Infrastructures: Vision-Based Vibration Monitoring of Structures and Infrastructures: An Overview of Recent Applications

infrastructures
Review
Vision-Based Vibration Monitoring of Structures and
Infrastructures: An Overview of Recent Applications
Alessandro Zona
School of Architecture and Design, University of Camerino, 63100 Ascoli Piceno, Italy; alessandro.zona@unicam.it
Abstract: Contactless structural monitoring has in recent years seen a growing number of appli-
cations in civil engineering. Indeed, the elimination of physical installations of sensors is very
attractive, especially for structures that might not be easily or safely accessible, yet requiring the
experimental evaluation of their conditions, for example following extreme events such as strong
earthquakes, explosions, and floods. Among contactless technologies, vision-based monitoring
is possibly the solution that has attracted most of the interest of civil engineers, given that the
advantages of contactless monitoring can be potentially obtained thorough simple and low-cost
consumer-grade instrumentations. The objective of this review article is to provide an introduc-
tory discussion of the latest applications of vision-based vibration monitoring of structures and
infrastructures through an overview of the results achieved in full-scale field tests, as documented
in the published technical literature. In this way, engineers new to vision-based monitoring and
stakeholders interested in the possibilities of contactless monitoring in civil engineering could have
an outline of up-to-date achievements to support a first evaluation of the feasibility and convenience
for future monitoring tasks.
Keywords: experimental modal analysis; operational modal analysis; structural monitoring; struc-
tural vibrations; vision-based monitoring

Citation: Zona, A. Vision-Based 1. Introduction

Vibration Monitoring of Structures
The experimental method, whose founder is considered to be Galileo Galilei (1564–1642),
and Infrastructures: An Overview of
is the basis of all applied sciences and engineering. Its fundamental principle is that science
Recent Applications. Infrastructures
is based on experience, the starting point to formulate scientific laws and the criterion to ver-
2021, 6, 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ify their validity. Inevitably, the experimental method requires the definition of procedures
infrastructures6010004
for performing tests as well as technologies and instruments to acquire and eventually
Received: 18 November 2020
post-process the experimental outcomes. If attention is focused on civil engineering, ex-
Accepted: 24 December 2020
perimental testing involves different levels: materials, structural components, connections
Published: 28 December 2020 and sub-assemblies, small-scale structures, full-scale structures, and infrastructures.
Loading tests on structural materials are common practice to evaluate their mechanical
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- characteristics and performances, e.g., strength and deformation capacity under monotonic
tral with regard to jurisdictional claims or cyclic conditions. Many of such material tests follow specific protocols detailed by
in published maps and institutional building codes when used for the qualification of construction materials. Laboratory
affiliations. testing of structural components, connections, sub-assemblies, small structures such as
downscaled prototypes, or full-scale building splices are, for example, essential to validate
or calibrate prediction models and support the development of innovative solutions. Such
structural tests are commonly performed up to different levels of damage or even failure;
Copyright: © 2020 by the author. Li-
many testing options are possible depending on the structural aspects being investigated,
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This
e.g., from quasi-static monotonic and cyclic loading tests to high-energy dynamic tests
article is an open access article distributed
such as those performed on shake tables to simulate destructive seismic events.
under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
The situation changes when the size of the structure increases and experimental
license (https://creativecommons.org/
testing is required to study the behavior of large structures and infrastructures. In this case,
licenses/by/4.0/). high-energy loading is generally not feasible (because of technical and economic limits)
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6010004 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/infrastructures

Infrastructures 2021, 6, 4 2 of 22
or simple not acceptable (because of the subsequent damages that would be determined).
Static loading tests are generally limited in space, e.g., loading of a partition of a floor level
in a large multi-story frame building and loading of a given span of a long multi-span
bridge. The information gained in this way is indeed useful, but generally does not provide
a big picture of the structural behavior. On the other hand, low-energy dynamic tests
allow studying the time-varying response of structures, leading to the identification of
their stiffness, mass, and damping properties. The dynamic input in low-energy tests can
be either directly assigned (such as, for example, through electromechanical shakers) or be
an unmeasured operational/ambient noise (such as, for example, wind- or traffic-induced
vibrations). In the former case, reference is made to the methods of experimental modal
analysis (EMA), e.g., [1]; in the latter case, the procedures of operational modal analysis
(OMA) are used, e.g., [2,3]. In particular, it is OMA that in the past decades has attracted
much interest in civil engineering and became widely used thanks to its most appealing
feature, i.e., large structures can be analyzed under their normal operational conditions,
typically without service interruptions, with simple instrumentations [2,3]. Data collected
from vibration monitoring permits many structural engineering applications, ranging
from model updating and system identification, e.g., [4–13]; specific activities such as
fine calibration of tuned mass dampers, e.g., [14–18]; up to their wide use in condition
monitoring and damage detection, e.g., [19–25].
The process of acquiring data from experimental tests is inevitably influenced by
the available technologies with their characteristics and limitations. The consolidated
approach in data acquisition in civil engineering is based on contact point sensors (could be
displacement, strain, velocity, or acceleration sensors) whose measurements are transferred
via wired connections to the data acquisition hardware. For example, high-sensitivity ac-
celerometers and high quality shielded cables are commonly adopted for data acquisitions
in OMA [2,3]. Alternative technologies exist to avoid the use of connection cables (given
the difficulties and efforts in cabling large structures) with the use of wireless sensors,
e.g., [26–30]. Other alternatives provide distributed monitoring possibilities with optical
fiber sensors [31–35] to overcome the pointwise nature of traditional approaches. How-
ever, non-contact monitoring technologies probably attracted most of the recent interest
of the engineering community, e.g., [36]. Various approaches were explored in civil engi-
neering for vibration testing; that is, laser Doppler vibrometry, e.g., [37–40]; microwave
radar interferometry, e.g., [41–45]; infrasound, e.g., [46,47]; global positioning system (GPS)
sensing, e.g., [48–51]; satellite remote sensing, e.g., [52–57]; theodolites and total stations,
e.g., [58,59]; optical methods based on the moiré effect, e.g., [60–64]; and optical vision-
based methods using digital image correlation (DIC), e.g., [65–73]. Indeed, the possibility
to eliminate physical installations of sensors is very attractive, especially for structures that
might not be easily or safely accessible, yet requiring rapid assessment of their conditions,
for example, following extreme events such as strong earthquakes, explosions, or floods.
Among contactless technologies, attention is here focused on vision-based methods,
given that a large number of applications involving objects ranging from the tiniest dimen-
sion to large constructions showed great potentialities even with low-cost consumer-grade
instrumentations [65–73]. The idea is simple in its principle: images of the object to be
monitored are acquired and subsequently analyzed to extract motion information, thus
obtaining displacement time histories eventually used to compute strains, velocities, and
accelerations. One video camera is used for detecting in-plane movements; two video
cameras in stereo mode enable three-dimensional tracking. If the movement of the entire
object to be monitored can be acquired with sufficient spatial resolution within the avail-
able combinations of cameras and lenses, then a full-field representation of the mechanical
response is possible. This is typically the case of small specimens tested in the laboratory.
Otherwise, the selected portions of the object to be monitored are acquired with a num-
ber of synchronized cameras. This is the case of field monitoring of large structures and
infrastructures. The movement is evaluated following the position, frame after frame, of
installed targets or prepared speckle patterns, material texture, building edges and corners,
or visible structural details such as bolts in steel structures [65–73].
The early history of image-based measurements belongs to the field of photog-
rammetry—see, for example, Sutton et al. [65] for a wide review of the initial developments.
The first laboratory applications in experimental structural mechanics to evaluate displace-
ments and strains date back to the mid 1980s [74,75]. Since then, significant progress has
been made thanks to the advancements in computer vision algorithms, e.g., [65,76–83],
that found their way into commercial software, such as, for example, in a toolbox for pro-
gramming [84]; in dedicated software, e.g., [85]; and in complete vision-based monitoring
systems derived from earlier research studies at the University of South Carolina [86] and
at the University of Bristol [87].
If attention is focused on the use of vision-based monitoring for low-energy/low-
amplitude vibrations, as is the case of most operational conditions in civil engineering,
many challenges have to be faced, e.g., [67,71–73]. Even if the frame rate of the camera
(acquired images per second) is high enough to avoid aliasing, effective algorithms (backed
by adequate computational resources) as well as camera/lens performances/quality are
crucial to accurately track small structural motions.
Regarding video processing, the term optical flow, e.g., [65–73], is used to identify gen-
eral computer vision techniques associating pixels in a reference image with corresponding
pixels in another image of the same scene. Among available algorithms, the most popular
in structural engineering applications [71–73] appears to be correlation-based template
matching and feature point matching.
Template matching searches for an area in a new frame most closely resembling
the reference (or template) predefined as a rectangular subset in the initial frame. The
advantage of template matching is the minimal user intervention, limited to specifying the
template region in the reference frame. The limitations of template matching are related to
its sensitivity to changes in lighting and background conditions, in addition to tracking
problems with very deformable structures.
Feature point matching is an efficient approach based on key-point detection and
matching. Key-points are defined in computer vision as points that are stable, distinctive,
and invariant to image transformation, e.g., building corners, peculiar building details, and
bolts in steel structures. Instead of the raw image intensities as in template matching, a
feature descriptor, i.e., a complex representation based on the shape and appearance of a
small window around the key-point, is used for matching. In this way, feature matching is
less sensitive to illumination change, shape change, and scale variation. However, feature
point matching requires the target regions to have rich textures.
Particularly promising and interesting for monitoring low-energy/low-amplitude
vibrations are recent methodologies for motion magnifications [88–93], able to reveal subtle
changes in the images, in the original Lagrangian formulation (tracking a specific feature
in a video in time and space), as well as in the Eulerian formulation where a pixel with a
fixed coordinate is selected and its value is monitored in time. In fact, the amplification
of information relevant to the motion betters the signal-to-noise ratio in vision-based
monitoring, which might be critical in many operational conditions in civil engineering
structures and infrastructures.
Recent articles analyzed the state-of-the-art in dynamic monitoring of structures
using vision-based methodologies with applications focused on structural health
monitoring [68,71–73]. These contributions, published by some of the leading experts
in the subject, are a great source of information on a multitude of aspects, such as perfor-
mance and improvements in motion tracking algorithms, comparisons of the performance
of various consumer- and industrial-grade cameras, and the influence of environmental
conditions on acquired measurements. The abundancy of information is inevitable, given
the large number of research contributions published in the last decade, as detailed in the
third paragraph of this review article. All such information could be overwhelming to
structural engineers and stakeholders with no background on vision-based monitoring,
conditions on acquired measurements. The abundancy of information is inevitable, given

Infrastructures 2021, 6, 4 the large number of research contributions published in the last decade, as detailed 4inofthe 22
third paragraph of this review article. All such information could be overwhelming to
structural engineers and stakeholders with no background on vision-based monitoring,
although possibly familiar with consolidated monitoring methodologies. Accordingly,
although possibly
the objective familiar
of this reviewwith consolidated
article monitoring
is to provide methodologies.
an introductory Accordingly,
discussion the
of the latest
objective of this review article is to provide an introductory discussion
state-of-the-art of vision-based dynamic monitoring of structures and infrastructuresof the latest state-of-
the-art
through of an
vision-based
overview dynamic monitoring
of the results of structures
achieved in fieldand infrastructures
monitoring through an
of vibrations for
overview of the results achieved in field monitoring of vibrations for full-scale
full-scale case studies. In this way, engineers and stakeholders interested in the possibil- case studies.
In this
ities ofway, engineers
contactless and stakeholders
monitoring interested
of structures in the possibilities
and infrastructure of contactless
could have moni-
an overview of
toring of structures and infrastructure could have an overview of up-to-date
up-to-date achievements of vision-based techniques to support a first evaluation of the achievements
of vision-based
feasibility techniques tofor
and convenience support
future amonitoring
first evaluation
tasks.of the feasibility and convenience
for future monitoring tasks.
2. Brief Overview of Vision-Based Monitoring Systems
2. Brief Overview of Vision-Based Monitoring Systems
2.1. Monitoring
2.1. Monitoring Process
Process
AA vision-based
vision-basedsystem
systemcouldcould consist
consist of of a set
a set of video
of video cameras
cameras connected
connected to a com-
to a computer
installed with software having real-time processing capacity of the acquired images,im-
puter installed with software having real-time processing capacity of the acquired or
ages, or
could be could
made be bymade
a set ofby video
a set of video cameras
cameras whose recordings
whose recordings are only are only acquired
acquired during
during monitoring
monitoring and laterand later processed.
processed. Depending Depending
on theon the distance
distance between between the cameras
the cameras and
andstructure
the the structure
to be to be monitored,
monitored, appropriate
appropriate lenseslenses
must must be selected
be selected to obtain
to obtain images images
with
with adequate
adequate resolution,
resolution, indispensable
indispensable to trackto thetrack
motion the of
motion of thetargets
the selected selected withtargets with
sufficient
sufficient accuracy, e.g., [65,66,71,73]. Lighting lamps could
accuracy, e.g., [65,66,71,73]. Lighting lamps could be added for conducting measurementsbe added for conducting
measurements
in positions with inscarce
positions with scarce
illumination illumination
or even at night.or even at night.
The monitoring process roughly
The monitoring process roughly consists of consists of the
the following
following phases:
phases: (1)
(1) installation,
installation, i.e.,
i.e.,
the video
the video cameras
cameras equipped
equipped with with the
the selected
selected lenses
lenses areare placed
placed on on tripods
tripods in in the
the most
most
convenientlocations,
convenient locations,connected
connectedtotothe thecomputer
computerand and synchronized;
synchronized; forfor
eacheach video
video cam-
camera
era targets
the the targets to be tracked
to be tracked are set are set (depending
(depending on post-processing
on post-processing procedures, procedures,
they couldtheybe,
could
for be, forapplied
example, example, applied
markers ormarkers
existing or existing
textures textures
in the in the
structure structure
surface); (2) surface); (2)
calibration,
calibration, i.e., the relationship between the pixel coordinates and the physical coordi-
i.e., the relationship between the pixel coordinates and the physical coordinates is obtained,
usually
nates is based on known
obtained, usuallyphysical
based on dimension
known physicalon the object surface
dimension onand
the its corresponding
object surface and
image dimension in
its corresponding pixels;
image and (3) video
dimension acquisition
in pixels; and (3)and videoprocessing,
acquisitioni.e.,and
the processing,
videos are
recorded and theare
i.e., the videos motion
recordedof each
andtarget is tracked
the motion in thetarget
of each imageissequences;
tracked inasthe a result,
imagethese-
displacement
quences; as a time history
result, is given as output.
the displacement A schematic
time history is givenrepresentation of this simple
as output. A schematic rep-
flowchart
resentation is of
depicted in Figure
this simple 1, with
flowchart is the sources
depicted in of errors1,and
Figure withuncertainties
the sources of discussed in
errors and
the following paragraph.
uncertainties discussed in the following paragraph.
Vision-based monitoring process
Hardware Video
Calibration acquisition and
installation
processing
Calibration and
Hardware Environment
software
Sources of errors and uncertainties
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Diagram
Diagramofofthe
thevision-based
vision-basedmonitoring
monitoringand relations
and with
relations the the
with sources of errors
sources and and
of errors un-
certainties.
uncertainties.
2.2. Errors and Uncertainties

Differently from other measurement approaches where the accuracy of the employed
sensors/systems is provided by their manufacturers and generally remains stable within
assigned operational conditions during a given calibration time span, the accuracy of vision-
based systems cannot be related solely to the technical specifications of the video cameras.
The accuracy determination in vision-based monitoring is a rather complex problem as
it depends on a multifaceted combination and interaction of different parameters. The
sources of errors and uncertainties in vision-based monitoring can be subdivided in three
groups: (1) intrinsic to the monitoring hardware, e.g., optical distortions and aberrations in
the lenses, limitations in the resolution, and performance of the sensor of the video camera;
(2) relevant to the software and calibration/synchronization process, e.g., limitations in
the motion tracking algorithm, synchronization lags among cameras, and round-offs in
camera calibration; and (3) environmental, e.g., influence of the location where the camera
is installed, vibrations induced in the camera-tripod system, variable ambient light, and
non-uniform air refraction due to variable temperatures between installed cameras and the
structure being monitored. These sources inevitably influence each other, for example, the
resolution of the hardware influences the precision that can be achieved in the calibration,
which is in turn influenced by the environmental conditions. The scheme depicted in
Figure 1 summarizes the possible interactions between the three phases of the vision-based
monitoring process and the sources of errors and uncertainties.
Investment can be made in the hardware (high quality cameras and lenses), in up-to-
date software, in efforts to access the most favorable locations for camera installation, and in
accurate controls of the calibration and synchronization. Nevertheless, the variability of the
environmental parameters might still jeopardize the quality of the results; this is a concern
especially for long-term field monitoring as required in structural health monitoring, which
faces large variations in ambient light, temperature, humidity, wind, and other possible
interferences inducing vibrations in the cameras. As a consequence, these sources of errors
and uncertainties have a larger impact on vision-based monitoring as compared to the case
of conventional monitoring procedures when sensors are in direct contact with the object
being monitored.
Different studies on the assessment of the errors and uncertainties in vision-based
monitoring can be found in the earlier works, e.g., [65,71], as well as in the recent litera-
ture, e.g., [94–107], mostly through theoretical analyses and laboratory testing aimed at
evaluating the influence of specific aspects related to the hardware or to external causes.
For example, D’Emilia et al. [97] investigated how two different types of camera could
influence the accuracy of vibration monitoring based on video acquisition. Both cameras
had the same sensor resolution (1280 × 1024 pixels), but with two different maximum
frame rates at full resolution: 25 frames per second (FPS), as found in low cost consumer-
grade cameras, and 2000 FPS, as found in high-speed more expensive industrial cameras.
Tests were made in a laboratory under controlled conditions; laser vibrometry as well as
contact accelerometers were used to evaluate the accuracy of the vision-based systems.
It was observed that, if a slow camera (25 FPS) is used, together with the techniques of
controlled aliasing, the experimental results showed that the vibration uncertainty is in the
order of 3.4% of the vibration amplitude for vibrations in the range of 10–70 Hz. If a high
speed camera (2000 FPS) is used, the experimental data showed 8% relative uncertainty to
the vibration amplitude in the frequency range of 100–300 Hz and 13% in the frequency
range of 400–600 Hz. Given that the frequency range of interest in civil structures and
infrastructure is well below 70 Hz, the effect of the acquisition frame rate on the evaluation
of the measured amplitude of vibration could be expected to be limited.
Another example of uncertainty evaluation is a laboratory study by Liu et al. [102],
focused on the influence of the distance between camera and object being monitored, focal
length of the lens, and calibration process. The results showed that the uncertainty in
the measurements (displacements in the considered tests) increased with distance and
decreased with the increase of focal length; using a longer known length in the calibration
process could greatly reduce the measurement uncertainty; the measurement uncertainty
was more sensitive to the uncertainty of the known length used in calibration than the
projection of the known length in the image. However, as the distance increased, the
sensitivity to the known length was weaker and the sensitivity to the projection of the
known length in the image was stronger. When a longer focal length was used, the influence
of the working distance to the sensitivity was weaker. Indeed, these indications provide
useful support in preliminary choices when designing the configuration and installation of
a vision-based monitoring system.
In addition to the studies on the assessment of the errors and uncertainties mentioned
earlier [65,71,94–107], important information on the accuracy of vision-based systems could
be obtained from the outcomes of field application, as discussed in the following paragraph.
Inevitably, monitoring of full scale structures and infrastructures poses more difficulties
in the evaluation of the sources of errors and uncertainties, given the number of possible
concurring causes in the field as compared with the laboratory.
3. Recent Field Applications of Vision-Based Vibration Monitoring in Civil Engineering

3.1. General Overview
Many published works presenting applications of vision-based monitoring in civil
engineering can be found in the technical literature. Contributions (only refereed journal
articles are here considered) can be organized in three areas of monitoring applications: (1)
measurements of displacements and strains under static and quasi-static loadings [108–130];
(2) measurements of displacement time histories in prototypes or small-scale structures in
controlled environmental conditions, typically in a laboratory, [131–162]; (3) field measure-
ments of displacement time histories in full scale structures [163–200]; (4) development of
sensors using vision-based techniques [201–207]; and (5) field measurements of moving
components, as in the case of wind turbines, e.g., [208–211]. Such a subdivision is made
regardless of the adopted vision-based techniques and image processing algorithms. It
should be remarked that overlaps exist between these monitoring applications, as in some
cases, there are publications that, prior to field testing, illustrate preliminary laboratory
validations. Hence, the proposed subdivision should be considered on the basis of the
main contribution provided.
Attention in this review article is given to the analysis of recent results obtained in
vibration (displacement time histories) monitoring of civil engineering structures and
infrastructures in the field, as documented in refereed journal articles published in the last
four years [183–200]. The results presented are subdivided into six structural groups: steel
bridges, steel footbridges, steel structures for sport stadiums, reinforced concrete structures,
masonry structures, and timber footbridge. For each field study, a short description of the
monitored structure is provided, with a summary of the main information and conclusions
provided in the publication. A list of the considered applications is reported in Table 1; it
is observed that half of them are in the U.S.A. and that bridges/footbridges are the most
recurring structures.
For each reference, some essential information on the adopted hardware is provided
in Table 2, alongside video processing (optical flow, template matching, feature matching,
motion magnification, and proprietary commercial software), loading condition during
monitoring, as well as comparisons with monitoring using other technologies. In this way,
Tables 1 and 2 are supposed to serve as a guide to the following paragraphs, each dedicated
to one of the six structural groups, presented in the same order used in the tables.
Table 1. Recent field applications of vision-based vibration monitoring in civil engineering.
Group Structure Country Authors and Reference

Suspension bridge U.S.A. Feng and Feng [187]
Steel bridges Truss with vertical lift U.S.A. Chen et al. [189]
Skew girder U.K. Xu et al. [194]
Cable-stayed bridge U.K. Xu et al. [193]
Suspension bridge North Ireland Lydon et al. [196]
Steel footbridges
Suspension bridge U.S.A. Hoskere et al. [197]
Vertical truss frames U.S.A. Dong et al. [199]
Grandstands U.S.A. Khuc and Catbas [184,185,198]
Steel structures for sport stadiums
Superstructure cables U.S.A. Feng et al. [186]
Deck on arch footbridge U.S.A. Shariati and Schumacher [183]
Reinforced concrete structures Five-story building U.S.A. Harvey and Elisha [190]
Beam-slab bridge North Ireland Lydon et al. [196]
Heritage ruins and arch
Italy Fioriti et al. [191]
bridge
Masonry structures
Arch bridge U.K. Acikgoz et al. [192]
Arch bridge Australia Dhanasekar et al. [195]
Timber footbridge Deck-stiffened arch Greece Fradelos et al. [200]
Table 2. Essential information on adopted hardware, video processing, loading conditions during monitoring, and
comparison with other monitoring technologies.
Camera, Pixel Resolution, Video Processing Loading Condition Comparisons with Other
Reference
and Frame Rate (FPS) Algorithm during Monitoring Monitoring Technologies
[187] Point Grey, 1280 × 1024, 10 Template mat. Passage of subway trains No direct, GPS, and radar
[189] Point Grey, 800 × 600, 30 Optical flow Lift impact, normal traffic Accelerom., strain gauges
Go Pro, 1920 × 1080, 25 Template mat. Low cost and high-end
[194] Passage of trains
Imetrum, 2048 × 1088, 30 Imetrum [87] vision-based, accelerometers
[193] Go Pro, 1920 × 1080, 30 Template mat. Crowd of pedestrians Wireless accelerometers
[196] Go Pro, 1920 × 1080, 25 Template mat. Crowd of pedestrians Accelerometers
[197] DJI 3840 × 2160, 30 Optical flow Walk, running, jumping Accelerometers
[199] Low cost, 1920 × 1080, 60 Feature mat. Walk, running, jumping Accelerometers
[184,185,198] Canon, N/A, 30 and 60 Feature mat. Crowd during game Accelerom., displ. transd.
[186] Point Grey, 1280 × 1024, 50 Template mat. Operational, shaken Load cell
[183] Canon, N/A, 60 Motion magn. Pedestrian jumping No direct, vision-based
[190] N/A, 1056 × 720, 25 Feature mat. Outdoor shake table Accelerometers
[196] Go Pro, 1920 × 1080, 25 Template mat. Normal vehicular traffic No direct, integr. fiber optics
[191] N/A Motion magn. Tram vibrations, wind Velocimeters
[192] Imetrum, N/A, 50 Imetrum [87] Passage of trains Fiber optics
[195] Sony, 1936 × 1216, 50 Dantec [85] Passage of trains No direct, numerical
[200] Low cost, 1920 × 1080, 30 Optical flow Group of pedestrians Accelerom., GPS, theodolite
It is anticipated that comparisons in all cases provided good correlations between

vision-based monitoring and the other considered technologies, with one exception be-
ing the steel footbridge (vertical truss frames) tested by Dong et al. [199], where differ-
ences between accelerometers and vision-based measurements were not negligible. It
should be remarked that, in four cases, no direct comparisons were made: Shariati and
Schumacher [183], as well as Feng and Feng [187], compared the magnitudes of the mea-
surements to those obtained in previous tests, concluding that such comparisons were
favorable; in Dhanasekar et al. [195], the outcomes of the experimental monitoring were
satisfactory compared with numerical simulations in terms of magnitude of the monitored
structural parameters; and in Lydon et al. [196], vision-based monitoring was part of an
integrated monitoring system that included fiber optics with the objectives to complement
the two systems.
3.2. Steel Bridges

Feng and Feng [187] presented the outcomes of vision-based field monitoring of
the Manhattan Bridge (New York, NY, USA) using a single camera for remote real-time
displacement measurements at one single point and simultaneously at multiple points.
The Manhattan Bridge, opened to traffic in 1909, is a suspension bridge spanning the East
River in New York City, connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn; the main span is 448 m
long; the deck is 36.5 m wide, including seven lanes in total and four subway lanes. The
camera was placed on stable stone steps around 300 m away from the bridge mid-span
and the video recording was made using a frame rate of 10 FPS. The known dimensions
(7.2 m) of the vertical trusses were used for camera calibration. Displacement responses
at one single point at the mid-span region were measured during the passage of subway
trains, having estimated the scale factor as 20.5 mm/pixel. The authors commented that the
dynamic displacement response was similar to that measured by GPS and interferometric
radar systems in previous studies. Then, by zooming out the lens to obtain a large field
of view (FOV), i.e., the area that is visible in the image, three points at the mid-span
region were selected and a scaling factor of about 36 mm/pixel was estimated. The
authors commented that such measures displayed more fluctuations, especially for small
displacement amplitudes, as a consequence of the larger FOV, determining a decreased
measurement resolution compared with the single point case. In addition, the authors
studied the influence of the camera vibration during the field measurements. Such a test
was conducted by looking at a building in the background and tracking its apparent motion;
the camera motion was estimated with the assumption that the building was not moving.
The authors concluded that, compared with the bridge displacement, the camera motion
was insignificant.
Chen et al. [189] illustrated their application of field vision-based monitoring of the
WWI Memorial Bridge, a vertical-lift truss bridge, spanning the Piscataqua River (USA)
from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to Badger’s Island in Kittery, Maine, with a total length
of 366 m. Measurements of the vibrations due to the lift span impact excitation and normal
in-service traffic were made with a single video camera and compared with the results from
accelerometers and strain gauges. The camera was placed over 80 m away from the bridge
in a nearby park, on a heavy tripod with an accelerometer installed to measure the camera
motions. Manual calibration was made based on known dimensions of the structural
elements. The videos were processed using a technique inspired by motion magnification
and detailed in [140,188]. Two accelerometers and two strain gauges were placed on the
bridge to compare the remote video camera measurements with those from the contact
sensors. The results for both lift span impact and in-service traffic were identical in terms
of peaks in the frequency spectra; in addition, the authors observed that the time-series
measurements also compared favorably.
Xu et al. [194] presented their experience in field vision-based monitoring of the
Mineral Line Bridge, a skew steel girder bridge with a span length of 14.7 m, carrying
the West Somerset Railway near Watchet (UK). Three sensing systems were adopted and
compared: one consumer-grade camera, a high-end commercial vision-based system, and
two accelerometers. The authors observed that a vision-based monitoring system using a
single consumer-grade camera could provide an accurate characterization of the bridge
in favorable test conditions, which included choosing salient target patterns for tracking
and avoiding any camera shake. Regarding the control of the camera shake, the criterion
for camera stability evaluation was proposed by the authors based on the tracked motions
of a stationary target, and the correction was performed only when necessary, given that
tracking the nominal motion of an adjacent stationary object was very effective to remove
the low-frequency drift error, but the measurement resolution was possibly reduced in
this way. In addition, the authors investigated a data fusion method to combine the vision-
based measurement with data from accelerometers. Such a method was shown to be
capable of denoising the measurement and providing better estimates. Accordingly, the
authors concluded that mixed systems consisting of cameras and accelerometers overcame
the field testing limitations of vision-based monitoring and had the potential for accurate
and robust sensing on bridge structures.
3.3. Steel Footbridges

Xu et al. [193] illustrated the activities for field vision-based monitoring of the Baker
Bridge, a cable-stayed footbridge spanning 109 m over the A379 dual-carriageway in
Exeter (UK). The bridge provides cyclist and pedestrian access to the Sandy Park Stadium
and experiences heavy pedestrian traffic on match days. The bridge comprises a single
A-shaped tower that supports the continuous steel deck over a simple support at the
pylon cross-beam and via seven pairs of stay cables. Because of the range of frequencies
of its first vibration modes, the bridge is prone to noticeable vibration response owing
to pedestrian traffic. A consumer-grade camera was mounted on the top of a tripod at
the central reservation of the A379 carriageway below and approximately 55.30 m from
the bridge tower. Video recording was done at 30 FPS. Camera calibration was set using
the known structural dimensions from the as-built drawings, using a narrow FOV setting.
Four triaxial wireless accelerometers were installed in the bridge deck to validate the
results obtained from processing the images acquired by the video camera. The monitoring
of the bridge included periods when large crowds of spectators crossed the deck. The
results in terms of identified modal frequencies of the bridge deck as obtained from vision-
based monitoring accurately matched those obtained for the contact accelerometers. In
addition, measurements of cable vibration using the vision-based system were performed
and compared to the results from two triaxial wireless accelerometers installed on the
cables. The authors concluded that the vision-based system works better to capture the
lower modal frequencies of cables, whereas the accelerometers provide reliable estimations
of higher frequency modes. However, the multipoint deformation data obtained using
the vision system proved to be effective for tracking cable dynamic properties at the same
time as bridge deformation, allowing for the effect of varying load on cable tensions to
be observed. In this way, a powerful diagnostic capability for larger cable-supported
structures was achieved.
Lydon et al. [196] presented the field vision-based monitoring of The Peace Bridge
over the Foyle River in Derry (North Ireland), a self-anchored suspension bridge with a
single 96.3 m suspended central span, two suspended 63.4 m (east and west) side spans,
and sections not supported by cables carried by guided supports between the side spans
and abutments. The bridge was monitored using 14 accelerometers and a low-cost camera
installed on a tripod on the east bank of the river, at 71.2 m from the mid-span of the
east span. The video camera pointed at the position of an accelerometer to validate the
results obtained from video acquisition. Monitoring was performed for ambient input as
well as during the flow of a large number of pedestrians during a local event. Camera
vibration caused by environmental conditions was removed through image stabilization
using the stationary building in the background of the image as a reference point. The
authors observed a very good correlation of the measurements achieved from the camera
with those obtained from the accelerometer, with the findings considered very promising
for this low cost monitoring system. The authors also commented that the single camera
was set up in a matter of minutes, compared with several hours required to place and run
cables to the accelerometers along the 312 m footway.
Hoskere et al. [197] illustrated the field vision-based monitoring of the Little Golden
Gate Bridge over Lake of the Woods in Mahomet, Illinois, about 18 km northwest of
Champaign, IL (USA). A pedestrian suspension bridge made of steel girders and cable with
wooden slats on the deck, spanning 67 m with 10 m tall posts on either side, the deck is
suspended by cables with hangers at every meter. Bridge vibrations were monitored using
a camera installed on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with thirteen markers affixed
at regular intervals on one side of the bridge. For comparison, four accelerometers were
installed on the first half span. The bridge was excited by three pedestrians jumping on
the second half-span. The test was conducted in challenging field conditions with wind
speed between 25 and 35 km/h. The modal properties as determined by the vision-based
approach were compared with the results from accelerometers. The corresponding modal
assurance criterion (MAC) values were all above 0.925, and the difference in the natural
frequencies was less than 1.6% for all three compared modes. Thus, the authors concluded
that these results demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed vision-based approach to
conduct modal surveys of full-scale infrastructure. Sophisticated algorithms such as those
employed are able to go beyond complex situations and can handle video image processing
from video cameras installed in UAVs for structural monitoring purposes.
Dong et al. [199] presented the field vision-based monitoring of a footbridge on a
campus in the southeast of the US.A, made by vertical truss frames connected via splice
connection in the middle and spanning an entire length of 39 m over a pond; the deck
width is 4.17 m, and it serves light pedestrian traffic and small vehicles such as golf carts.
A single video camera with resolution of 1920 × 1080 pixels and rate speed of 60 FPS was
located near one of the abutments and employed to monitor the vertical vibration of the
mid-span. Bolts in the truss system were adopted as a target in vision-based monitoring.
An accelerometer was installed at mid-span for comparison purposes. The footbridge
was excited under different types of human loading (walking, running, and jumping
with different paces). The authors highlighted that the differences in the acceleration
spectra between vision-based acquisition and contact accelerometer were not always
negligible. However, serviceability assessment of the footbridge for the different loading
cases provided the same outcomes using vision-based data or accelerometer recordings.
3.4. Steel Structures for Sport Stadiums

