Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Laser-Based Structural Health Monitoring

  • Hoon SohnEmail author
  • Byeongjin Park
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_86


Damage detection; Laser Doppler vibrometer; Laser scanning; Laser thermography; Laser ultrasonics; Light detection and ranging; Nondestructive testing; Structural health monitoring


With an average occurrence rate of 20,000 events worldwide every year, earthquakes have produced innumerable fatalities and economic loss (Fig. 1). For example, the recent Haiti earthquake (2010) was responsible for at least 300,000 injuries, 316,000 deaths, and 300,000 destroyed houses. There is a high demand for rapid and real-time health evaluation of post-earthquake structures as it is critical to distinguish which structures are inhabitable and serviceable and which are damaged and unavailable anymore. However, current evaluation methods are labor intensive, time consuming, and not cost effective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. An YK, Song HM, Park HJ, Sohn H, Yun CB (2012) Remote guided wave imaging using wireless PZT excitation and laser vibrometer scanning for local bridge monitoring. In: Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Resilience and Sustainability: Proceedings of the Sixth International IABMAS Conference: 173, http://koasas.kaist.ac.kr/handle/10203/171481
  2. An YK, Park B, Sohn H (2015) Complete noncontact laser ultrasonic imaging for automated crack visualization in a plate. Smart Mater Struct 22(2):025022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castellini P, Maratarelli M, Tomasini EP (2006) Laser Doppler Vibrometry: development of advanced solutions answering to technology’s needs. Mech Syst Signal Process 20:1265―1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang PC, Flatau A, Liu SC (2003) Review paper: health monitoring of civil infrastructure. Struct Health Monit Int J 2(3):257―267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chatterjee K, Tuli S, Pickering SG, Almond DP (2011) A comparison of the pulsed, lock-in and frequency modulated thermography nondestructive evaluation techniques. NDT & E Int 44(7):655―667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark MR, McCann DM, Forde MC (2003) Application of infrared thermography to the non-destructive testing of concrete and masonry bridges. NDT&E International 36(4):265―275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Khan AZ, Stanbridge AB, Ewins DJ (2000) Detecting damage in vibrating structures with a scanning LDV. Opt Lasers Eng 32(6):583―592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim SB, Sohn H (2007) Instantaneous reference-free crack detection based on polarization characteristics of piezoelectric materials. Smart Mater Struct 16(6):2375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Li T, Almond DP, Rees DAS (2011) Crack imaging by scanning pulsed laser spot thermography. NDT & E Int 44(2):216―225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liu W, Chen S, Boyajian D, Hauser E (2010) Application of 3D LiDAR scan of bridge under static loading testing. Mater Eval 68(12):1359―1367Google Scholar
  11. Liu W, Chen S, Hauser E (2011) LiDAR-based bridge structure defect detection. Exp Tech 35(6):27―34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nassif HH, Gindy M, Davis J (2005) Comparison of laser Doppler vibrometer with contact sensors for monitoring bridge deflection and vibration. NDT & E Int 38(3):213―218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Olsen MJ, Kuester F, Chang BJ, Hutchinson TC (2010) Terrestrial laser scanning-based structural damage assessment. J Comput Civ Eng 24(3):264―272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Park HS, Lee HM, Adeli H, Lee I (2007) A new approach for health monitoring of structures: terrestrial laser scanning. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 22:19―30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Priestnall G, Jaafar J, Duncan A (2000) Extracting urban features from LiDAR digital surface models. Comput Environ Urban Syst 24(2):65―78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rehor M (2007) Classification of building damage based on laser scanning data. Photogramm J Finl 20(2):54―63Google Scholar
  17. Rehor M, Voegtle T (2008) Improvement of building damage detection and classification based on laser scanning data by integrating spectral information. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XXXVII(Part B7). Beijing, pp 1599―1606Google Scholar
  18. Schweier C, Markus M (2006) Classification of collapsed buildings for fast damage and loss assessment. Bull Earthq Eng 4(2):177―192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scruby CB, Drain LE (1990) Laser ultrasonics: techniques and applications. Adam Hilgher, NorfolkGoogle Scholar
  20. Shen Y, Lixin W, Zhi W (2010) Identification of inclined buildings from aerial LIDAR data for disaster management. In: Proceedings of 18th international conference on geoinformatics, pp 1―5, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5567852&tag=1
  21. Siringoringo DM, Fujino Y (2009) Noncontact operational modal analysis of structural members by laser Doppler vibrometer. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 24:249―265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vu TT, Matsuoka M, Yamazaki F (2004) LIDAR-based change detection of buildings in dense urban areas. In: Proceedings of IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium, vol 5, pp 3413―3416, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1370438
  23. Watson C, Chen S, Bian H, Hauser E (2012) Three-dimensional terrestrial LIDAR for operational bridge clearance measurements. J Perform Constr Facil 26(6):803―811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wehr A, Lohr U (1999) Airborne laser scanning-an introduction and overview. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 54:68―82CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)Yuseong-Gu, DaejeonRepublic of Korea