The University of Manchester Research

Inspection of concrete bridge structures: A case study

comparing conventional techniques with a virtual reality
approach
DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001759

Document Version
Accepted author manuscript

Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer

Citation for published version (APA):

Omer, M., Margetts, L., Hadi Mosleh, M., & Cunningham, L. (2021). Inspection of concrete bridge structures: A
case study comparing conventional techniques with a virtual reality approach. Journal of Bridge Engineering,
26(10), [05021010]. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001759

Published in:
Journal of Bridge Engineering

Citing this paper

Please note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscript
or Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the
publisher's definitive version.

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by the
authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Takedown policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s Takedown
Procedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact uml.scholarlycommunications@manchester.ac.uk providing
relevant details, so we can investigate your claim.

Download date:16. mars. 2023

 Inspection of Concrete Bridge Structures: Case Study Comparing Conventional
Techniques with a Virtual Reality Approach

Muhammad Omer1, Lee Margetts2, Mojgan Hadi Mosleh3, Lee S. Cunningham4

Corresponding author: lee.margetts@manchester.ac.uk

Abstract
Recent high profile collapses coupled with an aging bridge stock, increased loading and the pressures

of climate change have led to a greater focus on bridge management by policy makers. To prevent any

negative socio-economic impacts, timely inspection of bridges becomes of prime importance. Visual

inspection is standard practice around the world but is subjective in nature and is influenced by many

factors that can affect the accuracy of results and future decisions. The research presented here

critically compares the conventional Visual Inspection approach with a Virtual Reality (VR)

Inspection technique that combines Lidar and VR, applied for the first time to bridges made of

reinforced concrete. Inspection of the Mancunian Way, an elevated motorway in Manchester, UK, is

performed by the conventional visual approach and the VR approach. Digital virtual twins of the

bridge are developed. Lidar is used to capture a 3D image of the geometric surface of the bridge

incorporating all its defects. The image is post-processed and a virtual reality application is created

using Unity, a software development kit, for inspection of bridges in an immersive 3D virtual

environment. The resulting VR app is evaluated subjectively by conducting a critical comparison

between both methods. The results demonstrate promising improvements over the conventional

inspection technique. It is intended that this research will benefit civil engineers in inspecting bridges

as well as policy makers who may revise bridge inspection codes and procedures.

Author Keywords:
Concrete, Bridge, Inspection, Virtual Reality, Digital Twin, Lidar

1.
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester,
Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3394-8132Email:
eng.muhammad.omer@gmail.com
2.
Senior Lecturer, Dept of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester,
Manchester, M13 9PL, ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8239-8259. Email: lee.margetts@manchester.ac.uk
3.
Lecturer, , Dept of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester,
Manchester, M13 9PL, ORCID ID: 0000-0003-0443-815X. Email:
mojgan.hadimosleh@manchester.ac.uk
4.
Senior Lecturer, Dept of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester,
Manchester, M13 9PL, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7686-7490. Email:
lee.scott.cunningham@manchester.ac.uk
 1 Introduction

2 Over the past two years, the number of substandard highway bridges in the UK has leapt by more than

3 35%, accounting for 4.4% of the 72,000 bridges on the local road network (Masters, 2017). According

4 to statistics collected by the Royal Automobile Club (RAC) Foundation in the UK, a total of £3.9

5 billion is required to bring this bridge infrastructure back to good condition; however, overseeing

6 authorities are only spending £447 million per annum in this sector (Masters, 2017). There are

7 approximately 614,000 bridges in the US, with an average age of 42 years (American Society of Civil

8 Engineers (ASCE), 2017). Records estimate that more than 40% of these bridges have exceeded their

9 50 year design life and require immediate maintenance. According to the most recent estimate by the

10 ASCE, the US national backlog of bridge maintenance needs approximately $123 billion for

11 inspection and repair of bridges (ASCE, 2017). In Japan, there are approximately 400,000 highway

12 bridges, of which 18% have exceeded a service life of 50 years and 43% are 43 years or older

13 (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation, 2013). China has also experienced increased

14 demand for bridge maintenance for up to 658,100 structures (Ministry of Transport of the People’s

15 Republic of China, 2011). With an increasing number of deteriorating bridges around the world,

16 maintenance needs exceed available resources. This imbalance reflects the need for comprehensive

17 bridge management systems including improved inspection practices and new and effective repair and

18 rehabilitation techniques (Jeong et al, 2018).

19

20 Regular bridge inspections are required to ensure the safe operation of a structure. The purpose of

21 these inspections is to confirm structural health, record any change in structural condition, determine

22 the need for any action or further detailed inspection, develop a strategy for the execution of

23 retrofitting, determine the structural capacity and safety factors, establish a plan for future

24 maintenance and capital requirements, review and update the information about the history of the

25 structure, provide database information for bridge management systems and verify the accuracy of the

26 information provided in the plant inventory system (Sweeney and Unsworth, 2010).

27
28 The visual inspection process is the most common form of bridge inspection technique used to assess

29 the condition of a bridge and to satisfy the requirements of bridge inspection standards (Quirk et al,

30 2017). In the UK, this is conducted according to a codified procedure often termed as Principal

31 Inspection (DMRB, 2017). Principal Inspections are scheduled for highway structures at an interval of

32 two years (less detailed) and six years (more detailed) and are generally completed by visual

33 inspection only, with tactile investigation carried out where necessary/possible. The outcomes of

34 Principal Inspection inform the first tier of decision making regarding budgeting including the need

35 for quantitative assessment and ultimately scheduling and rehabilitation (Marzouk and Hisham, 2012).

36

37 Principal Inspection of Concrete Highway Bridges and Associated Limitations

38 In the UK, the methodology of Principal Inspection relies on an elemental condition assessment

39 approach. Each element of the bridge (deck, girders, bearings and piers) is assigned a Severity-Extent

40 code prescribed by the relevant highway authority. The severity describes the degree of damage, on a

41 scale of 1-5, from no significant defect to a failed condition, while extent is a measure of the length,

42 area, or the number of defects in the bridge element (Inspection Manual for Highway Structures,

43 2007). The Severity Extent ratings are shown in table 1.

44

45 Based on the findings of the inspection, engineers decide whether further testing is required or if the

46 structure is fit for service. The features in reinforced concrete bridges such as cracks (flexure, shear,

47 torsional, plastic settlement and thermal), condition of joints, functioning of bearings, spalling,

48 corrosion marks, leaching and honeycombing are of interest in such inspections (Inspection Manual

49 for Highway Structures, 2007).

50

51 Any visual inspection technique is based on subjective judgements made by bridge inspectors (Liao et

52 al, 2017). This subjectivity influences reliability and affects the accuracy of decisions in allocating

53 resources. To investigate this issue, the Federal Highway Administration in the USA initiated an

54 examination of the authenticity of the visual inspection technique (Moore et al. 2001) and published a
55 report that highlighted various shortcomings in conventional visual inspection practises. Drawbacks

56 included inconsistency in interpretability of results, difficulties regarding access to critical areas and

57 the safety of inspectors. Moreover, the precision and accuracy of the inspection is subjective and it

58 varies according to the professional’s qualification, motivation and inspection equipment (Kuchekar,

59 2017). A study by Moore et al. (2001) showed that the variation between the inspectors is up to 50%,

60 with only 68% of those ratings being within 10% of acceptable deviation from the mean. In addition,

61 the documentation phase often lacks a formal record of damage location, type, severity and amount of

62 distress within an element (FHWA 2012) and in some cases the photographic evidence is missing or

63 is not comprehensive (Charron et al, 2019). This information is essential in comparing current

64 inspection results with previous inspections to understand the evolution of deterioration (McGuire,

65 2016). Furthermore, large-scale inspections are time consuming and require special arrangements to

66 access different parts of the bridge which may cause disruption to the user (Bolourian et al, 2017).