Khuc and Catbas [184,185,198] illustrated a campaign of field vision-based monitoring
of the steel superstructures of a football stadium in the USA with approximately 45,000
seating capacity that exhibited considerable vibration levels, especially at the sections of
the highly active local team supporters. The vision-based method and framework as im-
plemented by the authors was verified under different experimental conditions including
altering light conditions, different camera locations (distances and angles), and camera
frame rates (30 and 60 FPS). Specifically, a beam under the grandstand was selected for
monitoring predetermined measurement points. A displacement potentiometer and an
accelerometer were installed for comparative purposes. The contact sensors and camera
recorded the structural vibrations synchronously during periods of intense crowd motion
throughout football games. The authors concluded that the results from vision-based
measurements were consistent with those from contact measurements and the first three
operational modal frequencies under a human jumping load were almost the same. In addi-
tion, the authors commented that, although quite accurate results for defined measurement
ranges and conditions could be achieved through a completely non-contact vision-based
implementation with low-cost hardware, some issues such as data storage requirement for
clips and images, processing time for image data, and limitation for horizontal displace-
ment measurement needed to be addressed in future developments.
Feng et al. [186] presented the field vision-based monitoring of the Hard Rock Stadium,
home to the Miami Dolphins NFL team in Florida (USA). Specific attention was given
to the monitoring of the cable forces during the construction phases of a new long-span,
cable-supported canopy covering the entire seating bowl. An industrial video camera
with a maximum resolution of 1280 × 1024 pixel and maximum rate of 150 FPS was
used with manual focus optical lens, having a focal length in the range of 16 mm to
160 mm. Considering that tensioned cables in similar civil engineering infrastructure have
a fundamental frequency typically under 10 Hz, the authors decided to adopt for video
recording a sampling rate of 50 FPS (meaning any frequency beyond 25 Hz would be
aliased according to the Nyquist criteria), which would make it possible to capture enough
cable vibration components. The vibrations of the four tie down cables at each quad of
the stadium were simultaneously measured using one single camera, while the vibration
of the inclined cables was measured by one single camera placed remotely on the seating
bowl. It was found that the measured cable forces using the vision-based method agreed
with the results from load cell readings installed for validation purposes, with a maximum
discrepancy of 5.6%. The authors noted that the noncontact measurement capacity of the
vision sensor eliminated the need to access the cable to install sensors, an operation typically
highly difficult and risky. Compared with the expensive and time-consuming method
of using conventional accelerometers and associated data acquisition systems, it was
concluded that the noncontact vision-based acquisition approach represented a convenient
low-cost method for either periodic or long-term monitoring of cable-supported structures.
3.5. Reinforced Concrete Structures

Shariati and Schumacher [183] documented the field vision-based monitoring of the
Streicker Bridge, a footbridge in the Princeton University campus (New Jersey, USA) with
a straight main deck section supported by a steel truss system underneath and four curved
ramps leading up to the straight sections. Structurally, the main span is a deck-stiffened
arch and the legs are curved continuous girders supported by steel columns. The legs
are horizontally curved and the shape of the main span follows this curvature. The arch
and columns are weathering steel, while the main deck and legs are made of reinforced
post-tensioned concrete. A consumer-grade camera with a zoom lens was used to acquire
a 60 FPS video of one of the ramps while a number of volunteers jumped up and down
on it. A target mounted on the edge of the bridge slab was used to track displacement
time histories. Such a target was set up by a research team from Columbia University that
also investigated the same footbridge with their own video-based monitoring system [202]
a few years earlier. In addition, the Streicker Bridge was equipped with two fiber-optic
sensing technologies, i.e., discrete long-gauge sensing, based on fiber Bragg-Gratings, and
truly-distributed sensing, based on Brillouin optical time domain analysis; both sensors
were embedded in concrete during the construction. The natural frequencies obtained by
the authors in their tests were found to be the same as those measured by the fiber-optic
measurement system and by the other vision-based method in [202]. In addition to the
frequency contents, the two vision-based measurements gave comparable amplitude of
displacements, showing the replicability of the obtained results.
Harvey and Elisha [190] aimed at demonstrating that existing cameras installed within
buildings, such as surveillance cameras, might capable of extracting the structural response
by tracking the interstory drifts. To this end, a full-scale five-story reinforced concrete
building tested on the unidirectional large high performance outdoor shake table at the
University of California San Diego (UCSD) was used as a case study. The test protocol
consisted of six different earthquake ground motions applied to the building. The building
was heavily instrumented with an array of analog sensors and cameras. The adopted
method involved the extraction of vision-based dynamic displacement measurements from
the recorded video footages and the estimation of the dynamic properties of the building
to which the cameras were attached. The results showed that the footage captured by these
cameras was adequate to identify the natural frequencies of the building vibration during
free and forced (seismic) responses.
Lydon et al. [196] presented the field vision-based monitoring of the Governors Bridge,
a three-span reinforced concrete beam-slab bridge that crosses the River Lagan to the
south of Belfast City (North Ireland). The bridge has an overall length of 62.6 m and
carries two lanes of west bound traffic from the Annandale embankment to the Stranmillis
embankment. The field test was carried out under normal, non-rush hour, vehicular
traffic loading on the bridge. Two low-cost wireless action cameras were used as vision-
based monitoring; one was located 3.75 m from one of the deck beams to monitor its
displacements (determined scale factor 0.0798 mm/pixel) and a second camera to identify
the load above the deck. For comparative purposes, a fiber optic displacement gauge
with a resolution of 0.03 mm was installed and data acquisition was carried out using a
dynamic interrogator at a scanning rate of 25 Hz, synchronized with the video acquisition
of the camera set at 25 FPS. The identified displacements based on the two systems showed
excellent agreement. Therefore, it was concluded that the same accuracy in displacement
measurement could be obtained from the vision sensor as compared with the fiber optic
displacement gauge, even if low-cost cameras were adopted.
3.6. Masonry Structures

Fioriti et al. [191] presented monitoring of two cultural heritage constructions in Italy,
i.e., the temple of Minerva Medica, a ruined nymphaeum of the ancient Imperial Rome,
and Ponte delle Torri in Spoleto, an aqueduct and pedestrian bridge with multiple arches
having a total length of 230 m and piers of height up to 80 m, completed in the Middle
Ages and possibly built over Roman ruins. The Minerva Medica ruins are very close to a
tramway producing strong vibrations whose effects were clearly evident in the video taken
using a low-cost consumer grade camera at a distance of 9 m. Modal analysis by motion
magnification of the field video recordings was performed and compared to the results ob-
tained through conventional contact velocimeters; the differences were limited to just a few
percentage points. Satisfactory results were also achieved for the Ponte delle Torri, despite
the small level of structural excitation due to the wind action and the low resolution of the
adopted video cameras. The authors commented that such results constituted a remarkable
starting point for future experimentations and improvements. Indeed, monitoring the
ambient vibration of a massive multiple-arch masonry structure under normal conditions
through vision-based monitoring appears to be a major successful case study, considering
the oppositions often found in installing contact sensors in cultural heritage.
Acikgoz et al. [192] illustrated the field vision-based monitoring of Marsh Lane viaduct,
a masonry bridge with multiple arches on the Leeds-Selby route (UK) carrying two electri-
fied train tracks. A commercial vision-based system was used to monitor the displacements
of two consecutive arches of the viaduct and complemented a fiber optic system installed
in the bridge. The objective was to estimate rigid body rotations of the monitored masonry
arch segments. The vision-based system consisted of two video cameras and a system con-
troller. The cameras recorded videos of the monitored structure at 50 FPS. Data processing
consisted of tracking the sub-pixel position of natural brick texture in the image and scaling
of pixel movements to metric movements with the use of a new registration technique
proposed by the authors [192]. In order to understand the viaduct behavior, two different
camera location configurations were investigated with two-dimensional DIC. In the first
configuration, the cameras monitored planar movements of two arches in the vertical plane
directly under the northern tracks, aligned with the bridge longitudinal axis. In the second
configuration, the cameras monitored the movements in the vertical planes lying under
the northern and southern tracks. In both configurations, the cameras were positioned
centrally in line with the crown of the arches. This setup allowed capturing all the targets
with a declared 0.08 mm resolution in each plane, using the natural brick texture in the
image for motion tracking. As already mentioned in the introduction to this paragraph,
the installed vision-based monitoring was part of an integrated monitoring system that
included fiber optics with the objectives to complement the two systems and provide a
comprehensive description of the structural response and damage mechanisms activated.
The authors commented that the quasi-distributed nature of data allowed extensive mea-
surements of time histories of displacements, rotations, and strains under the transit of
trains. Such extensive measurements provided unique data that enabled new insight into
understanding of the rigid body motions and damage mechanisms of the viaduct.
Dhanasekar et al. [195] presented field vision-based investigations on two masonry
arch rail bridges in Australia. Digital images of speckled patches in three key regions
(crown, support, and quarter point) of one-half of an arch were acquired from three
independent cameras, each focusing on one of the patches from approximately 4 m under
the passages of trains at night. Images were acquired using industrial monochrome cameras
at 50 FPS. The time histories of the deflections and strains were measured. The wheel
positions, train lengths, and speeds were ascertained using three lasers. The wheel position
was identified to be the critical element for the deflection and strain in the arch. A three-
dimensional finite element model was implemented to compare the field strain magnitudes
obtained in the vision-based monitoring to those from numerical simulations, obtaining a
favorable agreement. The authors concluded that vision-based monitoring was a suitable
method to measure deflection and strains on masonry arch rail bridges provided adequate
care is taken to ensure the quality of images.
3.7. Timber Footbridge

