| Literature DB >> 28891985 |
Hyungchul Yoon1, Vedhus Hoskere2, Jong-Woong Park3, Billie F Spencer4.
Abstract
Computer vision techniques have been employed to characterize dynamic properties of structures, as well as to capture structural motion for system identification purposes. All of these methods leverage image-processing techniques using a stationary camera. This requirement makes finding an effective location for camera installation difficult, because civil infrastructure (i.e., bridges, buildings, etc.) are often difficult to access, being constructed over rivers, roads, or other obstacles. This paper seeks to use video from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to address this problem. As opposed to the traditional way of using stationary cameras, the use of UAVs brings the issue of the camera itself moving; thus, the displacements of the structure obtained by processing UAV video are relative to the UAV camera. Some efforts have been reported to compensate for the camera motion, but they require certain assumptions that may be difficult to satisfy. This paper proposes a new method for structural system identification using the UAV video directly. Several challenges are addressed, including: (1) estimation of an appropriate scale factor; and (2) compensation for the rolling shutter effect. Experimental validation is carried out to validate the proposed approach. The experimental results demonstrate the efficacy and significant potential of the proposed approach.Entities:
Keywords: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; computer vision; structural health monitoring; system identification
Year: 2017 PMID: 28891985 PMCID: PMC5621165 DOI: 10.3390/s17092075
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Overview of system identification using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Figure 2Motion of the UAV with respect to a target structure.
Figure 3Readout time and exposure time in rolling shutter in single image frame.
Figure 4Flowchart for natural excitation technique (NExT)/eigensystem realization algorithm (ERA).
Figure 5Experimental setup.
Figure 6Change in the scale factor over time.
Figure 7Comparison of absolute displacements and relative displacements.
Figure 8Comparison of cross power spectral density (CPSD) from the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and references.
Comparison of system identification results.
| Natural Frequencies (Hz) | MAC (%) | Error (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mode | Accelerometers (Reference) | Stationary Camera | UAV | Stationary Camera | UAV | Stationary Camera | UAV |
| 1 | 1.632 | 1.649 | 1.649 | 99.99 | 99.99 | 1.04 | 1.04 |
| 2 | 5.054 | 5.060 | 5.043 | 99.99 | 99.86 | 0.12 | 0.22 |
| 3 | 8.175 | 8.166 | 8.170 | 99.99 | 99.67 | 0.11 | 0.06 |
Figure 9Comparison of mode shapes.