67 Therefore, it is of timely importance that the research community investigates and develops new

68 bridge inspection methodologies, taking advantage of innovative technologies to improve inspection

69 procedures, outcomes and provide a safe working environment for the inspectors.

70

71 In order to address these challenges, the authors investigate whether 3D scanning using Lidar and

72 virtual reality visualisation, can be used to accurately capture the inspection data, provide a safe

73 immersive inspection environment for engineers, and lead to improved reliability and repeatability of

74 the results and decisions made through visual inspection.

75

76 Background Study

77 This section presents a literature review that assesses the potential of virtual reality systems as a visual

78 inspection tool and 3D scanners as automatic data capturing devices. 3D scanning and its use in

79 bridge engineering is described. Emphasis is placed on how virtual reality and 3D scanners combined

80 address the limitations of conventional practices.

81
 82 Virtual Reality - Tool for Visualisation

83 Virtual Reality (VR) is defined as “a computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional image or

84 environment that can be interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a person using special

85 electronic equipment” (McMillan et al., 2017). Figure 1 demonstrates the working principle of virtual

86 reality systems.

87

88 VR is widely used as a tool for visualisation in multiple disciplines. In the domain of Structural

89 Engineering, the design and site supervision team can for example use VR to communicate

90 reinforcement and pre-stressing cable layout plans to contractors (Jin et al, 2007). Recently, VR has

91 been used to improve visualisation in the visual inspection of masonry arch bridges to detect features

92 such as seepage, mortar loss, vegetation, eroded surfaces and chemical attack (Omer et al., 2018).

93 Transportation Engineers have used VR to simulate spatial and temporal scenarios such as traffic flow

94 patterns, speed, occupancy and to predict future traffic (Ayres & Mehmood, 2009) among other

95 applications. Project managers and contractors use VR for site planning (Comunale, 2017), site

96 design, (Harrison et al., 2015) and site management (Sampaio et al, 2010) . VR has also been used in

97 forensic engineering to investigate road accidents and assess damage due to natural disasters such as

98 floods, earthquakes and tsunamis (Jin et al., 2007).

99

100 In summary, the recent literature on VR demonstrates its growing use in Civil Engineering as an

101 effective visualisation tool. However, for inspection of existing structures, use of VR does not cover

102 all types of bridges and their distinct defect features but has so far been limited to the detection of a

103 few types of defects in masonry bridges. Since Principal Inspections are based on visualisation, it is

104 evident from the literature that this technology has the potential to raise the visualisation standards of

105 visual inspection of reinforced concrete bridges, which will allow effective planning, inspection,

106 modelling and data analysis.

107
108 3D Scanning and its Contributions

109 In early 1953, the US military was the first to use optical measuring devices (3D scanners) with laser

110 light. They called this technology Lidar (light detection and ranging). It records measurements by

111 calculating the time taken for a laser pulse to hit a target and return to a sensor (laser head). The

112 intensity of the return is recorded and colour information is captured based on the reflectivity values

113 of the targeted surface (Lichti et al, 2002). The data is used to develop digital elevation models

114 (Hollaus et al., 2005), (White and Wang, 2003), 3D solid objects (Bellian et al, 2005), and maps

115 (Afana et al, 2010). Figure 2 demonstrates the working principle of the Lidar.

116

117 In bridge engineering, Lidar technology is mainly used to measure vertical displacement (Lichti et al.,

118 2002), (Zogg et al., 2008) and (Paffenholz et al., 2008). To avoid collision damage, clearance height

119 plays a key role (Thompson & Sobanjo, 2003), (Dunker and Rabbat, 1990) and (Ramey et al, 1997)

120 and Lidar is used to measure clearance height of bridges (Riveiro et al., 2008), (Lubowiecka et al.,

121 2010) and (Riveiro et al, 2011). Furthermore, Lidar technology is used to detect damage surfaces

122 (Teza et al., 2009), (Liu et al., 2011) and quantify damage (Mizoguchi et al., 2013). Recently, Lidar

123 has also been used to automate the data collection process and perform bridge inspection. Unmanned

124 ground vehicles (UGVs) mounted with Lidar, have been programmed to follow a specific track and

125 automatically acquire the data (Phillips & Narasimhan, 2019) and (Chen et al, 2019).

126

127 The review covers the essential milestones in the development and use of virtual reality and 3D

128 scanning. The literature suggests that if the capabilities of 3D scanning and virtual reality are

129 combined, these technologies can potentially raise the standards of Principle Inspection and address

130 most of its limitations i.e. the main research question addressed in this paper. However, the technique

131 is still “visual” and some limitations, for example the type of damage that can be observed, may not

132 be overcome using virtual reality.

133
134 The focus of this study is to compare the conventional visual inspection technique, herein termed as

135 the Conventional Technique (CT) with the VR inspection technique – newly developed by the

136 authors. A Leica P40 3D laser scanner is used to automate the data collection process and a Samsung

137 Gear VR headset is used for visualisation. A section of the Mancunian Way flyover, Manchester

138 United Kingdom, is selected as the test subject. Principle inspection is performed by two approaches;

139 the CT method and the proposed VR method. The paper describes the hardware, software used;

140 explains field observations, post-processing stages involved in both approaches and provides a critical

141 comparison to highlight the most effective bridge inspection technique. To the authors’ knowledge,

142 this research is the first reported work on the inspection of concrete bridges which combines 3D

143 scanning and virtual reality.

144

145 The Mancunian Way Viaduct

146 The Mancunian Way viaduct is an elevated motorway just south of Manchester city centre, United

147 Kingdom, which serves as an urban link to connect traffic travelling from the east to the west and

148 vice-versa. Its construction was carried out in two stages; the first stage between Fairfield Street and

149 Downing Street was completed in 1965, while the second stage, which includes the whole elevated

150 section, was completed in the summer of 1967 (Bingham & Lee, 1969). Being one of the busiest

151 stretches of road in Manchester, the Mancunian Way viaduct is regularly subjected to inspection and

152 maintenance works (Baimas & McClean, 1998).

153

154 The structure consists of 32 spans of twin decks supported by segmental post-tensioned concrete

155 trapezoidal box girders with edge cantilevers. Twenty-eight spans are 32 m long, two are 18 m long to

156 accommodate ground level features, and the remaining spans are 30 m and 23 m long. The girders are

157 supported by in-situ reinforced concrete piers; on a standard foundation of two 1.2 m diameter

158 reinforced concrete bored piles. The columns have a solid rectangular section tapered on the

159 longitudinal side and vertical on the transverse face (Baimas & McClean, 1998).
160

161 The case study encompasses the section of the motorway passing over Oxford Road from the entrance

162 of Manchester Metropolitan University to the junction of Cambridge Street. The section has two spans

163 each 32 m long. The first part of the section is a two-lane deck slab, which widens to three lanes.

164 Figure 3 shows a map and photograph of the bridge.

165

166 Method

167 This section outlines details of the field study, including hardware and software used to collect and

168 post-process the data. The on-site data capture technique, procedure of CT Inspection and the process

169 of assigning the bridge condition rating is described. Following this discussion, the VR Inspection

170 technique, including field setup and post-processing stages are explained.

171

172 Hardware and Software

173 The hardware devices used in this work include (i) a Leica Scan Station P40 laser scanner for data

174 collection, (ii) a standalone workstation (iii) a Samsung Galaxy S10+ smartphone, and (iv) a Samsung

175 Oculus Gear VR headset with remote control (Model R-325) for viewing and performing inspection

176 in a virtual reality environment. Other tools include a drawing kit for rough sketches of the geometry

177 (plan view, sections and elevation views) and marking the type and location of defects, as well as a

178 standard camera to capture photographic evidence during the CT Inspection. Table 2 shows the

179 necessary specifications of the hardware.

180

181 Two software packages are used for processing the data and building the VR app: (i) Leica’s Cyclone

182 version 9.1, to process, register, edit and downsize the raw scan data and (ii) Unity 2017.2, an

183 application development platform, to write and build a VR app for Principal Inspection.
184

185 CT Inspection Process

186 As per the UK Inspection Manual for Highway Structures, Volume 1 Part C, the inspection is

187 scheduled taking into consideration the availability of resources, traffic management and weather

188 conditions etc. A method statement is prepared, which includes details of the activities to be

189 performed on-site; specifically any safety procedures and details of traffic management. Upon arrival

190 on-site, a careful check is performed to confirm the identity of the structure, understand its orientation

191 and locate the area of interest. Next, bridge inspectors look at each component of the bridge to

192 confirm the type of material and identify the construction technique employed when the structure was

193 constructed. Previous repair marks, if any, are noted and 3D sketches of the structure are drawn. Each

194 structural element is named to identify its position on the ground and their geometric dimensions are

195 recorded using measuring tapes. Top and elevation views of deck, girders and piers are drawn to

196 confirm compliance with the original drawings. The bridge is visually inspected for possible defects.

197 Photographs are taken as evidence and defects are assessed and assigned a condition rating value. The

198 details are recorded in a bridge inspection pro-forma, which in the UK is prepared in accordance with

199 BD 63/17, a section in the UK Bridge Inspection Manual that provides guidelines regarding data

200 recording procedures and criteria (DMRB, 2017). The completed pro-forma is then reviewed in the

201 office and a weighted average score is calculated based on the importance of elements and type of

202 defect to determine the overall rating of the bridge. This score is used to assess if the structure is fit

203 for use or any further investigation is required.

204

205 VR Inspection Process

206 In the VR Inspection process, the initial steps of scheduling the inspection and precautionary

207 measures are the same as performed in the CT Inspection. Once the structure is identified, and all

208 preventive measures are in place, for example temporary sign-boards to manage pedestrian and

209 vehicular traffic, arrangements are made to set up a scan station.

210

211 Scan Locations and Target Setup

212 Seven scan stations, namely S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 and S7, and six standard Leica black and white

213 4.5-inch targets are used. The targets are labelled with a distinct ID, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,

214 counted in a clockwise direction. The stations are placed such that there are a minimum of three

215 common targets in each scan. The rationale is that at least three targets are required to accurately

216 stitch together each station into one image during the post-processing stage. The locations of the

217 stations and targets are shown in figure 4. Stations are annotated in blue and targets with their distinct

218 ID are annotated in yellow. The stations were placed in such a way that the widest possible view of

219 the bridge was covered, whilst avoiding interruption to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Due to

220 obstacles such as shops, vehicles and poles etc, the targets were randomly placed such that they were

221 at the farthest possible distance from the station, with at least three common targets being visible in

222 two consecutive stations. Errors in combining the point cloud were manually fixed during the data

223 processing stage.

224

225 3D Scanner Setup

226 The scanner is attached to the tripod stand and carefully levelled at each station, using the spirit

227 bubble and digital levelling guide provided in the scanner. The scanner is rotated 360 degrees around

228 the vertical axis to ensure it is levelled in all directions. The height of the tripod is measured, and its

229 position on the ground is recorded. A standard height of 1.3 m is fixed for all the scan stations. The

230 horizontal angle of the scan varies from station to station. For the station in the middle, station 4 in

231 this case, the scanning window is set to 360 degrees, for all the other stations, the scan view is

232 restricted to capture areas of interest only. The vertical sweep for all the stations is between +90

233 degrees and -55 degrees about the horizontal axis. The scan resolution which defines the spatial

234 separation of each point in coordinate axis, is set to “5 mm”. The range of the scanner is set to 75 m
235 over the entire scan angle. A summary of these parameters and comments on their relevance to any

236 particular bridge is given in table 3.

237

238 Once the scanner is correctly configured, a point cloud and photographic image is specified as the

239 desired scanning data to be collected. The point cloud data and the corresponding images are

240 transferred from the scanner to a pen drive for later post-processing.

241

242 Data Processing

243 In the post-processing stage, the point cloud data, which has been saved in a .bin file, is imported into

244 Cyclone version 9.2 and decrypted for processing. The information held in the file includes the

245 coordinates, the reflectivity index and RGB colour value of each individual point in the point cloud.

246 The point cloud data for each of the seven stations is imported together with the associated

247 photographs. At this stage, the point cloud of each station can only be viewed in grayscale and

248 intensity view.

249

250 To add colours to the grayscale point cloud, the photographs from a particular station need to be

251 stitched together and then overlaid on the points. Since the scanning parameters of the point cloud and

252 the photographs are exactly the same, the photographs can be automatically stitched together using

253 built-in tools in the software. The view from station 7 is shown as an example in figure 5.

254

255 Next, unwanted points, termed ‘noise’, such as traffic, pedestrians, street furniture and surrounding

256 buildings etc. are manually deleted in a close-up view of the scan, using built-in editing tools in the

257 software. An example of this type of clean up is shown for station 4 in figure 6.

258
259 The same procedure is adopted to remove the noise from all other stations. The next step is to stitch

260 together all the stations to develop a global coloured point cloud. The height of the Lidar and markers

261 are set as cloud constraints. Some prominent visual features like bridge piers are also established as

262 constraints, to improve overlap and minimise the cloud-to-cloud stitching error. The first four stations

263 are combined using target IDs T1, T2 and T3. Due to obstacles and limited access, the remaining

264 stations are set up at some distance from the previous stations so that only target ID T3 is visible. To

265 stitch station S4 and station S5 together, target ID T3 and two common visual features are used.

266 Stations S5, S6 and S7 are linked using three common targets labelled T4, T5 and T6. After

267 connecting all the stations, a built-in cloud optimisation algorithm is executed to find typically visible

268 constraints in the global cloud and use them to align the dataset accurately. Error-values for these

269 constraints are shown in table 4. This completes the cloud registration procedure, with all the stations

270 having been combined into a single digital copy of the structure.