Fradelos et al. [200] illustrated the field vision-based monitoring of the Kanellopoulos
timber arch footbridge (Patras, Greece), 30 m long and 2.9 m wide, made of glulam wood
and metallic elements. The omission of X-bracing below the deck and poor construction of
the metal X-bracing at its roof made the footbridge prone to lateral oscillations. The bridge
was monitored using satellite systems, robotic theodolites, and accelerometers. Videos were
made during testing using common low-cost cameras without the initial intention for vision-
based monitoring. Such video recordings were later examined and used to try to estimate
the dynamic horizontal deflections of specific points of the footbridge. It was shown that
the analysis of low-cost video images using a simple approximate technique permitted
the reconstruction of the movements of the bridge and the computation of some of its
structural characteristics. This result was possible under ideal conditions: the movement
was two-dimensional, displacements of the selected target points were characterized by
a signal exceeding the pixel resolution, the camera was in a fixed position and the video
image covered stable points defining a reference system, and structural elements near the
selected target points allowed to scale the photo in the two examined axes. As a result, the
first lateral natural frequency of the footbridge obtained from video processing differed by
less than 2% from that estimated using accelerometers and geodetic sensors.
4. Discussion
The overview of the vision-based field applications presented in this review article
led to the following remarks involving four main aspects: camera installation, hardware,
software, and hybrid contact–contactless solutions.
Regarding the camera installation, the possibility to place the video camera in a
good vantage point, both stable and allowing views of the structural displacements with
few perspective distortions, appears to be the most important aspect in the considered
applications. If this is the case, good results can be achieved even with low-cost video
cameras and simple video processing algorithms. This condition inevitably sets the inherent
limits of video-based monitoring: only points that are clearly visible from the video camera
can be monitored; major difficulties are expected in locating good vantage points in urban
environments, for example, when monitoring tall buildings in crowded downtown areas.
Regarding the hardware, it is essential to choose the appropriate camera lens so that
the obtained field of view is suitable for testing. In fact, the sensitivity is controlled by the
scale factor (the ratio between the physical displacement and the pixels in the recorded
image); a lower scale factor results in higher resolution of the measure and in lower noise.
Accordingly, narrower fields of view (zooming in the lens) provide better resolution of the
monitored structure, hence decreasing the scale factor. On the other hand, a wider field of
view (zooming out the lens) provides less resolution of the monitored structure and reduces
the quality of the displacement measures, even if more monitoring points can be identified
and tracked with the same camera. Other ways to reduce the scale factor might be the use
of higher camera resolutions, i.e., more pixels for the same displacement. However, the
increment in the size of the digital image would be demanding in terms of video footage
storage and post-processing; the latter point might compromise the possibility of real-time
processing. Nevertheless, the achievable resolution in video-based monitoring is a quantity
that, of course, does not make sense if not compared to the magnitude of the structural
response. In the examined case studies, there were situations with limited resolution in
absolute terms that, however, led to satisfactory results, as the monitored structure had
important displacements when excited, e.g., lively footbridges under heavy pedestrian
traffic, bridges under train passages, and masonry structures close to subways.
Another aspect involving the hardware discussed in the field applications considered
in the presented overview is the image sampling rate. The maximum frame rate of most
conventional video cameras is in the range of 30 to 60 frames per second; such speeds are
indicated as sufficient for most civil engineering structures. Industrial video cameras are
available with much higher speeds; however, such speeds do not find application for field
monitoring in civil engineering, mostly owing to low frequency contents of structures and
infrastructures, as well as the fact that, the higher the frame rate, the more difficult it is to
achieve real-time processing.
Regarding the software, there are many possibilities in image processing given the
number of algorithms available in the technical literature. Template matching and feature
matching appear to be the most common approaches. However, recent motion magnifi-
cation algorithms were tested for field applications and provided very interesting results,
even with stiff and massive structures.
The final remark is made on the fact that some field applications used vision-based
monitoring together with conventional contact sensors. In most cases, such combined use
was for comparisons or validation purposes of the vision-based monitoring. However,
some studies highlighted significant benefits in combining the results obtained from two
such different technologies by means of appropriate data fusion methods. In this way, it
is possible to successfully combine the benefits of each technology in a hybrid contact–
contactless monitoring system.
5. Conclusions
A general review of the vision-based approach as a prominent methodology for
contactless monitoring of civil engineering structures and infrastructures was provided.
Specific attention was given to the overview of recent applications in field monitoring of
the structural dynamic response of full-scale case studies. From the examined articles, the
following main conclusions can be made: (1) vision-based monitoring might be able to
provide results equivalent to those obtained with consolidated monitoring technologies
such as the use of contact accelerometers and displacement transducers; (2) vision-based
monitoring appears to be the most convenient solution for monitoring cable structures and,
more in general, those structure and infrastructures with elements where the installation
of contact sensors is demanding; (3) successful applications of vision-based monitoring
depend on the combination of the adopted hardware-software system (video camera and
lens, tripod, monitoring of camera movements, video processing algorithms for motion
tracking, and motion magnification) and the influence of the environment (accessibility of
favorable locations for installing the video camera, weather conditions, and their variability
during video acquisition); (4) hybrid monitoring schemes combining contact sensors and
contactless vision-based approaches appear to be very interesting solutions that benefit
from the advantages of each of the two approaches, without the limitations inherent to the
use of a single technology; and (5) the use of vision-based technologies for long-term or
permanent monitoring is to date an unexplored field of application.
Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The author acknowledges the constructive comments of the anonymous review-
ers that helped improving this review article.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1. Ewins, D.J. Modal Testing: Theory, Practice and Application, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2000; pp. 1–576.
2. Rainieri, C.; Fabbrocino, G. Operational Modal Analysis of Civil Engineering Structures: An Introduction and Guide for Applications,
1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–314.
3. Brincker, R.; Ventura, C. Introduction to Operational Modal Analysis, 1st ed.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2015; pp. 1–360.
4. Mottershead, J.E.; Friswell, M.I. Model updating in structural dynamics: A survey. J. Sound Vib. 1993, 167, 347–375. [CrossRef]
5. Friswell, M.I.; Mottershead, J.E. Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1995;
pp. 1–286.
6. Paultre, P.; Proulx, J.; Talbot, M. Dynamic testing procedures for highway bridges using traffic loads. J. Struct. Eng. 1995, 121,
362–376. [CrossRef]
7. De Callafon, R.A.; Moaveni, B.; Conte, J.P.; He, X.; Udd, E. General realization algorithm for modal identification of linear
dynamic systems. J. Eng. Mech. 2008, 134, 712–722. [CrossRef]
8. Moaveni, B.; He, X.; Conte, J.P.; Restrepo, J.I.; Panagiotou, M. System identification study of a 7-story full-scale building slice
tested on the UCSD-NEES shake table. J. Struct. Eng. 2011, 137, 705–717. [CrossRef]
9. Shahidi, S.G.; Pakzad, S.N. Generalized response surface model updating using time domain data. J. Struct. Eng. 2014, 140,
A4014001. [CrossRef]
10. Asgarieh, E.; Moaveni, B.; Stavridis, A. Nonlinear finite element model updating of an infilled frame based on identified
time-varying modal parameters during an earthquake. J. Sound Vib. 2014, 333, 6057–6073. [CrossRef]
11. Asgarieh, E.; Moaveni, B.; Barbosa, A.R.; Chatzi, E. Nonlinear model calibration of a shear wall building using time and frequency
data features. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2017, 85, 236–251. [CrossRef]
12. Meggitt, J.W.R.; Moorhouse, A.T. Finite element model updating using in-situ experimental data. J. Sound Vib. 2020, 489, 115675.
[CrossRef]
13. Rainieri, C.; Notarangelo, M.A.; Fabbrocino, G. Experiences of dynamic identification and monitoring of bridges in serviceability
conditions and after hazardous events. Infrastructures 2020, 5, 86. [CrossRef]
14. Li, Q.; Fan, J.; Nie, J.; Li, Q.; Chen, Y. Crowd-induced random vibration of footbridge and vibration control using multiple tuned
mass dampers. J. Sound Vib. 2010, 329, 4068–4092. [CrossRef]
15. Caetano, E.; Cunha, A.; Magalhães, F.; Moutinho, C. Studies for controlling human-induced vibration of the Pedro e Inês
footbridge, Portugal. Part 1: Assessment of dynamic behavior. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 1069–1081. [CrossRef]
16. Caetano, E.; Cunha, A.; Magalhães, F.; Moutinho, C. Studies for controlling human-induced vibration of the Pedro e Ines
footbridge, Portugal. Part 2: Implementation of tuned mass dampers. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 1082–1091. [CrossRef]
17. Dall’Asta, A.; Ragni, L.; Zona, A.; Nardini, L.; Salvatore, W. Design and experimental analysis of an externally prestressed steel
and concrete footbridge equipped with vibration mitigation devices. J. Bridge Eng. 2016, 21, C5015001. [CrossRef]
18. Liu, P.; Zhu, H.X.; Moaveni, B.; Yang, W.G.; Huang, S.Q. Vibration monitoring of two long-span floors equipped with tuned mass
dampers. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2019, 19, 1950101. [CrossRef]
19. Doebling, S.W.; Farrar, C.R.; Prime, M.B. A summary review of vibration-based damage identification methods. Shock Vib. Dig.
1998, 30, 91–105. [CrossRef]
20. Carden, E.P.; Fanning, P. Vibration based condition monitoring: A review. Struct. Health Monit. 2004, 3, 355–377. [CrossRef]
21. Teughels, A.; De Roeck, G. Damage detection and parameter identification by finite element model updating. Arch. Comput.
Methods Eng. 2005, 12, 123–164. [CrossRef]
22. Farrar, C.; Lieven, N. Damage prognosis: The future of structural health monitoring. Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2007,
365, 623–632. [CrossRef]
23. Fraser, M.; Elgamal, A.; He, X.; Conte, J. Sensor network for structural health monitoring of a highway bridge. J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
2009, 24, 11–24. [CrossRef]
24. Farrar, C.R.; Worden, K. Structural Health Monitoring: A Machine Learning Perspective, 1st ed.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2012;
pp. 1–631.
25. Limongelli, M.P.; Celebi, M. Seismic Structural Health Monitoring: From Theory to Successful Applications, 1st ed.; Springer: New York,
NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–447.
26. Lynch, J.; Loh, K. A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks for structural health monitoring. Shock Vibrat. Dig.
2006, 38, 91–128. [CrossRef]
27. Li, J.; Mechitov, K.A.; Kim, R.E.; Spencer, B.F. Efficient time synchronization for structural health monitoring using wireless smart
sensor networks. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2016, 23, 470–486. [CrossRef]
28. Noel, A.B.; Abdaoui, A.; Elfouly, T.; Ahmed, M.H.; Badawy, A.; Shehata, M.S. Structural health monitoring using wireless sensor
networks: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017, 19, 1403–1423. [CrossRef]
29. Sabato, A.; Niezrecki, C.; Fortino, G. Wireless MEMS-based accelerometer sensor boards for structural vibration monitoring: A
review. IEEE Sens. J. 2017, 17, 226–235. [CrossRef]
30. Abdulkarem, M.; Samsudin, K.; Rokhani, F.Z.; Rasid, M.F.A. Wireless sensor network for structural health monitoring: A
contemporary review of technologies, challenges, and future direction. Struct. Health Monit. 2020, 19, 693–735. [CrossRef]
31. Bastianini, F.; Matta, F.; Rizzo, A.; Galati, N.; Nanni, A. Overview of recent bridge monitoring applications using distributed
Brillouin fiber optic sensors. J. Nondestruct. Test. 2007, 12, 269–276.
32. Li, S.; Wu, Z. Development of distributed long-gage fiber optic sensing system for structural health monitoring. Struct. Health
Monit. 2007, 6, 133–143. [CrossRef]
33. Kim, D.H.; Feng, M.Q. Real-time structural health monitoring using a novel fiber-optic accelerometer system. IEEE Sens. J. 2007,
7, 536–543. [CrossRef]
34. Matta, F.; Bastianini, F.; Galati, N.; Casadei, P.; Nanni, A. Distributed strain measurement in steel bridge with fiber optic sensors:
Validation through diagnostic load test. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2008, 22, 264–273. [CrossRef]
35. Barrias, A.; Casas, J.R.; Villalba, S. A review of distributed optical fiber sensors for civil engineering applications. Sensors 2016, 16,
748. [CrossRef]
36. Narasimhan, S.; Wang, Y. Noncontact sensing technologies for bridge structural health assessment. J. Bridge Eng. 2020, 25,
02020001. [CrossRef]
37. Xia, H.; De Roeck, G.; Zhang, N.; Maeck, J. Experimental analysis of a high-speed railway bridge under Thalys trains. J. Sound
Vib. 2003, 268, 103–113. [CrossRef]
38. Nassif, H.H.; Gindy, M.; Davis, J. Comparison of laser Doppler vibrometer with contact sensors for monitoring bridge deflection
and vibration. NDT E Int. 2005, 38, 213–218. [CrossRef]
39. Rothberg, S.J.; Allen, M.S.; Castellini, P.; Di Maio, D.; Dirckx, J.J.J.; Ewins, D.J.; Halkon, B.J.; Muyshondt, P.; Paone, N.; Ryan, T.;
et al. An international review of laser Doppler vibrometry: Making light work of vibration measurement. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2017,
99, 11–22. [CrossRef]
40. Garg, P.; Moreu, F.; Ozdagli, A.; Taha, M.R.; Mascareñas, D. Noncontact dynamic displacement measurement of structures using
a moving laser doppler vibrometer. J. Bridge Eng. 2019, 24, 04019089. [CrossRef]
41. Farrar, C.R.; Darling, T.W.; Migliori, A.; Baker, W.E. Microwave interferometers for non-contact vibration measurements on large
structures. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 1999, 13, 241–253. [CrossRef]
42. Pieraccini, M.; Parrini, F.; Fratini, M.; Atzeni, C.; Spinelli, P.; Micheloni, M. Static and dynamic testing of bridges through
microwave interferometry. NDT E Int. 2007, 40, 208–214. [CrossRef]
43. Gentile, C.; Bernardini, G. An interferometric radar for noncontact measurement of deflections on civil engineering structures:
Laboratory and full-scale tests. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2010, 6, 521–534. [CrossRef]
44. Gentile, C. Deflection measurement on vibrating stay cables by non-contact microwave interferometer. NDT E Int. 2010, 43,
45. Gentile, C.; Cabboi, A. Vibration-based structural health monitoring of stay cables by microwave remote sensing. Smart Struct.
Syst. 2015, 16, 263–280. [CrossRef]
46. Whitlow, R.D.; Haskins, R.; McComas, S.L.; Crane, C.K.; Howard, I.L.; McKenna, M.H. Remote bridge monitoring using
infrasound. J. Bridge Eng. 2019, 24, 04019023. [CrossRef]
47. Lobo-Aguilar, S.; Zhang, Z.; Jiang, Z.; Christenson, R. Infrasound-based noncontact sensing for bridge structural health monitoring.
J. Bridge Eng. 2019, 24, 04019033. [CrossRef]
48. Brown, C.J.; Karuna, R.; Ashkenazi, V.; Roberts, G.W.; Evans, R.A. Monitoring of structures using the Global Positioning System.
Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. 1999, 134, 97–105. [CrossRef]
49. Roberts, G.W.; Meng, X.; Dodson, A.H. Integrating a global positioning system and accelerometers to monitor the deflection of
bridges. J. Surv. Eng. 2004, 130, 65–72. [CrossRef]
50. Meng, X.; Dodson, A.H.; Roberts, G.W. Detecting bridge dynamics with GPS and triaxial accelerometers. Eng. Struct. 2007, 29,
3178–3184. [CrossRef]
51. Moschas, F.; Stiros, S. Measurement of the dynamic displacements and of the modal frequencies of a short-span pedestrian bridge
using GPS and an accelerometer. Eng. Struct. 2011, 33, 10–17. [CrossRef]
52. Hoppe, E.; Bruckno, B.; Campbell, E.; Acton, S.; Vaccari, A.; Stuecheli, M.; Bohane, A.; Falorni, G.; Morgan, J. Transportation
infrastructure monitoring using satellite remote sensing. In Materials and infrastructures 1; Torrenti, J.M., La Torre, F., Eds.; Wiley:
Chichester, UK, 2016; Chapter 14, pp. 185–198. [CrossRef]
53. Huang, Q.; Monserrat, O.; Crosetto, M.; Crippa, B.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, J.; Ding, Y. Displacement monitoring and health evaluation of
two bridges using Sentinel-1 SAR images. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1714. [CrossRef]
54. Lazecky, M.; Hlavacova, I.; Bakon, M.; Sousa, J.J.; Perissin, D.; Patricio, G. Bridge displacements monitoring using space-borne
X-band SAR interferometry. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2017, 10, 205–210. [CrossRef]
55. Zhu, M.; Wan, X.; Fei, B.; Qiao, Z.; Ge, C.; Minati, F.; Vecchioli, F.; Li, J.; Costantini, M. Detection of building and infrastructure
instabilities by automatic spatiotemporal analysis of satellite SAR interferometry measurements. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1816.
[CrossRef]
56. Cavalaglia, N.; Kita, A.; Falco, S.; Trillo, F.; Costantini, M.; Ubertini, F. Satellite radar interferometry and in-situ measurements for
static monitoring of historical monuments: The case of Gubbio, Italy. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 235, 11453. [CrossRef]
57. Hoppe, E.J.; Novali, F.; Rucci, A.; Fumagalli, A.; Del Conte, S.; Falorni, G.; Toro, N. Deformation monitoring of posttensioned
bridges using high-resolution satellite remote sensing. J. Bridge Eng. 2019, 24, 04019115. [CrossRef]
58. Psimoulis, P.A.; Stiros, S.C. Measurement of deflections and of oscillation frequencies of engineering structures using Robotic
Theodolites (RTS). Eng. Struct. 2007, 29, 3312–3324. [CrossRef]
59. Psimoulis, P.A.; Stiros, S.C. Measuring deflections of a short-span railway bridge using a robotic total station. J. Bridge Eng. 2013,
18, 182–185. [CrossRef]
60. Forno, C.; Brown, S.; Hunt, R.A.; Kearney, A.M.; Oldfield, S. The measurement of deformation of a bridge by moirè photography
and photogrammetry. Strain 1991, 27, 83–87. [CrossRef]
61. Ri, S.; Fujigaki, M.; Morimoto, Y. Sampling moiré method for accurate small deformation distribution measurement. Exp. Mech.
2010, 50, 501–508. [CrossRef]
62. Ri, S.; Muramatsu, T.; Saka, M.; Nanbara, K.; Kobayashi, D. Accuracy of the sampling moiré method and its application to
deflection measurements of large-scale structures. Exp. Mech. 2012, 52, 331–340. [CrossRef]
63. Kulkarni, R.; Gorthi, S.S.; Rastogi, P. Measurement of in-plane and out-of-plane displacements and strains using digital holo-
graphic moiré. J. Mod. Opt. 2014, 61, 755–762. [CrossRef]
64. Chen, X.; Chang, C.C. In-plane movement measurement technique using digital sampling moiré method. J. Bridge Eng. 2019, 24,
65. Sutton, M.A.; Orteu, J.J.; Schreier, H.W. Image Correlation for Shape, Motion and Deformation Measurements: Basic Concepts, Theory and
Applications, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 1–316.
66. Kohut, P.; Holak, K. Vision-Based Monitoring System. In Advanced Structural Damage Detection, 1st ed.; Stepinski, T., Uhl, T.,
Staszewski, W., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 279–320.
67. Schumacher, T.; Shariati, A. Monitoring of structures and mechanical systems using virtual visual sensors for video analysis:
Fundamental concept and proof of feasibility. Sensors 2013, 13, 16551–16564. [CrossRef]
68. Ye, X.W.; Dong, C.Z.; Liu, T. A review of machine vision-based structural health monitoring: Methodologies and applications. J.
Sens. 2016, 2016, 7103039. [CrossRef]
69. Ye, X.W.; Yi, T.H.; Dong, C.Z.; Liu, T. Vision-based structural displacement measurement: System performance evaluation and
influence factor analysis. Measurement 2016, 88, 372–384. [CrossRef]
70. Baqersad, J.; Poozesh, P.; Niezrecki, C.; Avitabile, P. Photogrammetry and optical methods in structural dynamics—A review.
Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2017, 86, 17–34. [CrossRef]
71. Feng, D.; Feng, M.Q. Computer vision for SHM of civil infrastructure: From dynamic response measurement to damage
detection—A review. Eng. Struct. 2018, 156, 105–117. [CrossRef]
72. Spencer, B.F.; Hoskere, V.; Narazaki, Y. Advances in computer vision-based civil infrastructure inspection and monitoring.
Engineering 2019, 5, 199–222. [CrossRef]
73. Dong, C.Z.; Catbas, F.N. A review of computer vision–based structural health monitoring at local and global levels. Struct. Health
Monit. 2020. in print. [CrossRef]
74. Peters, W.H.; Ranson, W.F. Digital imaging techniques in experimental stress analysis. Opt. Eng. 1982, 21, 427–431. [CrossRef]
75. Chu, T.C.; Ranson, W.F.; Sutton, M.A. Applications of digital-image-correlation techniques to experimental mechanics. Exp. Mech.
1985, 25, 232–244. [CrossRef]
76. Pan, B.; Qian, K.; Xie, H.; Asundi, A. Two-dimensional digital image correlation for inplane displacement and strain measurement:
A review. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2009, 20, 062001. [CrossRef]
