Building Survey System for the Representation of the Load-Bearing Structure

Chapter

Abstract

This work deals with the different methods of building surveys. Special attention is paid to the record of building geometry. But methods of investigation of building materials are also considered. First, the classic approach to surveying buildings is presented to the readers. Proven measurement techniques are explained on the basis of sketches; the instruments used in this case are presented with color images. In the later chapters of this work, the reader is introduced to modern building survey systems. The use of a standard computer allows numerical evaluations of photos and makes the interpolation between two points in space measured in situ possible in the office. The monitoring of onsite measurements and the (also associated) reduced personnel costs by using site-ruggedized laptops are also discussed. But especially, the mystical world of photogrammetry is entered. The mathematical background is explained for the most part and software developed at IMB shows how to master façade evaluations using a photo and everyday programming means (the source code is located in Appendix C). Investigation processes of building materials and the fledgling recording system “laser pantograph” complete the circle of modern building acquisition systems. The use of computers causes in every area of daily life an automatic increase in information density. This fact is taken into account by modeling considerations in the last section.

Keywords

Building survey Semantic enrichment CAD programming 

References

  1. Amoroso N, Hudson-Smith A, Phillips M, Speed C, Willis K (2013) Concept for workshop: patch-scape – pads, pods, phones and spatial data. In: Buhmann E, Ervin SM, Pietsch M (eds) Peer reviewed proceedings of digital landscape architecture 2013 at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences. Wichmann, Berlin, pp 330–341Google Scholar
  2. Apollonio FI, Corsi C, Gaiani M, Baldissini S (2010) An integrated 3D geodatabase for Palladio’s work. Int J Archit Comput 8(2):111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borzi B, Crowley H, Pinho R (2008) Simplified pushover-based earthquake loss assessment 10 (SP-BELA) method for masonry buildings. Int J Archit Herit 2:353–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bostenaru Dan M (2004) Multi-criteria decision model for retrofitting existing buildings. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:485–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bostenaru Dan M (2011) The use of ontology for digital conservation of architecture works after catastrophes. J Appl Eng Sci 1:11–18Google Scholar
  6. Bostenaru Dan M (2012) Stereo 3d applications potential for heritage disaster management. In: Billen R, Caglioni M, Marina O, Rabino G, San Jose R (eds) 3D issues in urban and environmental systems. Societa’ Editrice Esculapio, Bologna, pp 43–50Google Scholar
  7. Bostenaru Dan M (2015) Limits and possibilities of computer support in priority setting for earthquake risk reduction. In: Bostenaru Dan M, Crăciun C (eds) Space and time visualization. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. Bostenaru Dan M, Aldea Mendes D, Panagopoulos T (2013) Assessing the costs of hazards mitigation in the urban structure. J Biourban III:51–68. http://journalofbiourbanism.org/2014/05/07/assessing-the-costs-of-hazardsmitigation-in-the-urban-structure/
  9. Bostenaru Dan M, Armaș I (2015) Hazard impact on settlements: the role of urban and structural morphology. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss 3:3287–3321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bostenaru Dan M, Dill A (2014) Spatial street network and urban routes around the modernist boulevard in Bucharest. In: Crăciun C, Bostenaru Dan M (eds) Planning and designing sustainable and resilient landscapes, 5th edn. Springer, Netherlands, pp 187–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bostenaru Dan M, Dill A (2015) Digital art conservation – the book and an itinerant exhibition resulting from a European project. In: Bostenaru Dan M, Crăciun C (eds) Space and time visualization. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  12. Bostenaru Dan M, Mendes D (2014) Economics of the earthquake risk mitigation in the urban and constructive structure. Argument 6:411–432Google Scholar
  13. Bostenaru Dan M, Panagopoulos T (2014) Digital representation of the impact of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, Editura Universitara “Ion Mincu”, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  14. Cignoni P, Scopigno R (2008) Sampled 3D models for CH applications: a viable and enabling new medium or just a technological exercise? J Comput Cultural Herit (JOCCH) JOCCH Homepage archive vol. 1 Issue 1, June 2008 Article No. 2Google Scholar
  15. FEMA (2015) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook. 3rd edn, FEMA P-154. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1426210695633-d9a280e72b32872161efab26a602283b/FEMAP-154_508.pdf
  16. Glaister S, Pinho R (2003) Period-height relationship for existing european reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthq Eng 7:107–140Google Scholar
  17. Heath K, Gelfand N, Ovsjanikov M, Aanjaneya M, Guibas LJ (2010) ImageWebs: computing and exploiting connectivity in image collections CVPR, 2010, 2010 I.E. conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 2010 I.E. conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR) 2010, pp 3432–3439, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2010.5539991
  18. Kolbe T (2008) Representing and exchanging 3D city models with CityGML. In: Lee J, Zlatanova S (eds) 3D Geo-information sciences. LNG&C. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–31Google Scholar
  19. Lagomarsino S (1998) A new methodology for the post-earthquake investigation of ancient churches, 11th European conference on earthquake engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, 6–11 Sept 1998, pp 67–78Google Scholar
  20. Lee JH, Chiu HC, Koshak N (2005) Visualization system of spatial-temporal information for historic sites based on GIS proceedings of computers in urban planning and urban management (CUPUM’05) Conference June 29–July 1, 2005, London, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  21. Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Nancu A, Barcan N (eds) (2010) Restaurarea și strămutarea bisericii de lemn Sfântul Nicolae din Pietrari-Anghelești, IANUS XIV/2010. Fundația H.A.R, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  23. Rothganger F, Lazebnik S, Schmid C, Ponce J (2006) 3D object modeling and recognition from photographs and image sequences. In: Ponce J, Hebert M, Schmid C, Zisserman A (eds) Toward category-level object recognition. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4170, pp 105–126Google Scholar
  24. Schweier C, Markus M (2006) Classification of collapsed buildings for fast damage and loss 5 assessment. B Earthq Eng 4:177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schweier C, Markus M, Steinle E (2004) Simulation of earthquake caused building damages for the development of fast reconnaissance techniques. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Snavely N, Seitz SM, Szeliski R (2006) Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3D ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) – proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 25(3):835–846Google Scholar
  27. Snavely N, Garg Steven R, Seitz M, Szeliski R (2008) Finding paths through the world’s photos ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) – proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2008 27(3), Article No. 15Google Scholar
  28. Tuite K, Snavely N, Hsiao D-Y, Tabing N, Popovi’c Z (2011) PhotoCity: training experts at large-scale image acquisition through a competitive game CHI ’11 proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. pp 1383–1392Google Scholar
  29. Younes L, Romaniuk B, Bittar E (2014) Incremental plane-based reconstruction and exploration of buildings in old postcards. In: Tourre V, Besuievsky G (eds) Eurographics workshop on urban data modelling and visualisationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Karlsruhe, Germanynow AthensGreece
  2. 2.“Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urban PlanningBucharestRomania
  3. 3.University of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations