| Literature DB >> 31284647 |
Jongbin Won1, Jong-Woong Park2, Kyoohong Park1, Hyungchul Yoon3, Do-Soo Moon4.
Abstract
Displacement is crucial for structural health monitoring, although it is very challenging to measure under field conditions. Most existing displacement measurement methods are costly, labor-intensive, and insufficiently accurate for measuring small dynamic displacements. Computer vision (CV)-based methods incorporate optical devices with advanced image processing algorithms to accurately, cost-effectively, and remotely measure structural displacement with easy installation. However, non-target-based CV methods are still limited by insufficient feature points, incorrect feature point detection, occlusion, and drift induced by tracking error accumulation. This paper presents a reference frame-based Deepflow algorithm integrated with masking and signal filtering for non-target-based displacement measurements. The proposed method allows the user to select points of interest for images with a low gradient for displacement tracking and directly calculate displacement without drift accumulated by measurement error. The proposed method is experimentally validated on a cantilevered beam under ambient and occluded test conditions. The accuracy of the proposed method is compared with that of a reference laser displacement sensor for validation. The significant advantage of the proposed method is its flexibility in extracting structural displacement in any region on structures that do not have distinct natural features.Entities:
Keywords: computer vision; deepflow; non-target-based structural displacement; optical flow; structural displacement measurement
Year: 2019 PMID: 31284647 PMCID: PMC6651041 DOI: 10.3390/s19132992
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Flowchart of proposed method.
Figure 2POI selection using masking.
Figure 3Deepmatching flow diagram.
Figure 4Reference frame-based displacement measurement.
Figure 5Experimental setup.
Figure 6Feature detection in the cropped images: proposed mask (Left) and Harris corner (Right).
Figure 7Gradient magnitudes in the cropped image.
Figure 8Optical displacement comparison: (a) displacement sensor vs. the proposed method (b) displacement sensor vs. KLT (c) displacement error from (a), (b).
Comparison of System Identification Results.
| Method | Maximum Displacement (mm) | RMSE (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| Proposed method | 1.7909 | 0.0753 |
| KLT | 1.5017 | 0.2943 |
| Reference displacement sensor | 1.7986 | - |
Figure 9Frequency domain comparison using PSD.
Figure 10Comparison of optical displacement: (a) Proposed method (b) KLT.