77. Pan, B.; Li, K. A fast digital image correlation method for deformation measurement. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2011, 49, 841–847. [CrossRef]
78. Pan, B.; Li, K.; Tong, W. Fast, robust and accurate digital image correlation calculation without redundant computations. Exp.
Mech. 2013, 53, 1277–1289. [CrossRef]
79. Pan, B. Bias error reduction of digital image correlation using Gaussian pre-filtering. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2013, 51, 1161–1167.
[CrossRef]
80. Pan, B. An evaluation of convergence criteria for digital image correlation using inverse compositional Gauss–Newton algorithm.
Strain 2014, 50, 48–56. [CrossRef]
81. Wang, Z.; Kieu, H.; Nguyen, H.; Le, M. Digital image correlation in experimental mechanics and image registration in computer
vision: Similarities, differences and complements. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2015, 65, 18–27. [CrossRef]
82. Pan, B.; Wang, B. Digital image correlation with enhanced accuracy and efficiency: A comparison of two subpixel registration
algorithms. Exp. Mech. 2016, 56, 1395–1409. [CrossRef]
83. Zhong, F.; Quan, C. Efficient digital image correlation using gradient orientation. Opt. Laser Technol. 2018, 106, 417–426. [CrossRef]
84. Mathworks MATLAB Computer Vision Toolbox. Available online: https://mathworks.com/products/computer-vision.html
(accessed on 29 October 2020).
85. Dantec Dynamics, Laser Optical Measurements Systems and Sensors. Available online: https://www.dantecdynamics.com/
86. Correlated Solutions, Leaders in Non-Contact Measurements Solutions. Available online: https://www.correlatedsolutions.com/
87. IMETRUM Non-Contact Precision Measurement. Available online: https://www.imetrum.com/ (accessed on 29 October 2020).
88. Liu, C.; Torralba, A.; Freeman, W.T.; Durand, F.; Adelson, E.H. Motion magnification. ACM Trans. Graphics 2005, 24, 519–526.
[CrossRef]
89. Wu, H.Y.; Rubinstein, M.; Shih, E.; Guttag, J.V.; Durand, F.; Freeman, W.T. Eulerian video magnification for revealing subtle
changes in the world. ACM Trans. Graphics 2012, 31, 1–8. [CrossRef]
90. Wadhwa, N.; Rubinstein, M.; Durand, F.; Freeman, W.T. Phase-based video motion processing. ACM Trans. Graphics 2013, 32, 80.
[CrossRef]
91. Davis, A.; Rubinstein, M.; Wadhwa, N.; Mysore, G.; Durand, F.; Freeman, W. The visual microphone: Passive recovery of sound
from video. ACM Trans. Graph. 2014, 33, 79. [CrossRef]
92. Ngo, A.C.L.; Phan, R.C.W. Seeing the invisible: Survey of video motion magnification and small motion analysis. ACM Comput.
Surv. 2019, 52, 114. [CrossRef]
93. Harmanci, Y.E.; Gülan, U.; Holzner, M.; Chatzi, E. A novel approach for 3D-structural identification through video recording:
Magnified tracking. Sensors 2019, 19, 1229. [CrossRef]
94. Wang, Y.Q.; Sutton, M.A.; Bruck, H.A.; Schreier, H.W. Quantitative error assessment in pattern matching: Effects of intensity
pattern noise, interpolation, strain and image contrast on motion measurements. Strain 2009, 45, 160–178. [CrossRef]
95. Bornert, M.; Brémand, F.; Doumalin, P.; Dupré, J.C.; Fazzini, M.; Grédiac, M.; Hild, F.; Mistou, S.; Molimard, J.; Orteu, J.J.; et al.
Assessment of digital image correlation measurement errors: Methodology and results. Exp. Mech. 2009, 49, 353–370. [CrossRef]
96. Amiot, F.; Bornert, M.; Doumalin, P.; Dupré, J.C.; Fazzini, M.; Orteu, J.J.; Poilâne, C.; Robert, L.; Rotinat, R.; Toussaint, E.; et al.
Assessment of digital image correlation measurement accuracy in the ultimate error regime: Main results of a collaborative
benchmark. Strain 2013, 49, 483–496. [CrossRef]
97. D’Emilia, G.; Razzè, L.; Zappa, E. Uncertainty analysis of high frequency image-based vibration measurements. Measurement
2013, 46, 2630–2637. [CrossRef]
98. Zappa, E.; Mazzoleni, P.; Matinmanesh, A. Uncertainty assessment of digital image correlation method in dynamic applications.
Opt. Lasers Eng. 2014, 56, 140–151. [CrossRef]
99. Zappa, E.; Matinmanesh, A.; Mazzoleni, P. Evaluation and improvement of digital image correlation uncertainty in dynamic
conditions. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2014, 59, 82–92. [CrossRef]
100. Mazzoleni, P.; Matta, F.; Zappa, E.; Sutton, M.A.; Cigada, A. Gaussian pre-filtering for uncertainty minimization in digital image
correlation using numerically-designed speckle patterns. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2015, 66, 19–33. [CrossRef]
101. Mazzoleni, P.; Zappa, E.; Matta, F.; Sutton, M.A. Thermo-mechanical toner transfer for high-quality digital image correlation
speckle patterns. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2015, 75, 72–80. [CrossRef]
102. Liu, C.; Yuan, Y.; Zhang, M. Uncertainty analysis of displacement measurement with Imetrum Video Gauge. ISA Trans. 2016, 65,
103. Gao, Z.; Xu, X.; Su, Y.; Zhang, Q. Experimental analysis of image noise and interpolation bias in digital image correlation. Opt.
Lasers Eng. 2016, 81, 46–53. [CrossRef]
104. Blaysat, B.; Grédiac, M.; Sur, F. On the propagation of camera sensor noise to displacement maps obtained by DIC—An
experimental study. Exp. Mech. 2016, 56, 919–944. [CrossRef]
105. Gao, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Su, Y.; Wu, S. Accuracy evaluation of optical distortion calibration by digital image correlation. Opt. Lasers
Eng. 2017, 98, 143–152. [CrossRef]
106. Xu, X.; Su, Y.; Zhang, Q. Theoretical estimation of systematic errors in local deformation measurements using digital image
correlation. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2017, 88, 265–279. [CrossRef]
107. Su, Y.; Gao, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, S. Spatial uncertainty of measurement errors in digital image correlation. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2018,
110, 113–121. [CrossRef]
108. Sutton, M.A.; Wolters, W.J.; Peters, W.H.; Ranson, W.F.; McNeill, S.R. Determination of displacements using an improved digital
correlation method. Image Vision Comput. 1983, 1, 133–139. [CrossRef]
109. Sutton, M.A.; Cheng, M.; Peters, W.H.; Chao, Y.J.; McNeill, S.R. Application of an optimized digital correlation method to planar
deformation analysis. Image Vision Comput. 1986, 4, 143–150. [CrossRef]
110. Lee, J.J.; Shinozuka, M. Real-time displacement measurement of a flexible bridge using digital image processing techniques. Exp.
Mech. 2006, 46, 105–114. [CrossRef]
111. Yoneyama, S.; Kitagawa, A.; Iwata, S.; Tani, K.; Kikuta, H. Bridge deflection measurement using digital image correlation. Exp.
Tech. 2007, 31, 34–40. [CrossRef]
112. Park, J.W.; Lee, J.J.; Jung, H.J.; Myung, H. Vision-based displacement measurement method for high-rise building structures
using partitioning approach. NDT E Int. 2010, 43, 642–647. [CrossRef]
113. Peddle, J.; Goudreau, A.; Carlson, E.; Santini-Bell, E. Bridge displacement measurement through digital image correlation. Bridge
Struct. 2011, 7, 165–173. [CrossRef]
114. Sładek, J.; Ostrowska, K.; Kohut, P.; Holak, K.; Gaska, A.; Uhl, T. Development of a vision based deflection measurement system
and its accuracy assessment. Measurement 2013, 46, 1237–1249. [CrossRef]
115. Park, S.W.; Park, H.S.; Kim, J.H.; Adeli, H. 3D displacement measurement model for health monitoring of structures using a
motion capture system. Measurement 2015, 59, 352–362. [CrossRef]
116. Quan, C.; Tay, C.J.; Sun, W.; He, X. Determination of three-dimensional displacement using two-dimensional digital image
correlation. Appl. Opt. 2008, 47, 583–593. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
117. Yoneyama, S.; Ueda, H. Bridge deflection measurement using digital image correlation with camera movement correction. Mater.
Trans. 2012, 53, 285–290. [CrossRef]
118. Hoult, N.A.; Take, W.A.; Lee, C.; Dutton, M. Experimental accuracy of two dimensional strain measurements using digital image
correlation. Eng. Struct. 2013, 46, 718–726. [CrossRef]
119. Gencturk, B.; Hossain, K.; Kapadia, A.; Labib, E.; Mo, Y.L. Use of digital image correlation technique in full-scale testing of
prestressed concrete structures. Measurement 2014, 7, 505–515. [CrossRef]
120. Ghorbani, R.; Matta, F.; Sutton, M.A. Full-field deformation measurement and crack mapping on confined masonry walls using
digital image correlation. Exp. Mech. 2015, 55, 227–243. [CrossRef]
121. Almeida Santos, C.; Oliveira Costa, C.; Batista, J. A vision-based system for measuring the displacements of large structures:
Simultaneous adaptive calibration and full motion estimation. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2016, 72–73, 678–694. [CrossRef]
122. Shan, B.; Wang, L.; Huo, X.; Yuan, W.; Xue, Z. A bridge deflection monitoring system based on CCD. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016,
4857373. [CrossRef]
123. Pan, B.; Tian, L.; Song, X. Real-time, non-contact and targetless measurement of vertical deflection of bridges using off-axis digital
image correlation. NDT E Int. 2016, 79, 73–80. [CrossRef]
124. Lee, J.; Lee, K.C.; Cho, S.; Sim, S.H. Computer vision-based structural displacement measurement robust to light-induced image
degradation for in-service bridges. Sensors 2017, 17, 2317. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
125. Park, J.W.; Moon, D.S.; Yoon, H.; Gomez, F.; Spencer, B.F.; Kim, J.R. Visual-inertial displacement sensing using data fusion of
vision-based displacement with acceleration. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2018, 25, e2122. [CrossRef]
126. Alipour, M.; Washlesky, S.J.; Harris, D.K. Field deployment and laboratory evaluation of 2D digital image correlation for deflection
sensing in complex environments. J. Bridge Eng. 2019, 24, 04019010. [CrossRef]
127. Carmo, R.N.F.; Valença, J.; Bencardino, F.; Cristofaro, S.; Chiera, D. Assessment of plastic rotation and applied load in reinforced
concrete, steel and timber beams using image-based analysis. Eng. Struct. 2019, 198, 109519. [CrossRef]
128. Halding, P.S.; Christensen, C.O.; Schmidt, J.W. Surface rotation correction and strain precision of wide-angle 2D DIC for field use.
J. Bridge Eng. 2019, 24, 04019008. [CrossRef]
129. Lee, J.; Lee, K.C.; Jeong, S.; Lee, Y.J.; Sim, S.H. Long-term displacement measurement of full-scale bridges using camera ego-motion
compensation. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2020, 140, 106651. [CrossRef]
130. Dong, C.Z.; Celik, O.; Catbas, F.N.; O’Brien, E.J.; Taylor, S. Structural displacement monitoring using deep learning-based full
field optical flow methods. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 16, 51–71. [CrossRef]
131. Schmidt, T.; Tyson, J.; Galanulis, K. Full-field dynamic displacement and strain measurement using advanced 3d image correlation
photogrammetry: Part 1. Exp. Tech. 2003, 27, 47–50. [CrossRef]
132. Chang, C.C.; Ji, Y.F. Flexible videogrammetric technique for three-dimensional structural vibration measurement. J. Eng. Mech.
2007, 133, 656–664. [CrossRef]
133. Jurjo, D.L.B.R.; Magluta, C.; Roitman, N.; Gonçalves, P.B. Experimental methodology for the dynamic analysis of slender
structures based on digital image processing techniques. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2010, 24, 1369–1382. [CrossRef]