271

272 Error Analysis

273 The registration process generates an error report which assesses the quality of the global point cloud.

274 The report includes a cloud to cloud error, RMS error, absolute mean error and maximum and

275 minimum error for all the aforementioned constraints such as targets and visible features. The overall

276 allowable error is set to 7 mm as standard – a value that is recommended in the Leica manual (Leica-

277 geosystems, 2020). This target error is achieved using an iterative approach. If the use of any

278 constraint leads to an error of more than 10 mm, the constraint is disabled and the cloud is re-

279 registered. The error is then recomputed and reassessed. The process is repeated until all the

280 constraints have an error of less than 7 mm. After convergence, if a constraint error still lies between

281 10 mm and 8 mm, the weight of that constraint is reduced to 0.5 in the registration process.

282

283 After minimising the error, the registration is frozen and a model space is created for a final touch-up.

284 In the model space, the point cloud is set to a resolution of 5 mm and duplicate points are deleted.
285 This step massively reduces the memory footprint of the point cloud. In the end, the final output file is

286 exported as a .pts file, which is later used in the VR app.

287

288 Writing a VR app

289 The dataset is imported into Unity version 2017.2 by writing a point cloud script. The script reads the

290 geometric coordinate values and RGB intensity data and connects all the points by creating groups of

291 triangular meshes. These groups are added to the scene with appropriate camera settings. Scripts are

292 written to add interaction features such as navigation and teleportation to the VR environment. After

293 successful debugging, the app is published. The output is a .apk Android application installation file,

294 the file is transferred and installed into a Samsung Galaxy S10+ smartphone. The phone is attached to

295 the VR headset using micro-USB port and the resulting bridge inspection takes place in an immersive

296 3D environment. Further details about app publishing settings can be found in Omer et al, (2019). All

297 the defects are identified and rated in accordance with guidance from BD 63/17. Findings from both

298 the inspection approaches are illustrated in the following results section.

299

300 Results

301 This section outlines the results from both inspection techniques. The section is divided into two sub-

302 sections; CT Inspection technique and VR Inspection technique.

303

304 CT Results

305 A standard bridge inspection pro-forma is used to record all the results of the inspection program and

306 it is split into three parts. The first part records all the general information about the bridge and

307 inspection type as shown in figure 7.

308 A specific code is assigned based on the guidance in the inspection Manual for Highway Structures

309 Volume 1 Part F. The code 5C 20P is assigned in this case study which represents a post-tensioned

310 reinforced concrete box girder bridge without any secondary deck elements. Each character in the

311 code is an identifier with specific meanings. The numbers in the code represent the structural form of

312 the primary and secondary deck elements, whereas the letters represent the material used for the

313 primary and secondary deck elements, respectively. Here, 5 is box beams (exterior and interior), C is

314 post-tensioned concrete, 20 and P refers to the absence of any secondary deck element (transverse

315 beams) and its consequent material, respectively. A detailed description of each code is provided in

316 tables G.4, G.5 and G.6 of the UK Bridge Inspection Manual.

317 The data for the second span is similar, except the ordnance survey easting (O.S.E), and ordnance

318 survey northing (O.S.N) are different. The second part of the pro-forma records bridge elements and

319 their condition rating along with photographic evidence. Deck elements, slab, longitudinal beams,

320 parapet beams or cantilevers and load-bearing substructure elements, which include abutments and

321 piers/columns, are listed. Each component is evaluated in terms of severity (S), extent (Ex), defect

322 type (Def), work required (W) and work priority (P). Results of the second part are shown in table 5.

323

324 The grades are assigned by the site inspector and are justified by his or her comments and

325 photographs captured during the inspection as shown in figure 8.

326

327 The photographs are attached in the appendix of the form. The comment section of the form (third

328 section) records signs of the presence of moisture at a few locations on the slab. The girders are

329 already subjected to repair which is evident from the paint marks. Spalling and thermal cracking is

330 found near supports and midspans. At the junction of the pier and girder, a significant area of

331 corroded steel is exposed. It is expected that with time further spalling of the concrete will occur as

332 the rebar corrodes.

333
334 VR Results

335 The bridge is inspected in an immersive 3D virtual environment by running the VR app developed by

336 the authors. Screenshots of the app are presented in figure 9.

337

338 The inspection proceeds with careful examination of areas of interest in the office environment.

339 Defects are recorded by taking screenshots. Figure 10 shows the deck slab in the VR environment.

340 Extensive colour variation demonstrates the presence of moisture.

341

342 Girder elements are inspected from different angles and have varying intensity colours. Defects are

343 shown in figure 11.

344

345 Thermal cracking is evident in most of the areas. These cracks present a pathway for chloride ingress

346 leading to further rebar corrosion. A major piece of exposed steel reinforcement is shown in the scan

347 intensity view, derived from the laser reflectivity index. Colour variation along the rebar demonstrates

348 varying rates of corrosion. Figure 12 shows that the girders have extensive repair marks from a

349 previous episode of maintenance of the structure.

350

351 Furthermore, piers and columns are also inspected. Rebar reinforcement in one of the piers is exposed

352 due to extensive spalling of concrete, as shown in figure 13.

353

354 After performing the inspection, the pro-forma is completed based on the results from the VR

355 inspection. Section 2 of the form is shown in table 6.

356
357 The comment section is mainly the same as the CT. However, using VR Inspection, there are notable

358 differences, for example the increased extent of moisture in the slab. Furthermore, the visible extent

359 of spalling and cracking in the girder and parapet beams is greater in the VR data. Lidar records the

360 reflectivity index of the laser as well as a digital photograph. The reflectivity data highlights areas of

361 moisture, making dampness more clearly visible in VR inspection compared with the naked eye

362 observations of CT inspection.

363

364 Discussion

365 Visual inspection is a de-facto method for inspection of bridges. Accurate visual inspection has a vital

366 role in the allocation of resources and structural maintenance. A critical comparison of both

367 conventional (CT) and virtual reality (VR) techniques is made in terms of accessibility of critical

368 areas, data collection, consistency in findings, interpretation of results, the safety of the inspector,

369 time of inspection, disruption to the user, ease of documentation and cost of the inspection. Table 7

370 summarizes the results of the comparison.

371

372 The results of CT Inspection are governed by many factors. One key issue is the vulnerability of the

373 survey to weather conditions. Travelling and manoeuvring on the site becomes inconvenient during

374 unsettled weather. Paperwork (filling the pro-forma) on-site and capturing images also becomes

375 challenging. For this reason, inspection sometimes has to be rescheduled resulting in prolonged

376 delays. Furthermore, heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic in working hours affects the inspection

377 schedule. In late night hours, the traffic is low, but lighting conditions are poor. Temporary lighting

378 arrangements lead to excessive overhead expenditures. Moreover, at night, security issues (of

379 inspector and equipment) and the presence of nocturnal fauna such as bats etc. needs to be considered.

