Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Defect-oriented supportive bridge inspection system featuring building information modeling and augmented reality

  • Technical paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bridges are indispensable links of transportation infrastructure systems, and inspections play a critical role in maintaining bridge components in the state of good repair. Through a survey of bridge inspectors, the authors revealed that visual inspection techniques are the prominent inspection method but result in inaccuracy and ambiguity due to high variances among inspection results; modern inspections using drones and robots could improve efficiency but pose new challenges and do not reduce subjectivity. As a result, a novel, building information modeling- and augmented reality-based supportive inspection system (BASIS) that objectively captures bridge defects is proposed and validated. On-site inspectors can access the bridge model containing historical defect information (defect type, length/width/depth, and location) and overlay relevant content on the actual infrastructure through BASIS for inspection data collection with more accuracy and less ambiguity. A proof-of-concept prototype of the BASIS for bridges was developed as an android application and verified by bridge inspectors for effectiveness on a small pedestrian bridge. It was found that BASIS was able to collect accurate inspection data irrespective of the level of experience of the user, thusly minimizing the data subjectivity caused by differences among inspectors’ judgment and/or human errors. This research explores the utilization of emerging tools to collect bridge condition information in a more comprehensive and objective manner. Collected information can be further integrated it into a digital model that reflects the bridge’s most accurate and up-to-date condition, heading toward a digital twin of the physical infrastructure. The proposed system may also be adapted for other types of infrastructure (e.g., dams, levees, and railroads) that also require routine inspections.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Phares BM, Washer GA, Rolander DD, Graybeal BA, Moore M (2004) Routine highway bridge inspection condition documentation accuracy and reliability. J Bridg Eng 9(4):403–413. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1084-0702(2004)9:4(403)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agnisarman S, Lopes S, Chalil Madathil K, Piratla K, Gramopadhye A (2019) A survey of automation-enabled human-in-the-loop systems for infrastructure visual inspection. Autom Constr 97:52–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.10.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sutter B, Lelevé A, Pham MT, Gouin O, Jupille N, Kuhn M, Lulé P, Michaud P, Rémy P (2018) A semi-autonomous mobile robot for bridge inspection. Autom Constr 91:111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dorafshan S, Maguire M (2018) Bridge inspection: human performance, unmanned aerial systems and automation. J Civ Struct Heal Monit 8(3):443–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-018-0285-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McGuire B, Atadero R, Clevenger C, Ozbek M (2016) Bridge information modeling for inspection and evaluation. J Bridg Eng 21(4):04015076. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Estes AC, Frangopol DM (2003) Updating bridge reliability based on bridge management systems visual inspection results. J Bridg Eng 8(6):374–382. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1084-0702(2003)8:6(374)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. BIRM: Bridge inspector's reference manual. U.S. Federal Highway Administration; National Highway Institute; [Available through the National Technical Information Service]. Ryan Hartle Raymond A. United States. Federal Highway Administration. National Highway Institute (U.S.) Michael Baker Jr. Inc., T. W. (2012)

  8. Rens KL, Wipf TJ, Klaiber FW (1997) Review of non-destructive evaluation techniques of civil infrastructure. J Perform Constr Facil 11(4):152–160. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0887-3828(1997)11:4(152)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee S, Kalos N, Shin DH (2014) Non-destructive testing methods in the U.S. for bridge inspection and maintenance. KSCE J Civ Eng 18(5):1322–1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-0633-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vaghefi K, Oats RC, Harris DK, Ahlborn T, Brooks CN, Endsley KA, Roussi C, Shuchman R, Burns JW, Dobson R (2012) Evaluation of commercially available remote sensors for highway bridge condition assessment. J Bridg Eng 17(6):886–895. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Khaloo A, Lattanzi D, Cunningham K, Dell’Andrea R, Riley M (2017) Unmanned aerial vehicle inspection of the placer river trail bridge through image-based 3D modelling. Struct Infrastruct Eng 14(1):124–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2017.1330891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. ASTM D4788-–03(2013) (2013) Standard test method for detecting delaminations in bridge decks using infrared thermography. https://doi.org/10.1520/D4788-03R13

