Advertisement

Applied Geomatics

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 123–138 | Cite as

Structural monitoring for the rail industry using conventional survey, laser scanning and photogrammetry

  • Anita Soni
  • Stuart Robson
  • Barry Gleeson
Original Paper

Abstract

Monitoring the movement of structures on railway projects in the UK typically involves the fixing of targets (e.g. prisms) or sensors onto the structures being monitored and their surroundings. Whilst this provides discrete point measurement capability across the structure, it is highly intrusive and expensive to setup in a railway environment. Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) has become an invaluable method of data capture within the surveying industry including applications such as deformation monitoring. The main advantages of TLS, as opposed to other surveying techniques, are the ability to capture large volumes of 3D data at high speed, remotely and with a reasonably high accuracy. A complimentary technique, close-range photogrammetry (CRP), has been traditionally applied to structural monitoring, but is not routinely considered by the railway monitoring community. This technique has the advantage of rapid data capture from a mobile camera with the capability to monitor single points or to generate a point cloud, with an equipment cost approximately twenty times cheaper than a TLS system and at about one tenth the cost of a single instrument total station approach. This paper describes the application of TLS and CRP, along with conventional survey techniques, to the monitoring of a set of masonry arches during a major station refurbishment. Firstly, it investigates the capabilities of using TLS compared to traditional survey methods and encompasses a case where significant movements occur over an extended period of time. Inter-epoch comparison demonstrates a capability to detect change but highlights a requirement to understand the structure and data quality in making valid interpretations. Secondly, the paper compares TLS and CRP techniques as monitoring tools for creating point cloud data on the same set of masonry arches. These investigations generate significant volumes of data conferring the additional challenge of how to visualise observed changes and communicate those changes and their significance to the engineers who must make informed decisions from the data in a timely fashion.

Keywords

Terrestrial laser scanning Close-range photogrammetry Deformation monitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is based on a collaborative project funded by the EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) and Network Rail through the Virtual Environments Imaging & Visualisation (VEIV) Engineering Doctorate Centre at University College London. The authors would like to thank the survey team at Costain working on the London Bridge Redevelopment Project, in particular Dean Bain and Rob Williams, who organised access to the site and equipment as well as providing continuous support towards the study.