380
381 In contrast, weather conditions and traffic (both pedestrian and vehicular) conditions have little

382 influence on the schedule of VR Inspection. 3D scanners are waterproof and calibrated accordingly,

383 making them convenient in rainy conditions. Recently developed data collection robots and drone-

384 mounted scanners can be programmed to follow a path for collection of the data ((Phillips &

385 Narasimhan, 2019). Similar work has been carried out by Chen et al (2019), in which unmanned aerial

386 vehicles (UAVs) were deployed to collect the data. Inspectors can control the data collection process

387 without visiting the site (Chen et al, 2019). Other issues such as lighting and security concerns are

388 also easily manageable in VR. Image processing techniques such as the Canny Algorithm (Geng et al,

389 2012), Prewitt Algorithm (Yang et al, 2011), Sobel Edge Algorithm (Gupta & Mazumdar, 2013) and

390 the most recent Crack Central Point Method (Lei et al, 2018) can be used during the app building

391 process to brighten darker areas or areas with low visibility. If the lighting conditions are

392 unfavourable, concerned regions can be scanned at high sensitivity and processed as a separate scan

393 file. Although security concerns are limited, expensive equipment such as drones, robots or UAVs are

394 prone to theft and require insurance policies. Overall, fewer lighting problems, security concerns and

395 weather and traffic disruptions makes the VR inspection more feasible in terms of travelling time and

396 cost effectiveness and accuracy of data collection.

397

398 During the CT Inspection, special access arrangements can be required especially for areas

399 inaccessible on-foot, to measure crack geometry or inspect critical areas like joints and support

400 conditions. These arrangements, if not done correctly, may result in site accidents, closure of traffic

401 lanes or disruption to pedestrian traffic. Moreover, the data recorded (filling the pro-forma and

402 drawing sketches) is time-consuming and tedious. If the scale of inspection is large, the inspector

403 might make mistakes owing to fatigue. In the case of data mismanagement or lack of information,

404 additional resources (time and budget) are required to repeat the inspection process. Furthermore, as

405 part of the pro-forma, condition rating is assigned on-site. These ratings are based on the expertise and

406 experience of the inspector on-site. For this reason, the accuracy of data collection becomes

407 questionable and may lead to inconsistencies in results.

408

409 On the contrary, the VR Inspection is performed in the comfort of the office environment of the

410 inspector. VR has navigation and teleportation features with controllable gravity to allow swift

411 movements to inaccessible areas without any special crane arrangements and safety issues. This

412 allows inspections to be carried out regardless of physical disabilities. The speed of navigation is

413 adjustable, inspectors can travel faster over areas with no defects to save time. Most importantly,

414 bridges can be inspected as many times as required, by executing the app several times. That said, it

415 should be acknowledged that prolonged use of VR may result in vertigo, sickness or headaches,

416 especially using older VR hardware.

417

418 Interpretation of the pro-forma and allocation resources for bridge maintenance is directly related to

419 the reliability of data collection. In the CT Inspection, documentation of the bridge data and

420 photographic evidence is often in hardcopy form. It becomes difficult to keep track of the process of

421 deterioration over time. Although recent advances in technology and work habits have digitised

422 paperwork, it will not be as accurate as a 3D digital copy of the bridge condition. In VR Inspection,

423 bridges may be inspected by multiple engineers. If so, inspection becomes highly accurate as the

424 assessment can be based on a consensus from more than one expert inspector. Data can be stored in

425 both hard and soft form. Any changes over time can be easily and accurately tracked by comparing

426 the previous digital model with the new digital model.

427

428 Although inspection using cutting edge technology addresses major concerns regarding CT

429 Inspection, it is still important to note a few drawbacks associated with VR Inspection. For example, it

430 is not possible to identify features whose details have not been captured by Lidar. One obvious

431 deficiency of Lidar compared with the human eye is the resolution of feature that can be detected.

432 Current commercial Lidar technology is limited, with typical scanners capturing data at a 1 mm

433 resolution from a distance of 500 m. This means that the smallest recognisable feature is a few
434 millimetres in size, the exact value depending on the number of stations used. To cover extensive

435 areas, multiple stations are required increasing scan and data processing time. Furthermore, better

436 scanners have come onto the market, with a range of 1000 m @ 1mm resolution, but these high

437 fidelity scans take longer to perform. Looking forward, it is reasonable to expect that new scanners

438 will cover larger areas with higher resolution in a shorter time. Improvements in scanning hardware

439 has implications for the proposed VR technique in terms of increases of data storage and processing

440 time. To address this, Soemantoro et al (2021) have proposed a novel machine learning algorithm to

441 downsample the point cloud whilst maintaining high resolution at locations of an interest to the

442 engineer. This significantly reduces the overall size of the point cloud data and hence, improves data

443 processing time.

444

445 Other concerns with Lidar data include the generation of artifacts with no real-world correspondence.

446 Common artifacts, their cause and solution are described in table 8. The majority of the artifacts can

447 be avoided with a well-trained Lidar operator having sufficient technical knowledge about the

448 technical characteristics of Lidar systems, site conditions, different types of artifacts, their causes and

449 solution. The technical proficiency of the operator can help eliminate the chances of error at the

450 source, as well as reducing the data processing time. Much research has been carried out to improve

451 the quality of Lidar scans. For example, Lato et al (2010) proposed a methodology for correction of

452 measurement bias in Lidar line of sight and occlusion. To improve the point cloud alignment error,

453 Shijun et al (2017) presented a hybrid least squares method to combine multiple scans accurately.

454 Park et al (2017) developed an algorithm that first optimized a joint photometric and geometric

455 objective and then locked the point cloud alignment both in normal and tangential planes to improve

456 the textures of the point cloud. These authors demonstrate that as Lidar data processing algorithms

457 continue to improve, the chance of artifacts being present will decrease, ensuring that the

458 correspondence between reality and digital copies in VR is accurate for the purposes of visual

459 inspection.

460
461 Another consideration regarding the technology is that VR devices are cheap but have limited

462 memory size and processing speed. At the moment, it is not possible to inspect bridge datasets

463 requiring more than 2 gigabytes of storage using the VR equipment described in this paper. If the data

464 is larger, multiple VR apps can be developed by segmenting the bridge into portions so that each part

465 is less than 2 gigabytes. If the budget permits, high-end VR devices, with higher memory and

466 processing speed, like Oculus Rift or HTC Vive can be used.

467

468 In summary, despite the few technological limitations, VR Inspection proves to be a highly effective

469 and efficient method compared to CT Inspection. It addresses all the major concerns highlighted in

470 the literature review.

471

472 Conclusions

473 An in-depth study of the literature reveals that the current CT Inspection is subjective and has

474 limitations which can lead to poor inspection results and hence maintenance of structures. This can

475 misguide policy makers in allocating budgets for structural maintenance, adversely affect day-to-day

476 activities, the economy of the state and in extreme cases might result in catastrophic failure of the

477 structure and consequently loss of life. The main contribution of this work is to introduce and

478 critically compare a novel bridge inspection technique, which combines Lidar and VR, with the CT

479 Inspection technique by performing a formal case study on the Mancunian Way viaduct. VR

480 Inspection yields promising results as compared to the CT Inspection technique.

481

482 From a practical perspective, there are a few technological limitations associated with the VR

483 Inspection but as technology develops, these problems will be overcome. In the meantime, this

484 research takes a step towards solving problems faced by engineers when undertaking Principal

485 Inspection and hopes to raise bridge inspection standards.

486

487 Data Availability Statement

488 Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the study are proprietary or confidential in

489 nature and may only be provided with restrictions (e.g. point cloud data and VR application code).

490

491 Acknowledgements

492 The authors would like to thank the School of Engineering at the University of Manchester for

493 providing funding to Mr. Muhammad Omer to carry-out his PhD research and also for arranging all

494 the hardware and software for this research project. Lee Margetts was supported by EPSRC grant

495 EP/N026136/1.

496

497 References

498 Afana, A., Solé-Benet, A., and Pérez, J.C., 2010, Determination of soil erosion using laser scanners,

499 in Gilkes, R.J., and Prakongkep, N., eds., Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science:

500 Soil solutions for a changing world: Brisbane, Australia, International Union of Soil Sciences, p. 39–

501 42

502 Agdas, D., A. Rice, J., R. Martinez, J., & R. Lasa, I. (2015). Comparison of visual inspection and

503 structural-health monitoring as bridge condition assessment method. American Society of Civil

504 Engineers, 26(4), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000802

505 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (2017). 2017 Report card for American’s

506 infrastructure. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ bridges/

507 Ayres, G., & Mehmood, R. (2009). On discovering road traffic information using virtual reality

508 simulations. 11th International Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation, UKSim 2009.

509 https://doi.org/10.1109/UKSIM.2009.14
510 Baimas, N. and McClean, J. (1998) ‘Mancunian Way bearing replacements’, Proceedings of the

511 Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer, 127(3), pp. 124–131. doi:

512 10.1680/imuen.1998.30988.

513 Bellian, J.A., Kerans, C., and Jennette, D.C., 2005, Digital outcrop models: Applications of terrestrial

514 scanning Lidar technology in stratigraphic modeling: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 75, p. 166–

515 176, doi: 10.2110 /jsr.2005.013

516 Bingham, T. and Lee, D. (1969) ‘the Mancunian Way Elevated Road Structure.’, Proceedings of the

517 Institution of Civil Engineers, 42(4), pp. 459–492. doi: 10.1680/iicep.1969.7464.

518 Bolourian, N., Soltani, M. M., Albahri, A., & Hammad, A. (2017). High Level Framework for Bridge

519 Inspection Using LiDAR-Equipped UAV. Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on

520 Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), (Isarc). https://doi.org/10.22260/isarc2017/0095

521 B. Riveiro, P. Arias, J. Armesto, F. Rial, M. Solla, (2008). Multidisciplinar Approach to Hostorical

522 Arch Bridges Documentation, ISPRS Vol. XXXVII, 2008, pp. 247-252.

523 B. Riveiro, P. Morer, P. Arias, I. de Arteaga. (2011) Terrestrial laser scanning and limit analysis of

524 masonry arch bridges, Construction and Building Materials 25 (4) 1726-1735.

525 DMRB (2017), BD 63/17, Inspection of Highway Structures , Design Manual For Roads and

526 Bridges, Vol. 3, Section 1, Part 4, , The Stationary Office Ltd., UK

527 Charron, N., McLaughlin, E., Phillips, S., Goorts, K., Narasimhan, S., & Waslander, S. L. (2019).

528 Automated Bridge Inspection using Mobile Ground Robotics. Journal of Structural Engineering, to

529 Appear, 145(11), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002404.

530 Chen, S., Laefer, D. F., Mangina, E., Zolanvari, S. M. I., & Byrne, J. (2019). UAV Bridge Inspection

531 through Evaluated 3D Reconstructions. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 24(4), 1–15.

532 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001343

533 Comunale, A. (2017). Building The Future: Virtual Reality In The Construction Industry, Reterived

534 from https://www.vrfocus.com/2017/10/virtual-reality-in-the-construction-industry/

535 Dunker, K. F., and Rabbat, B. G. (1990). “Performance of highway bridges.” Concr. Int., 12(8), 40–

536 42.

537 FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (2012). Bridge inspector's reference manual, Arlington,

538 VA.

539 Geng, X., Chen, K. and Hu, X. (2012) ‘An improved Canny edge detection algorithm for color

540 image’, IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN). IEEE, pp. 113–117. doi:

541 10.1109/INDIN.2012.6301061.

542 Gisresources. (2016). Lidar Technology for Monitoring Bridge Structure Defect and Health.

543 Retrieved September 1, 2018, from GIS Resources website: http://www.gisresources.com/lidar-

544 technology-monitoring-bridge-structure-defect-health/

545 Gupta, S. and Ghosh Mazumdar, S. (2013) ‘Sobel edge detection algorithm’, International Journal of

546 Computer Science and Management Research, 2(2), pp. 1578–1583.

547 G. Teza, A. Galgaro, F. Moro, (2009). Contactless recognition of concrete surface damage from laser

548 scanning and curvature computation, NDT & E International 42, 240-249.

549 H.-M. Zogg, H. Ingensand (2008). Terrestrial laser scanning for deformation monitoring - Load tests

550 on the Felsanau Viaduct, ISPRS Congress, Vol. XXXVII, Beijing, China, pp. 555-562.

551 Hollaus, M., Wagner, W., and Kraus, K., (2005), Airborne laser scanning and usefulness for

552 hydrological models: Advances in Geosciences, v. 5, p. 57–63, doi: 10.5194 /adgeo-5-57-2005.

553 I. Lubowiecka, J. Armesto, P. Arias, H. Lorenzo (2009). Historic bridge modelling using laser

554 scanning, ground penetrating radar and finite element methods in the context of structural dynamics,

555 Engineering Structures 31 (11) 2667-2676

556 Reference Manual, (2007). Inspection Manual for Highway Strucutures, Volume 1, Published by

557 London TSO.

558 Jaesik Park, Qian-Yi Zhou, Vladlen Koltun, (2017). Colored Point Cloud Registration Revisited,

559 Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 143-152

560 Jeong, Y., Kim, W. S., Lee, I., & Lee, J. (2018). Bridge inspection practices and bridge management

561 programs in China, Japan, Korea, and U.S. Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 3(2),

562 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/24705314.2018.1461548

563 Jin, D., Yan, F. and Ito, Y. (2007) ‘Applications of Virtual Reality to Civil and Architectural

564 Engineering Projects’, Virtual Reality, pp. 1–10.

565 Jon Masters (2017). Britain’s bridges deteriorating at alarming rate | Infrastructure Intelligence.

566 Available at: http://www.infrastructure-intelligence.com/article/mar-2017/britains-bridges-

567 deteriorating-alarming-rate.

568 J. Paffenholz, H. Vennegeerts, H. Kutterer, (2008). High Frequency Terrestrial Laser Scans for

569 Monitoring Kinematic Processes, UNGEO 4th International Conference on Engineering Surveying,

570 Bratislava, Slovakia, 2008, p. 13.

571 Kuchekar, Despande, Chaitanya, U. (2017). Visual Inspection of Concrete. International Journal of

572 Innovations In Engineering Research And Technology, 4(3), 125–127. Retrieved from

573 http://www.nachi.org/visual-inspection-concrete.htm

574 Lato, M.J., Diederichs, M.S. & Hutchinson, D.J (200), (2010). Bias Correction for View-limited Lidar

575 Scanning of Rock Outcrops for Structural Characterization. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43, 615–628.

576 Lei, B., Wang, N., Xu, P., & Song, G. (2018). New Crack Detection Method for Bridge Inspection

577 Using UAV Incorporating Image Processing. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 31(5), 04018058.

578 https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)as.1943-5525.0000879

579 Leica-geosystems. 2020. “Leica Cyclone 3D Point Cloud Processing Software.” Accessed September

580 1, 2020. https://leica-geosystems.com/products/laser-scanners/software/leica-cyclone

581 Liao, H.-K., Jallow, M., Yau, N.-J., Jiang, M.-Y., Huang, J.-H., Su, C.-W., & Chen, P.-Y. (2017).

582 Comparison of Bridge Inspection Methodologies and Evaluation Criteria in Taiwan and Foreign
583 Practices. Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in

584 Construction (ISARC). https://doi.org/10.22260/isarc2017/0043

585 Lichti, DD, Gordon, SJ and Stewart, MP. (2002). Ground‐based laser scanners: operation, systems

586 and applications. Geomatica, 56: 22–33

587 Liza Brown. (2017). Virtual Reality Engineering in Business Applications. Retrieved August 25,

588 2018, from Wondershare website: https://filmora.wondershare.com/virtual-reality/virtual-reality-use-

589 in-engineering.html

590 Marzouk, M. M., and Hisham, M. (2012). “Bridge information modeling in sustainable bridge

591 management.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Sustainable Design andConstruction 2011. ASCE, Reston, VA

592 McGuire, B., Atadero, R., Clevenger, C., & Ozbek, M. (2016). Bridge Information Modeling for

593 Inspection and Evaluation. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 21(4), 04015076.

594 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000850

595 McMillan, K., Flood, K. and Glaeser, R. (2017) ‘Virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality, and

596 the marine conservation movement’, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,

597 27(June), pp. 162–168. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2820.

598 Milovanovic, J., Moreau, G., Siret, D., Miguet, F., Milovanovic, J., Moreau, G., … Reality, A. (2017).

599 Virtual and Augmented Reality in Architectural Design and Education : An Immersive Multimodal

600 Platform to Support Architectural Pedagogy. CAADFutures, (September), 513–532.

601 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-016-9204-1

602 Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Tourism. (2013). White paper on land,

603 infrastructure, transportation, and tourism in Japan, 2013. Tokyo: Author

604 Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China (2011a). Public statics data about road and

605 water transportation in 2010. Beijing: Author

606 Mizoguchi, Y. Koda, I. Iwaki, H. Wakabayashi, Y. Kobayashi, K. Shirai, Y. Hara, H.-S. Lee, (2013)

607 Quantitative scaling evaluation of concrete structures based on terrestrial laser scanning, Automation

608 in Construction 35, 263-274.

609 Moore, M. E., Phares, B. M., Graybeal, B. A., Rolander, D. D., and Washer, G. A.‘‘Reliability of

610 visual inspection of highway bridges.’’ FHWA Rep. No. FHWA-RD-01-020, FHWA, U.S. Dept. of

611 Transportation, Washington, D.C.

612 Moore, M., B. Phares, B. Graybeal, D. Rolander, and G. Washer. 2001. Reliability of visual

613 inspection for highway bridges. Rep. No. FHWARD-01-020. McLean, VA: Federal Highway

614 Administration.

615 Omer, M., Hewitt, S., Mosleh, M. H., Margetts, L., & Parwaiz, M. (2018). Performance evaluation of

616 bridges using virtual reality. 6th European Conference on Computational Mechanics (ECCM 6) & 7th

617 European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics (ECFD 7), (June), 11–15. Retrieved from

618 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325194259_Performance_evaluation_of_bridges_using_virt

619 ual_reality

620 Omer, M., Hewitt, S., Mosleh, M. H., Margetts, L., & Parwaiz, M. (2019) Use of gaming technology

621 to bring bridge inspection to the office, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 15:10, 1292-

622 1307, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2019.1615962

623 Phares, B. M., Washer, G. A., Rolander, D. D., Graybeal, B. A., & Moore, M. (2004). Routine

624 Highway Bridge Inspection Condition Documentation Accuracy and Reliability. Journal of Bridge

625 Engineering, 9(4), 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2004)9:4(403)

626 Phillips, S., & Narasimhan, S. (2019). Automating Data Collection for Robotic Bridge Inspections.

627 Journal of Bridge Engineering, 24(8), 04019075. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-

628 5592.0001442

629 Quirk, L., Matos, J., Murphy, J., & Pakrashi, V. (2017). Visual inspection and bridge management.

630 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, (October), 1–13.

631 https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2017.1352000

632 Ramey, G. E., Wolff, A. R., and Wright, R. L. (1997). “DOT management actions to enhance bridge

633 durability/longevity.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des.

634 Rick Harrison, S. S. (2015). Introduction: A 21 st Century Approach to Site Design. Retrieved from

635 http://www.rhsdplanning.com/LandDevelopmentBeyond2015.pdf

636 Sampaio, a. Z., Henriques, P. G., & Martins, O. P. (2010). Virtual Reality Technology Used in Civil

637 Engineering Education. Open Virtual Reality Journal, 2, 18–25.

638 https://doi.org/10.2174/1875323X01002010018

639 Shijun Ji, Yongcong Ren, Zhao Ji, Xiaolong Liu, Gao Hong. (2017). “An improved method for

640 registration of point cloud, Optik, Volume 140, Pages 451-458

641 Soemantoro, R., Yue, H., Omer, M., Margetts, L. An AI automated self-organising, feature imitating

642 approach for point cloud data reduction, UKACM 2021 Conference proceedings, Loughborough

643 University, 14-16th April.

644 Sweeney, R. A. P., & Unsworth, J. F. (2010). Bridge Inspection Practice: Two Different North

645 American Railways. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 15(4), 439–444.

646 https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000001

647 Thompson, P. D., and Sobanjo, J. O. (2003). “Florida DOT project-level bridge management models.”

648 J. Bridge Eng., 8(6), 345–352.

649 W. Liu, S. Chen, E. Hauser, (2011). LiDAR-Based Bridge Structure Defect Detection, Experimental

650 Techniques 35 (6) (2011) 27-34

651 White, S.A., and Wang, Y., (2003), Utilizing DEMs derived from LIDAR data to analyze

652 morphologic change in the North Carolina coastline: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 85, p. 39–

653 47, doi: 10.1016/S0034-4257 (02)00185-2.

654 Yang, L. et al. (2011) ‘An improved Prewitt algorithm for edge detection based on noised image’,
655 Proceedings - 4th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, CISP 2011. IEEE, 3, pp.

656 1197–1200. doi: 10.1109/CISP.2011.6100495.

657

658

659

660

661
662 Tables

663 Table 1. UK Inspection code, Severity-Extent Criteria

Damage Type Code Description

A No Significant Defect
B slight, less than 5% of length/area affected
Extent

C slight, less than 5% - 20% of length/area affected

D Wide, 20% - 50% affected
E Extensive: over 50% of Structure area/length
1 As new, or has no significant defect
2 Early signs of deterioration, minor defects
Severity

3 Moderate, some loss of functionality expected

4 severe defect or element is close to failure
5 the elements if non-functional/failed
664

665 Table 2. Specifications of the Hardware Used

Hardware
Details Leica Scan Station P40 Desktop Machine Samsung Galaxy S10+
Processor: 2.3 GHz Octa-
Resolution: 5 mm Processor: 4 Intel Core i7
Core
Vendor Specifications

Operating System: Operating System: Android

Accuracy: 1.2 mm
Windows 7 32-bit (9.0) system
Wavelength: 150 nm GPU; AMD Radeon R5
GPU: Adreno 640
invisible M430
Connectivity: WiFi and
Laser: Class 1 Connectivity: Wifi
Bluetooth
Range: 100 m Ram: 32 GB Ram: 8 GB
Field of View: 360o
Storage: 100 TB Storage: 128 GB
horizontal and 270o vertical
666
667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675
676
677 Table 3. Summary of scanning parameters and their dependency on the type of structure.

Parameter Values Comment

Depends on the size of the structure,
Number of Stations 7
topography and obstacles in the field.
Depends on the topography and obstacles
Number of Targets >= 3
in the field.
It mainly depends on the height of the
Height of tripod 1.3 m
person performing the scan.
Depends on the location of the scan station.
Stations in the corner will have an angle of
< 360 – degree to capture the areas of
Horizontal Angle 360 – degree or less
interest while the ones in the middle may
have 360 – degree to have maximum
coverage.
Depends on the location of the scan station
Vertical Angle +90 to -55 degree
and height of the structure.
Depends on the type of bridge and smallest
Scan Resolution 5 mm
noticeable defect.
Depends on the size of structure,
Range of Scanner 75 m
topography and maximum clear distance.
678
679 Table 4. Constraints and their Corresponding Error Values from the Cloud Optimization Tool

Function
Constraint Scan World Scan World Value (sq RMS Avg (m) Min (m) Max (m)
m) x 10^-8
Mesh 1 Station 1 Station 2 4461 0.014 0.007 0 0.096
Mesh 2 Station 1 Station 3 3700 0.016 0.008 0 0.098
Mesh 3 Station 1 Station 4 8709 0.017 0.01 0 0.098
Mesh 4 Station 2 Station 4 2823 0.014 0.007 0 0.098
Mesh 5 Station 2 Station 3 2785 0.013 0.005 0 0.098
Mesh 6 Station 3 Station 4 3465 0.014 0.008 0 0.098
Mesh 7 Station 4 Station 7 7896 0.028 0.01 0 0.095
Mesh 8 Station 4 Station 6 1413 0.02 0.012 0 0.098
Mesh 9 Station 4 Station 5 1020 0.023 0.014 0 0.099
Mesh 10 Station 7 Station 5 2752 0.013 0.006 0 0.096
Mesh 11 Station 7 Station 6 6814 0.015 0.009 0 0.096
Mesh 12 Station 6 Station 5 7663 0.017 0.009 0 0.099
Mesh 13 Station 6 Station 1 1147 0.022 0.014 0 0.098
Mesh 14 Station 6 Station 2 5563 0.013 0.008 0 0.097
Mesh 15 Station 6 Station 3 7764 0.014 0.008 0 0.097
680

681

682

683
684 Table 5. Condition Assignment of the Bridge Elements from the CT Inspection

Element
Element Type No S Ex Def W P
description
1 Slab 1 A moisture None Low
Spalls and minor Plaster or
Deck 2 Girders 2 B Low
cracks paint
Elements
Plaster or
3 Parapet Beam 2 A Minor spalls Low
paint
Load-bearing Spalls and
5 Piers/Columns 3 B Plaster Medium
Substructure corrosion
685
686 Table 6. Condition Assignment of the Bridge Element from the VR Inspection

Element
Element Type No S Ex Def W P
description
1 Slab 2 B moisture None Low
Spalls and minor Plaster or
Deck 2 Girders 2 C Low
cracks paint
Elements
Plaster or
3 Parapet Beam 2 B Minor spalls Low
paint
Load-bearing Spalls and
5 Piers/Columns 3 B Plaster Medium
Substructure corrosion
687
688 Table 7. Subjective Evaluation of CT Inspection and VR Inspection

Comparison Criteria CT Inspection VR Inspection

Accessibility to critical
areas
Data collection
Consistency in findings
Interpretation of results
Safety of inspector
Time (Disruption)
Ease of Documentation
Cost per inspection
689
Difficult, may require special
equipment to access high areas
Objective, through the creation
Subjective
Low
Depends on experience
Needs improvement
Depends on the scale of
inspection, traffic and weather
conditions
Needs improvement
Costly
All areas are accessible by
navigating the VR space.
of a complete digital copy
High
Accurate and repeatable
Excellent
Less time on site, less
disruption
Excellent
Cheaper with automation

690

691

692

693

694
695 Table 8. Common artifacts in Lidar scanning data with their cause and solution.

Artifacts Cause Solution

3-4 common points in each
scan, optimal placement of
Fewer common points in each
scan stations to cover
scan, excessive scan stations,
Cloud misalignment maximum area with fewer
poor registration procedure,
scans, alignment error <
and high alignment error.
resolution of the feature of
interest
Overlapping zones near feature Avoid overlapping of scans
Feature scaling
areas. near features of interest.
Use of appropriate camera
Poor lighting conditions,
settings for each scan such as
presence of shadows, excessive
Poor textures exposure time, white balance,
winds, sensor dust and
image resolution, HDR
inappropriate camera settings.
imaging, ISO etc.
Use of external cameras to
Two or more scans with the
capture a panoramic view of
same spatial coordinates but
the entire scene. In case of
Misrepresentation of colours different RGB values
occlusion, use multiple angles
overlapped based on common
but avoid extensive
features/points.
overlapping.

Use multiple scan stations to

cover the area. In case of site
Occlusion or dark patches in Another object obstructs the
restriction, proper placement of
scan targeted object.
the station can minimize
occlusion.

Use of high-intensity laser

Presence of surface moisture
Reflectivity index error on beam in compliance with
and roughness, low-intensity
shiny surfaces health and safety standard, take
laser beam.
multiple readings.
696

697

698

699

700

701

702
703

704 Fig. 1. Working Principle of Virtual Reality Systems

705

706 Fig. 2. Working principle of the Lidar.

707

708
709 Fig.3. Map and photograph of the Mancunian Way. The white marker on the map indicates the section studies.
710

711 Fig. 4. Stations and targets locations on the bridge

712

713 Fig. 5. Scanner and photographic view of the point cloud

714

715 Fig. 6. Station 4 before and after noise removal. The figure shows: a) 3D intensity view with noise; b) top

716 intensity view with noise; c) side intensity view with noise; d) real world 3D view after noise removal; e) real

717 world top view after noise removal; f) real world side view after noise removal

718

719 Fig. 7. Part 1 of Inspection Pro-Forma, general information

720

721 Fig. 8. Photographic evidence captured during CT inspection. Features shown are: a) longitudinal crack on the

722 girder; b) transverse cracks ; c) spalling of steel reinforcement susceptible to corrosion attack; d) minor thermal

723 cracking throughout the deck; e) cracks at the mid spans; f) diagonal and transverse crack near the support; g)

724 diagonal cracks on the girder; h) previous repair marks

725

726

727 Fig. 9. Stereoscopic view of the bridge in the VR

728
729 Fig. 10. Inspection of deck slab in the VR mode. Highlight section shows the presence of moisture

730

731 Fig. 11. Digital inspection of girders. The features shown are: a) thermal cracks near support; b) transverse

732 cracks at the mid span; c) diagonal cracks near the support; d) spalling of concrete and varying corrosion in

733 steel; e) concrete cover chipped off; f) minor thermal cracking along the girder
734

735 Fig. 12. Previous repair marks on the girder

736

737 Fig. 13. Inspection of piers in the VR. The features shown are: a) Spalling of concrete exposing steel

738 reinforcement; b) Varying level of corrosion on the exposed steel

739

740

741