION
Satellite Division, ION GNSS 2004, Long Beach, CA, 21–
24 September 2004.
9. Watson C, Watson T and Coleman R. Structural moni-
toring of cable-stayed bridge: analysis of GPS versus
modeled deflections. J Surv Eng: ASCE 2007; 133: 23–28.
10. Casadei P, McCombie P, Galati N, et al. NDT monitor-
ing of bridges using innovative high precision surveying
system. In: Proceedings of IABSE 2006 symposium, Buda-
pest, Hungary, 13–15 September 2006.
11. Owerko T, Ortyl Ł, Kocierz R, et al. Investigation of dis-
placements of road bridges under test loads using radar
interferometry—case study. In: Biondini F and Frango-
pol DM (eds) Bridge maintenance, safety, resilience and
sustainability. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2012,
pp. 181–188.
12. Paultre P, Proulx J and Talbot M. Dynamic testing pro-
cedures for highway bridges using traffic loads. J Struct
Eng: ASCE 1995; 121: 362–376.
13. Park K-T, Kim S-H, Park H-S, et al. The determination
of bridge displacement using measured acceleration. Eng
Struct 2005; 27: 371–378.
14. ISO 4866:2010. Mechanical vibration and shock—
vibration of fixed structures—guidelines for the
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015
427
measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects
on structures. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization.
15. Gens R and Van Genderen JL. SAR interferometry:
issues, techniques, applications. Int J Remote Sens 1996;
17: 1803–1836.
16. Pieraccini M, Luzi G, Mecatti D, et al. Ground-based
radar interferometry for monitoring unstable slopes. In:
Proceedings of joint 12th FIG international symposium on
deformation measurements and analysis/3rd IAG sympo-
sium on geodesy for geotechnical and structural engineer-
ing, Baden, Austria, 22–24 May 2006.
17. Pieraccini M, Tarchi D, Rudolf H, et al. Structural static
testing by interferometric synthetic radar. NDT&E Int
2000; 33: 565–570.
18. Tarchi D, Rudolf H, Pieraccini M, et al. Remote moni-
toring of buildings using a ground-based SAR: applica-
tion to cultural heritage survey. Int J Remote Sens 2000;
21: 3545–3551.
19. Pieraccini M, Fratini M, Parrini F, et al. High-speed CW
step-frequency coherent radar for dynamic monitoring of
civil engineering structures. Electron Lett 2004; 40: 907–908.
20. Rödelsperger S. Real-time processing of ground based syn-
thetic aperture radar (GB-SAR) measurements. Darm-
stadt: Technische Universität, Schriftenreihe der
Fachrichtung Geodäsie, Heft 33, 2011.
21. Gentile C. Application of radar technology to deflection
measurement and dynamic testing of bridges. In: Koue-
mou G (ed.) Radar technology. Vukovar: InTech, 2010,
pp. 141–162.
22. Pieraccini M, Parrini F, Fratini M, et al. In-service testing
of wind turbine towers using a microwave sensor. Renew
Energ 2008; 33: 13–21.
23. Uhl T, Kohut P and Holak K. Structure deflection exami-
nation by means of correlation coefficient. In: Uhl T (ed.)
Selected problems of modal analysis of mechanical systems:
proceedings of the 13th school of modal analysis. Radom:
National Research Institute, 2009, pp. 173–180.
24. Kohut P and Kurowski P. The integration of vision based
measurement system and modal analysis for detection
and localization of damage. In: Szpytko J (ed.) Engineer-
ing achievements across the global village, Cracow, Glas-
gow, Radom: The International Journal of INGENIUM.
Monographic Series of the Library of Maintenance Prob-
lems, 2005, pp. 391–398.
25. Kohut P and Kurowski P. The integration of vision sys-
tem and modal analysis for SHM application. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 24th conference and exposition on structural
dynamics 2006 (IMAC XXIV). St Louis, MO, 30 Janu-
ary–2 February 2006.
26. Uhl T, Kohut P, Holak K, et al. Vision based vibration
and deformation measurement. In: Proceedings of the 5th
European workshop on structural health monitoring (eds F
Casciati and M Giordano), Sorrento, Italy, 28 June – 4
July 2010, pp. 1005–1010. Pennsylvania, PA: DEStech
Publications.
27. Jerabek M, Major Z and Lang RW. Strain determination
of polymeric materials using digital image correlation,
Polymer Testing 2010; 29(3): 407–416.
428
28. Lee M, Precht M, Tyson J, et al. Application of 3D mea-
surement system with CCD camera in microelectronics.
Adv Packag 2003; November: 33–34.
29. Schmidt T, Tyson J and Galanulis K. Full-field dynamic
displacement and strain measurement using advanced 3D
image correlation photogrammetry. Exp Techniques
2003; 27(3): 41–44.
30. Johnson E and Woodard N. Low-cost electrical resis-
tance spot welding technique for micro-optical compo-
nent mounting with sub-micron tolerance. In:
Proceedings of photonics packaging symposium, San Fran-
cisco, CA, 21–25 April 2003.
31. Schmidt T, Tyson J and Galanulis K. Dynamic strain
measurement using advanced 3D photogrammetry. In:
Proceedings of IMAC XXI, Orlando, FL, 3–6 February
2003.
32. Tyson J, Schmidt T, Shahinpoor M, et al. Biomechanics
deformation and strain measurements with 3D image cor-
relation. Exp Techniques 2002; 26(5): 39–42.
33. Tyson J, Schmidt T and Galanulis K. Advanced photo-
grammetry for robust deformation and strain measure-
ment. In: Proceedings of SEM 2002 annual conference,
Milwaukee, WI, 10–12 June 2002.
34. Bergmann D and Ritter R. 3D deformation measurement
in small areas based on grating method and photogram-
metry. In: Proceeding of SPIE 2782: optical inspection and
micromeasurements, Besancon, France, 10 June 1996, pp.
212–223.
35. Olaszek P. Investigation of the dynamic characteristic of
bridge structures using a computer vision method. Mea-
surement 1999; 25: 227–236.
36. Lee J-J and Shinozuka M. A vision-based system for
remote sensing of bridge displacement. NDT&E Int 2006;
39(6): 425–431.
37. Yoneyama S, Kitagawa A, Iwata S, et al. Bridge deflec-
tion measurement using digital image correlation. Exp
Techniques 2007; 31(1): 34–40.
38. Tung S-H, Shih M-H and Sung W-P. Development
of digital image correlation method to analyze crack var-
iations of masonry wall. Sadhana 2008; 33(6): 767–779.
39. Kujawińska M, Bukalska M and Dymny G. Hybrid digi-
tal image correlation/thermovision system for monitoring
of civil engineering structures. In: Proceedings of the 10th
international conference on quantitative infrared thermo-
graphy, Québec, Canada, 27–30 July 2010.
40. Kujawińska M, Malesa M, Malowany K, et al. Digital
image correlation method: a versatile tool for engineering
and art structures investigations. In: Proceedings of SPIE
8011: 22nd congress of the international commission for
optics: light for the development of the world, Puebla, Mex-
ico, 2 November 2011.
41. Kujawińska M, Sitnik R, Dymny G, et al. Remote on-line
monitoring and measuring system for civil engineering
structures. In: Proceedings of SPIE 7389: optical measure-
ment systems for industrial inspection VI, Munich, Ger-
many, 15 June 2009.
42. Zaurin R. Computer vision oriented framework for struc-
tural health monitoring of bridges. Struct Health Monit
2011; 10(3): 309–332.
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015
Structural Health Monitoring 12(5-6)
43. Kuras P, Owerko T, Ortyl Ł, et al. Advantages of radar
interferometry for assessment of dynamic deformation of
bridge. In: Biondini F and Frangopol DM (eds) Bridge
maintenance, safety, resilience and sustainability. London:
Taylor & Francis Group, 2012, pp. 885–891.