  13. Whitehead K, Hugenholtz CH (2014) Remote sensing of the environment with small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), Part 1: a review of progress and challenges. J Unmanned Vehicle Syst 02(03):69–85. https://doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2014-0006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Colomina I, Molina P (2014) Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and remote sensing: a review. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 92:79–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pajares G (2015) Overview and current status of remote sensing applications based on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81(4):281–330. https://doi.org/10.14358/pers.81.4.281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Roldán J, Joossen G, Sanz D, Del Cerro J, Barrientos A (2015) Mini-UAV based sensory system for measuring environmental variables in greenhouses. Sensors 15(2):3334–3350. https://doi.org/10.3390/s150203334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gucunski N, Kee S, La H, Basily B, Maher A (2015) Delamination and concrete quality assessment of concrete bridge decks using a fully autonomous RABIT platform. Struct Monit Mainten 2(1):19–34. https://doi.org/10.12989/smm.2015.2.1.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lim RS, La HM, Sheng W (2014) A robotic crack inspection and mapping system for bridge deck maintenance. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 11(2):367–378. https://doi.org/10.1109/tase.2013.2294687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mazumdar A, Asada HH (2010) An Underactuated, magnetic-foot robot for steel bridge inspection. J Mech Robot. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cho KH, Kim HM, Jin YH, Liu F, Moon H, Koo JC, Choi HR (2013) Inspection robot for Hanger cable of suspension bridge: mechanism design and analysis. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 18(6):1665–1674. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmech.2013.2280653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Takada Y, Ito S, Imajo N (2017) Development of a bridge inspection robot capable of traveling on splicing parts. Inventions 2(3):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/inventions2030022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nguyen ST, Pham AQ, Motley C, La HM (2020) A practical climbing robot for steel bridge inspection. In: 2020 IEEE International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). https://doi.org/10.1109/icra40945.2020.9196892

  23. Protopapadakis E, Voulodimos A, Doulamis A, Doulamis N, Stathaki T (2019) Automatic crack detection for tunnel inspection using deep learning and heuristic image post-processing. Appl Intell 49(7):2793–2806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-018-01396-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Clarke-Sather AR, McConnell JR, Masoud E (2021) Application of lean engineering to bridge inspection. J Bridg Eng 26(2):04020120. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0001657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nakagawa M, Yamamoto T, Tanaka S, Noda Y, Hashimoto K, Ito M, Miyo M (2015) Location-based infrastructure inspection for Sabo facilities. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci XL-3/W3(3):257–262. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-xl-3-w3-257-2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen Z, Chen J, Shen F, Lee Y (2015) Collaborative mobile-cloud computing for civil infrastructure condition inspection. J Comput Civ Eng 29(5):04014066. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Xu Y, Turkan Y (2019) Br IM and UAS for bridge inspections and management. Eng Constr Archit Manag 27(3):785–807. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-12-2018-0556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation). (2017). routine inspection highway number (ON) 5D: 00000 V. Retrieved from https://www.montrosecounty.net/DocumentCenter/View/12426/2017-Bridge-071-CDOT-inspection-101117?bidId

  29. Fathi H, Dai F, Lourakis M (2015) Automated as-built 3D reconstruction of civil infrastructure using computer vision: achievements, opportunities, and challenges. Adv Eng Inform 29(2):149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zaher M, Greenwood D, Marzouk M (2018) Mobile augmented reality applications for construction projects. Constr Innov 18(2):152–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-02-2017-0013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Golparvar-Fard M, Bohn J, Teizer J, Savarese S, Peña-Mora F (2011) Evaluation of image-based modeling and laser scanning accuracy for emerging automated performance monitoring techniques. Autom Constr 20(8):1143–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.04.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shirolé AM (2010) Bridge management to the year 2020 and beyond. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 2202(1):159–164. https://doi.org/10.3141/2202-19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tsai Y, Hsieh S, Kang S (2014) A BIM-enabled approach for construction inspection. Comput Civ Build Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413616.090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sacks R, Kedar A, Borrmann A, Ma L, Brilakis I, Hüthwohl P, Daum S, Kattel U, Yosef R, Liebich T, Barutcu BE, Muhic S (2018) SeeBridge as next generation bridge inspection: overview, information delivery manual and model view definition. Autom Constr 90:134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.02.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yan W (2015) Parametric BIM SIM: Integrating parametric modeling, BIM, and simulation for architectural design. Build Inf Model. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119174752.ch5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Alizadehsalehi S, Hadavi A, Huang JC (2020) From BIM to extended reality in AEC industry. Autom Constr 116:103254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Du J, Zou Z, Shi Y, Zhao D (2018) Zero latency: real-time synchronization of BIM data in virtual reality for collaborative decision-making. Autom Constr 85:51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shin DH, Dunston PS (2008) Identification of application areas for augmented reality in industrial construction based on technology suitability. Autom Constr 17(7):882–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.02.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Chu M, Matthews J, Love PE (2018) Integrating mobile building information modelling and augmented reality systems: an experimental study. Autom Constr 85:305–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhou Y, Luo H, Yang Y (2017) Implementation of augmented reality for segment displacement inspection during tunneling construction. Autom Constr 82:112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Golparvar-Fard M, Savarese S, Peña-Mora F (2009) Interactive visual construction progress monitoring with D4AR: 4D augmented reality—Models. Constr Res Congress. https://doi.org/10.1061/41020(339)5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang X, Love PE, Kim MJ, Park C, Sing C, Hou L (2013) A conceptual framework for integrating building information modeling with augmented reality. Autom Constr 34:37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Koch C, Neges M, König M, Abramovici M (2014) Natural markers for augmented reality-based indoor navigation and facility maintenance. Autom Constr 48:18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Salamak M, Januszka M (2018) Br IM bridge inspections in the context of industry 40 trends. In: Januszka M (ed) Maintenance, safety, risk, management and life-cycle performance of bridges. CRC Press, pp 2260–2267. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315189390-307