References

  1. Abellán A, Jaboyedoff M et al (2009) Detection of millimetric deformation using a terrestrial laser scanner: experiment and application to a rockfall event. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(2):365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abellán A, Vilaplana J et al (2011) Rockfall monitoring by terrestrial laser scanning–case study of the basaltic rock face at castellfollit de la Roca (Catalonia, Spain). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11(3):829–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alba M. and Scaioni M (2010) Automatic detection of changes and deformation in rock faces by terrestrial laser scanning. Proceedings of the ISPRS Commission V Mid-Term Symposium ‘Close Range Image Measurement TechniquesGoogle Scholar
  4. Alba, M., L. Fregonese, et al. (2006). Structural monitoring of a large dam by terrestrial laser scanning. Proceedings of of the ISPRS Commission V Symposium, Dresden.Google Scholar
  5. Allan AL (2007) Principles of geospatial surveying, Whittles PubGoogle Scholar
  6. Baltsavias EP (1991) Multiphoto geometrically constrained matching, ETH Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14(2):239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chow J, Lichti D et al (2012) "Accuracy assessment of the faro focus3D and leica HDS6100 panoramic type terrestrial laser scanner through point-based and plane-based user self-calibration." Proceedings of the FIG Working Week: Knowing to Manage the Territory, Protect the Environment, Evaluate the Cultural Heritage, Rome, Italy: 6-10Google Scholar
  9. Erdélyi J, Kopáčik A, Ilkovičová Ľ, Lipták I and Kajánek P (2014) Deformation Monitoring of a Parabolic Roof Structure using TLS. INGEO 2014 - 6th International Conference on Engineering Surveying. Prague, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
  10. FARO (2013) "FARO Focus3D: Features, Benefits & Technical Specifications." Retrieved 13 January 2014, from http://www.faro.com/products/3d-surveying/laserscanner-faro-focus-3d/overviewGoogle Scholar
  11. FARO (2014) "Faro Laser Scanners X Series." Retrieved 15 September, 2014, from http://www.faro.com/en-us/products/3d-surveying/faro-focus3d/overview
  12. Fryer J, Parberry R et al (1992) Analysis of as-built cylindrical shapes. Aust J Geodesy, Photogramm Surv 56:91–109Google Scholar
  13. Gordon SJ, Lichti D et al (2005) Structural deformation measurement using terrestrial laser scanners, Curtin University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  14. Granshaw S (1980) Bundle adjustment methods in engineering photogrammetry. Photogramm Rec 10(56):181–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. James M, and Robson S (2012) "Straightforward reconstruction of 3D surfaces and topography with a camera: accuracy and geoscience application." Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface (2003–2012) 117(F3)Google Scholar
  16. Jiang R, Jáuregui DV et al (2008) Close-range photogrammetry applications in bridge measurement: literature review. Measurement 41(8):823–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kang Z, Tuo L et al (2012) Continuously deformation monitoring of subway tunnel based on terrestrial point clouds. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 39:199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kopáčik A, Erdélyi J, Lipták I, and Kyrinovič P (2013) Deformation of Bridge Structures using TLS. 2nd Joint International Syposium in Deformation Monitoring, Univeristy of NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  19. Laefer DF, Truong-Hong L et al (2014) Crack detection limits in unit based masonry with terrestrial laser scanning. NDT E Int 62:66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leica Geosystems A (2010) "Leica Viva TS15." Data sheet, HerbruggGoogle Scholar
  21. Lerma García JL, Van Genechten B.et al (2008) 3D Risk Mapping. Theory and Practice on Terrestrial Laser Scanning. Training Material Based on Practical Applications, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, ValenciaGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindenbergh R, Pfeifer N (2005) "A statistical deformation analysis of two epochs of terrestrial laser data of a lock." Proc. of Optical 3D. Meas Tech 2:61–70Google Scholar
  23. Luhmann T, Robson S. et al (2013) Close-range Photogrammetry and 3D Imaging, De GruyterGoogle Scholar
  24. Monserrat O, Crosetto M (2008) Deformation measurement using terrestrial laser scanning data and least squares 3D surface matching. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 63(1):142–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nuttens T, De Wulf A et al (2010) High Resolution Terrestrial Laser Scanning for Tunnel Deformation Measurements. FIG Congress 2010: Facing the Challenges - Building the Capacity, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  26. Nuttens T, De Wulf A et al (2012) Application of laser scanning for deformation measurements: a comparison between different types of scanning instruments. Proceedings of the FIG Working WeekGoogle Scholar
  27. Nuttens T, Stal C et al (2014) Methodology for the ovalization monitoring of newly built circular train tunnels based on laser scanning: liefkenshoek rail link (Belgium). Autom Constr 43:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olsen MJ, Kuester F et al (2009) Terrestrial laser scanning-based structural damage assessment. J Comput Civ Eng 24(3):264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Park H, Lee H et al (2007) A new approach for health monitoring of structures: terrestrial laser scanning. Comput Aided Civ Infrastr Eng 22(1):19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Puente I, González-Jorge H et al (2012) Deformation monitoring of motorway underpasses using laser scanning data. ISPRS-Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 1:235–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reshetyuk Y (2010) Direct georeferencing with GPS in terrestrial laser scanning. Z f V-Z Geodäsie Geoinformation Landmanagement 135(3):151–159Google Scholar
  32. Riegl (2014) "Riegl Laser Measurement Systems." Retrieved 15th September, 2014, from http://www.riegl.com/nc/products/terrestrial-scanning/produktdetail/product/scanner/33/
  33. Riveiro B, Morer P et al (2011) Terrestrial laser scanning and limit analysis of masonry arch bridges. Constr Build Mater 25(4):1726–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Riveiro B, González-Jorge H et al (2013) Validation of terrestrial laser scanning and photogrammetry techniques for the measurement of vertical underclearance and beam geometry in structural inspection of bridges. Measurement 46(1):784–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider D (2006) Terrestrial laser scanning for area based deformation analysis of towers and water dams. Proc. of 3rd IAG/12th FIG Symp., Baden, Austria, MayGoogle Scholar
  36. Schuhmacher S, and Böhm J (2005) "Georeferencing of terrestrial laserscanner data for applications in architectural modeling"Google Scholar
  37. Uren J, Price WF (2010) Surveying for engineers. Macmillan, PalgraveGoogle Scholar
  38. Vezočnik R, Ambrožič T et al (2009) Use of terrestrial laser scanning technology for long term high precision deformation monitoring. Sensors 9(12):9873–9895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Werner T, and Morris D (2010) 3D Laser Scanning for Masonry Arch Bridges. FIG Congress 2010: Facing the Challenges - Building the Capacity, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  40. Westoby M, Brasington J et al (2012) ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: a low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179:300–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yoon J-S, Sagong M et al (2009) Feature extraction of a concrete tunnel liner from 3D laser scanning data. NDT E Int 42(2):97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Fotogrammetria e Topografia (SIFET) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatic EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Network RailLondonUK

Personalised recommendations