44. Kohut P, Holak K, Uhl T, et al. Structure’s condition
monitoring based on optical measurements. Key Eng Mat
2012; 518: 338–349 (Structural health monitoring II: pro-
ceedings of the 2nd international conference on smart diag-
nostics, Cracow, Poland, 14–16 November 2011).
45. Kohut P, Uhl T and Holak K. Image correlation tech-
niques in structures deflection measurements. In:
EVACES’09: proceedings of the international conference
on experimental vibration analysis for civil engineering
structures (ed Jan Bień), Wrocław, Poland, 14–16 Octo-
ber 2009, pp. 147–148. Dolnoślaxskie Wydawnictwo
Edukacyjne.
46. Kohut P, Holak K and Martowicz A. An uncertainty
propagation in developed vision based measurement sys-
tem aided by numerical and experimental tests. J Theor
Appl Mech 2012; 50(4): 1049–1061.
47. Sładek J, Ostrowska K, Kohut P, et al. Development of a
vision based deflection measurement system and its accu-
racy assessment, Measurements, 2013; 46( 3): 1237–1249.
48. Holak K, Kohut P, Martowicz A, et al. An uncertainty
analysis for developed measurement vision system aided
by numerical simulations. Mech Control 2011; 30(2):
65–72.
49. Kohut P, Holak K and Uhl T. Monitoring of civil
engineering structures supported by vision system. In:
Structural health monitoring 2012: proceedings of the sixth
European workshop (ed Christian Boller), Dresden, Ger-
many, 3–6 July 2012, pp. 1575–1582. DGZfP.
50. Gonzales R and Woods R. Digital image processing. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002.
51. Russ J. Image processing handbook. London, UK: CRC
Press, 1998.
52. Berfield TA, Patel JK, Shimmin RG, et al. Micro- and
nanoscale deformation measurement of surface and inter-
nal planes via digital image correlation. Exp Mech 2007;
47: 51–62.
53. Li N, Sutton MA, Li X, et al. Full-field thermal deforma-
tion measurements in a scanning electron microscope by
2D digital image correlation. Exp Mech 2008; 48:
635–646.
54. Helm JD. Digital image correlation for specimens
with multiple growing cracks. Exp Mech 2008; 48:
753–762.
55. Roux S and Hild F. Stress intensity factor measurements
from digital image correlation: post-processing and inte-
grated approaches. Int J Fracture 2006; 140: 141–157.
56. Réthoré J, Gravoil A, Morestin F, et al. Estimation of
mixed-mode stress intensity factors using digital image
correlation and an interaction integral. Int J Fracture
2005; 132: 65–79.
57. Fujun Y and Xiaoyuan H. Digital speckle projec-
tion for vibration measurement by applying digital
image correlation method. Key Eng Mat 2006; 326–328:
99–102.
Kohut et al.
58. Hartley R and Zisserman A. Multiple view geometry in
computer vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004.
59. Ma Y, Soatto S, Kosetska J, et al. An invitation to 3D
computer vision. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2004.
60. Kraus K. Photogrammetry. Vol. 2, advanced methods and
applications. Bonn: Ferd. Duemmlers Verlag, 1997.
61. Chambers JM. Linear models. In: Chambers JM and
Hastie TJ (eds) Statistical models in S. Boca Raton, FL:
Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1991, pp. 95–144.
62. Wilkinson GN and Rogers CE. Symbolic descriptions of
factorial models for analysis of variance. Appl Statist
1973; 22: 392–399.
Downloaded from shm.sagepub.com at RMIT UNIVERSITY on March 14, 2015
429
63. Welch BL. The generalization of ‘‘Student’s’’ problem
when several different population variances are involved.
Biometrika 1947; 34: 28–35.
64. Rees DG. Essential statistics. 4th ed. Boca Raton, FL:
Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2001.
65. Altman DG and Bland JM. Measurement in medicine:
the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician
1983; 32: 307–317.
66. Bland JM and Altman DG. Statistical methods for asses-
sing agreement between two methods of clinical measure-
ment. Lancet 1986; 327: 307–310.