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Dang N, Shim C (2019) BIM-based innovative bridge maintenance system using augmented reality technology. Lect Notes Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0802-8_195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Napolitano R, Liu Z, Sun C, Glisic B (2019) Combination of image-based documentation and augmented reality for structural health monitoring and building pathology. Front Built Environ. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Karaaslan E, Bagci U, Catbas FN (2019) Artificial intelligence assisted infrastructure assessment using mixed reality systems. Transp Res Record J Transp Res Board 2673(12):413–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119839988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hammad A, Garrett JH Jr, Karimi HA (2002) Potential of mobile augmented reality for infrastructure Field tasks. Appl Adv Technol Transp. https://doi.org/10.1061/40632(245)54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Banfi F, Brumana R, Stanga C (2019) Extended reality and informative models for the architectural heritage: from scan-to-BIM process to virtual and augmented reality. Virtual Archaeol Rev 10(21):14. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2019.11923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Fathalla E, Tanaka Y, Maekawa K (2018) Remaining fatigue life assessment of in-service road bridge decks based upon artificial neural networks. Eng Struct 171:602–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ramprasad G, Ramakrishna S (2020) Residual life estimation of healthy and cracked composite beam using experimental and numerical modal analysis methods. J Mech Energy Eng 4(2):127–134. https://doi.org/10.30464/jmee.2020.4.2.127

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    Immanuel John Samuel & Ossama Salem

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wenzhou University, Zhejiang, 325035, China

    Song He

Authors
  1. Immanuel John Samuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ossama Salem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Song He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Song He.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1: Survey questions

The following questions are distributed online:

  1. 1.

    How long have you been in the profession of inspecting/managing bridges?

  2. 2.

    How difficult it is to record defect information (such as crack width, spall area, level of rust) and its location in traditional bridge inspection? (10 being extremely difficult)

  3. 3.

    How difficult it is to locate the defects recorded from the previous inspection on-site for further evaluation? (10 being extremely difficult)

  4. 4.

    Modern inspection techniques (such as drones, robotic vehicles) help to collect accurate data about defects and its location.

  5. 5.

    How difficult it is to operate the modern equipment (drones and robots) and/or to process the data collected? (10 being extremely difficult)

  6. 6.

    Which of the following issue(s) needs to be addressed for the adoption of modern inspection methods (such as drones and robotic vehicles) at a larger scale?

    1. i.

      Need of training/skilled personnel to operate these equipment

    2. ii.

      Greatly affected by environment condition (such as wind and rain)

    3. iii.

      Skeptical about the accuracy and data quality

    4. iv.

      Difficulty in managing huge volume of data over time

    5. v.

      Communication/coordination issue with post processing crew

  7. 7.

    Agree or disagree: finally, irrespective of the inspection method (traditional or modern), the condition rating is decided by the inspector.

Appendix 2: Survey responses

See Tables

Table 1 Responses claiming modern techniques improves accuracy
Full size table

1 and

Table 2 Responses claiming modern techniques does NOT improve accuracy
Full size table

2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

John Samuel, I., Salem, O. & He, S. Defect-oriented supportive bridge inspection system featuring building information modeling and augmented reality. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 7, 247 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-022-00847-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-022-00847-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation