Loading…
Comparison of Depth Camera and Terrestrial Laser Scanner in Monitoring Structural Deflections
Modeling a structure in the virtual world using three-dimensional (3D) information enhances our understanding, while also aiding in the visualization, of how a structure reacts to any disturbance. Generally, 3D point clouds are used for determining structural behavioral changes. Light detection and...
Saved in:
Published in: | Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Switzerland), 2020-12, Vol.21 (1), p.201 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Modeling a structure in the virtual world using three-dimensional (3D) information enhances our understanding, while also aiding in the visualization, of how a structure reacts to any disturbance. Generally, 3D point clouds are used for determining structural behavioral changes. Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) is one of the crucial ways by which a 3D point cloud dataset can be generated. Additionally, 3D cameras are commonly used to develop a point cloud containing many points on the external surface of an object around it. The main objective of this study was to compare the performance of optical sensors, namely a depth camera (DC) and terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) in estimating structural deflection. We also utilized bilateral filtering techniques, which are commonly used in image processing, on the point cloud data for enhancing their accuracy and increasing the application prospects of these sensors in structure health monitoring. The results from these sensors were validated by comparing them with the outputs from a linear variable differential transformer sensor, which was mounted on the beam during an indoor experiment. The results showed that the datasets obtained from both the sensors were acceptable for nominal deflections of 3 mm and above because the error range was less than ±10%. However, the result obtained from the TLS were better than those obtained from the DC. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1424-8220 1424-8220 |
DOI: | 10.3390/s21010201 |