| Literature DB >> 35632197 |
Yizhou Zhuang1, Weimin Chen1, Tao Jin2,3, Bin Chen2,4, He Zhang2,3, Wen Zhang1.
Abstract
Computer vision-based structural deformation monitoring techniques were studied in a large number of applications in the field of structural health monitoring (SHM). Numerous laboratory tests and short-term field applications contributed to the formation of the basic framework of computer vision deformation monitoring systems towards developing long-term stable monitoring in field environments. The major contribution of this paper was to analyze the influence mechanism of the measuring accuracy of computer vision deformation monitoring systems from two perspectives, the physical impact, and target tracking algorithm impact, and provide the existing solutions. Physical impact included the hardware impact and the environmental impact, while the target tracking algorithm impact included image preprocessing, measurement efficiency and accuracy. The applicability and limitations of computer vision monitoring algorithms were summarized.Entities:
Keywords: computer vision; environmental impact; field environment; structural deformation monitoring; target tracking algorithm impact
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35632197 PMCID: PMC9144850 DOI: 10.3390/s22103789
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Process of deformation monitoring based on computer vision.
Figure 2(a) Relationship among the camera coordinate system, the image coordinate system, and the world coordinate system; and (b) Relationship between the pixel coordinate system and the image coordinate system.
Figure 3Scaling factor calibration method. (a) Camera optical axis orthogonal to measured object surface; (b) Camera optical axis intersecting obliquely with measured object surface.
Figure 4Principle of optical refraction error.
Figure 5Analysis of error due to camera motion: (a) camera translation; and (b) camera rotation.
Characteristics, limitations and application scenarios of the proposed tracking algorithms.
| Algorithms | Characteristics and Restraints | Application Scenarios |
|---|---|---|
| Shape matching | High efficiency, real-time monitoring, robust properties to non-uniform illumination and partial edge blur, distinct geometry features; | Cable structure, tower, long-span bridge, stadium |
| Feature point matching | High efficiency, high accuracy, robust to illumination change, distinct geometry features; | Stadium structure, footbridge, railway bridge, urban bridge |
| Optical flow algorithm | Full field displacement, natural target, suitable for motion tracking; | Stadium structure, footbridge, railway bridge, urban bridge |
| DIC template matching | Long-distance and short-distance monitoring; | Cable structure, long-span bridge, stadium structure, footbridge, railway bridge, urban bridge, tower |
Measurement results.
| Research Point | Reference | Algorithms | Test Description | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Ehrhart et al. | Shape matching | Shaking table test, least squares fit of ellipse, precision quantitative evaluation of accuracy | At the distance of 6 m and 31 m, the error is less than 0.01 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively |
| Tian et al. | DIC template matching | Field test, DIC technology based on IC-GN, displacement~time history curve | At the distance of 300 m, the average error is 0.5674 mm | |
| Feng et al. | Template matching | Railway bridge test, modal identification, modify finite element model | At the distance of 9 m, the vision sensor and the accelerometer measure the exact same first-order frequency | |
| Khuc et al. | Feature point matching (natural target) | Stadium grandstand structure test, feature extraction with Hessian matrix, dynamic displacement measurement | At the distance of 3 m and 13 m, the error is less than 0.01 mm and 0.04 mm, respectively | |
| Khuc et al. | Feature point matching (natural target) | Tower test, Canny edge detection and Hough transform, modal identification | At the distance of 1.84 m, first-order natural frequency error below 2% | |
| Camera motion and optical refraction | Garg et al. | Digital high-pass filtering | Shaking table test, dynamic displacement measurement | At the distance of 4 m, the maximum error is between 10~15%, and the RMS error is between 2~5% |
| Ye et al. | Background modification | Long-term field monitoring, 3D structural deformation measurement | Eliminate the error caused by thermal expansion and cold contraction of camera bracket | |
| Lee et al. | Ego-motion compensation | Long-term field monitoring, displacement measurement | Measurement error is reduced from 44.1 mm to 1.1 mm | |
| Ribeiro et al. | Inertial measuring unit | Experiment test, modal identification, dynamic displacement measurement | The maximum error of displacement measurement is 1.47 mm and RMS error is 9.3% | |
| Luo et al. | Adaptive optical-turbulence error filter | Field test, displacement~time history curve | Measurement errors are significantly reduced by about 67.5% from 0.0845 to 0.0275 mm | |
| Illumination change and partial occlusion | Ribeiro et al. | Artificial light source | Field test, using artificial light source, displacement ~ time history curve | At the distance of 15 m and 25 m, the error is less than 0.1 mm and 0.25 mm, respectively |
| Feng et al. | A matching algorithm based on the gradient information | Field test, a matching algorithm based on the gradient information, dynamic response of steel and concrete bridges under train load | At the distance of 30.48 m, the maximum displacement error is 2.83%, and the average error is 1.39% | |
| Shan et al. | Shape matching | Cable force measurement, shape matching, cable modal identification | The first three frequencies of free vibration of stayed-cable model are accurately measured | |
| Dong et al. | A matching method based on Spatio-Temporal Context Learning | Experiment test, a matching method based on Spatio-Temporal Context Learning, illumination change and fog interference, displacement~time history curve | The proposed subpixel estimation method is faster than UCC by about 50 times | |
| Xu et al. | Combined with deep learning | Field test, displacement~time history curve | Centimeter-level accuracy can be achieved at distances of more than 715 m | |
| Image preprocessing | Kim et al. | Image transform technology | Ambient vibration tests, suspension bridge hanger cables, dynamic response and modal frequencies | The error of measuring sling modal frequency and cable force is within 0.5% |
| Kim et al. | Image enhancement techniques | Ambient vibration tests, smoothing filter and sharpening filter, stay cables, dynamic response | The error of measuring suspension bridge hanger cables natural frequency and cable force is within 2% | |
| Tian et al. | Image description and segmentation technology | Impact test, Hough transform based on gradient, modal parameters identification | The recognition rate of vibration mode is more than 84% | |
| Measurement efficiency and accuracy | Qu et al. | Edge detection method using Sobel-Zernike moments operator | numerical tests | The accuracy reaches 87.75% of the sub-pixel level, and the speed is increased by 5 times |
| Pan et al. | DIC template matching based on Newton-Raphson algorithm | Experimental verification, full filed deformation measurement | Without any loss of measurement accuracy, the calculation speed is increased by 120~200 times | |
| Pan et al. | DIC template matching based on IC-GN | Numerical tests and experimental verification | The proposed IC-GN is 3~5 times faster than Newton-Raphson | |
| Zhang et al. | Integrate two efficient subpixel level motion extraction algorithms | Experimental verification, Taylor approximation refinement algorithm and the localization refinement algorithm, dynamic vibration analysis | In the case of similar accuracy, it is at least 5 times faster than the traditional UCC method (RMS error 0.75%) | |
| Xu et al. | Fuse the vision-based displacement measurement with acceleration data | Field test, short-span railway bridge, displacement ~ time history curve | The RMS of measurement noise at the camera-to-target distance of 6.9 m is less than 0.2 mm |