134. Choi, H.S.; Cheung, J.H.; Kim, S.H.; Ahn, J.H. Structural dynamic displacement vision system using digital image processing.
NDT E Int. 2011, 44, 597–608. [CrossRef]
135. Yang, Y.S.; Huang, C.W.; Wu, C.L. A simple image-based strain measurement method for measuring the strain fields in an
RC-wall experiment. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2012, 41, 1–17. [CrossRef]
136. Wang, W.; Mottershead, J.E.; Siebert, T.; Pipino, A. Frequency response functions of shape features from full-field vibration
measurements using digital image correlation. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2012, 28, 333–347. [CrossRef]
137. Mas, D.; Espinosa, J.; Roig, A.B.; Ferrer, B.; Perez, J.; Illueca, C. Measurement of wide frequency range structural microvibrations
with a pocket digital camera and sub-pixel techniques. Appl. Opt. 2012, 51, 2664–2671. [CrossRef]
138. Wu, L.J.; Casciati, F.; Casciati, S. Dynamic testing of a laboratory model via vision-based sensing. Eng. Struct. 2014, 60, 113–125.
[CrossRef]
139. Feng, D.M.; Feng, M.Q. Vision-based multi-point displacement measurement for structural health monitoring. Struct. Control
Health Monit. 2015, 23, 876–890. [CrossRef]
140. Chen, J.G.; Wadhwa, N.; Cha, Y.J.; Durand, F.; Freeman, W.T.; Buyukozturk, O. Modal identification of simple structures with
high-speed video using motion magnification. J. Sound Vib. 2015, 345, 58–71. [CrossRef]
141. Oh, B.K.; Hwang, J.W.; Kim, Y.; Cho, T.; Park, H.S. Vision-based system identification technique for building structures using a
motion capture system. J. Sound Vib. 2015, 356, 72–85. [CrossRef]
142. Lei, X.; Jin, Y.; Guo, J.; Zhu, C.A. Vibration extraction based on fast NCC algorithm and high-speed camera. Appl. Opt. 2015, 54,
8198–8206. [CrossRef]
143. Zheng, F.; Shao, L.; Racic, V.; Brownjohn, J. Measuring human-induced vibrations of civil engineering structures via vision-based
motion tracking. Measurement 2016, 83, 44–56. [CrossRef]
144. McCarthy, D.M.J.; Chandler, J.H.; Palmieri, A. Monitoring 3D vibrations in structures using high-resolution blurred imagery.
Photogramm. Rec. 2016, 31, 304–324. [CrossRef]
145. Yoon, H.; Elanwar, H.; Choi, H.; Golparvar-Fard, M.; Spencer, B.F. Target-free approach for vision-based structural system
identification using consumer-grade cameras. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2016, 23, 1405–1416. [CrossRef]
146. Mas, D.; Ferrer, B.; Acevedo, P.; Espinosa, J. Methods and algorithms for video-based multi-point frequency measuring and
mapping. Measurement 2016, 85, 164–174. [CrossRef]
147. Poozesh, P.; Sarrafi, A.; Mao, Z.; Avitabile, P.; Niezrecki, C. Feasibility of extracting operating shapes using phase-based motion
magnification technique and stereo-photogrammetry. J. Sound Vib. 2017, 407, 350–366. [CrossRef]
148. Khuc, T.; Catbas, F.N. Structural identification using computer vision–based bridge health monitoring. J. Struct. Eng. 2018, 144,
149. Yang, Y.; Dorn, C.; Mancini, T.; Talken, Z.; Nagarajaiah, S.; Kenyon, G.; Farrar, C.; Mascareñas, D. Blind identification of
full-field vibration modes of output-only structures from uniformly-sampled, possibly temporally-aliased (sub-Nyquist), video
measurements. J. Sound Vib. 2017, 390, 232–256. [CrossRef]
150. Feng, D.; Feng, M.Q. Identification of structural stiffness and excitation forces in time domain using noncontact vision-based
displacement measurement. J. Sound Vib. 2017, 406, 15–28. [CrossRef]
151. Cha, Y.J.; Chen, J.G.; Büyüköztürk, O. Output-only computer vision based damage detection using phase-based optical flow and
unscented Kalman filters. Eng. Struct. 2017, 132, 300–313. [CrossRef]
152. Javh, J.; Slavič, J.; Boltežar, M. The subpixel resolution of optical-flow-based modal analysis. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2017, 88,
89–99. [CrossRef]
153. Xu, F. Accurate measurement of structural vibration based on digital image processing technology. Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp.
2019, 31, e4767. [CrossRef]
154. Dong, C.Z.; Ye, X.W.; Jin, T. Identification of structural dynamic characteristics based on machine vision technology. Measurement
2018, 126, 405–416. [CrossRef]
155. Guo, J.; Jiao, J.; Fujita, K.; Takewaki, I. Damage identification for frame structures using vision-based measurement. Eng. Struct.
2019, 199, 109634. [CrossRef]
156. Hosseinzadeh, A.Z.; Harvey, P.S. Pixel-based operating modes from surveillance videos for structural vibration monitoring: A
preliminary experimental study. Measurement 2019, 148, 106911. [CrossRef]
157. Kuddusa, M.A.; Lia, J.; Hao, H.; Lia, C.; Bi, K. Target-free vision-based technique for vibration measurements of structures
subjected to out-of-plane movements. Eng. Struct. 2019, 190, 210–222. [CrossRef]
158. Durand-Texte, T.; Simonetto, E.; Durand, S.; Melon, M.; Moulet, M.H. Vibration measurement using a pseudo-stereo system,
target tracking and vision methods. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2019, 118, 30–40. [CrossRef]
159. Civera, M.; Zanotti, F.L.; Surace, C. An experimental study of the feasibility of phase-based video magnification for damage
detection and localisation in operational deflection shapes. Strain 2020, 56, e12336. [CrossRef]
160. Eick, B.A.; Narazaki, Y.; Smith, M.D.; Spencer, B.F. Vision-based monitoring of post-tensioned diagonals on miter lock gate. J.
Struct. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020209. [CrossRef]
161. Lai, Z.; Alzugaray, I.; Chli, M.; Chatzi, E. Full-field structural monitoring using event cameras and physics-informed sparse
identification. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2020, 145, 106905. [CrossRef]
162. Ngeljaratan, L.; Moustafa, M.A. Structural health monitoring and seismic response assessment of bridge structures using
target-tracking digital image correlation. Eng. Struct. 2020, 213, 110551. [CrossRef]
163. Stephen, G.A.; Brownjohn, J.M.W.; Taylor, C.A. Measurements of static and dynamic displacement from visual monitoring of the
Humber Bridge. Eng. Struct. 1993, 154, 197–208. [CrossRef]
164. Olaszek, P. Investigation of the dynamic characteristic of bridge structures using a computer vision method. Measurement 1999,
25, 227–236. [CrossRef]
165. Wahbeh, A.M.; Caffrey, J.P.; Masri, S.F. A vision-based approach for the direct measurement of displacements in vibrating systems.
Smart Mater Struct 2003, 12, 785–794. [CrossRef]
166. Lee, J.J.; Shinozuka, M. A vision-based system for remote sensing of bridge displacement. NDT E Int. 2006, 39, 425–431. [CrossRef]
167. Ji, Y.F.; Chang, C.C. Nontarget image-based technique for small cable vibration measurement. J. Bridge Eng. 2008, 13, 34–42.
[CrossRef]
168. Chang, C.C.; Xiao, X.H. An integrated visual-inertial technique for structural displacement and velocity measurement. Smart
Struct. Syst. 2010, 6, 1025–1039. [CrossRef]
169. Fukuda, Y.; Feng, M.Q.; Shinozuka, M. Cost-effective vision-based system for monitoring dynamic response of civil engineering
structures. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2010, 17, 918–936. [CrossRef]
170. Caetano, E.; Silva, S.; Bateira, J. A vision system for vibration monitoring of civil engineering structures. Exp. Tech. 2011, 4, 74–82.
[CrossRef]
171. Mazzoleni, P.; Zappa, E. Vision-based estimation of vertical dynamic loading induced by jumping and bobbing crowds on civil
structures. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2012, 33, 1–12. [CrossRef]
172. Ye, X.W.; Ni, Y.Q.; Wai, T.T.; Wong, K.Y.; Zhang, X.M.; Xu, F. A vision-based system for dynamic displacement measurement of
long-span bridges: Algorithm and verification. Smart Struct. Syst. 2013, 12, 363–379. [CrossRef]
173. Kim, S.W.; Kim, N.S. Dynamic characteristics of suspension bridge hanger cables using digital image processing. NDT E Int.
2013, 59, 25–33. [CrossRef]
174. Kohut, P.; Holak, K.; Uhl, T.; Ortyl, Ł.; Owerko, T.; Kuras, P.; Kocierz, R. Monitoring of a civil structure’s state based on noncontact
measurements. Struct. Health Monit. 2013, 12, 411–429. [CrossRef]
175. Ribeiro, D.; Calcada, R.; Ferreira, J.; Martins, T. Non-contact measurement of the dynamic displacement of railway bridges using
an advanced video-based system. Eng. Struct. 2014, 75, 164–180. [CrossRef]
176. Busca, G.; Cigada, A.; Mazzoleni, P.; Zappa, E. Vibration monitoring of multiple bridge points by means of a unique vision-based
measuring system. Exp. Mech. 2014, 54, 255–271. [CrossRef]
177. Feng, M.Q.; Fukuda, Y.; Feng, D.; Mizuta, M. Nontarget vision sensor for remote measurement of bridge dynamic response. J.
Bridge Eng. 2015, 20, 04015023. [CrossRef]
178. Feng, D.; Feng, M. Model updating of railway bridge using in situ dynamic displacement measurement under trainloads. J.
179. Bartilson, D.T.; Wieghaus, K.T.; Hurlebaus, S. Target-less computer vision for traffic signal structure vibration studies. Mech Syst
Signal Process 2015, 60–61, 571–582. [CrossRef]
180. Ferrer, B.; Mas, D.; García-Santos, J.I.; Luzi, G. Parametric study of the errors obtained from the measurement of the oscillating
movement of a bridge using image processing. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 2016, 35, 53. [CrossRef]
181. Guo, J.; Zhu, C. Dynamic displacement measurement of large-scale structures based on the Lucas–Kanade template tracking
algorithm. Mech. Syst. Signal Process 2016, 66-67, 425–436. [CrossRef]
182. Ye, X.W.; Dong, C.Z.; Liu, T. Image-based structural dynamic displacement measurement using different multi-object tracking
algorithms. Smart Struct. Syst. 2016, 17, 935–956. [CrossRef]
183. Shariati, A.; Schumacher, T. Eulerian-based virtual visual sensors to measure dynamic displacements of structures. Struct. Control.
Health Monit. 2017, 24, e1977. [CrossRef]
184. Khuc, T.; Catbas, F.N. Completely contactless structural health monitoring of real-life structures using cameras and computer
vision. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2017, 24, e1852. [CrossRef]
185. Khuc, T.; Catbas, F.N. Computer vision-based displacement and vibration monitoring without using physical target on structures.
Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2017, 13, 505–516. [CrossRef]
186. Feng, D.; Scarangello, T.; Feng, M.Q.; Ye, Q. Cable tension force estimate using novel noncontact vision-based sensor. Measurement
2017, 99, 44–52. [CrossRef]
187. Feng, D.; Feng, M.Q. Experimental validation of cost-effective vision-based structural health monitoring. Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 2017, 88, 199–211. [CrossRef]
188. Chen, J.G.; Davis, A.; Wadhwa, N.; Durand, F.; Freeman, W.T.; Büyüköztürk, O. Video camera–based vibration measurement for
civil infrastructure applications. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2017, 23, B4016013-1. [CrossRef]
189. Chen, J.G.; Adams, T.M.; Sun, H.; Bell, E.S.; Büyüköztürk, O. Camera-based vibration measurement of the World War I Memorial
Bridge in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. J. Struct. Eng. 2018, 144, 04018207. [CrossRef]
190. Harvey, P.S.; Elisha, G. Vision-based vibration monitoring using existing cameras installed within a building. Struct. Control
Health Monit. 2018, 25, e2235. [CrossRef]
191. Fioriti, V.; Roselli, I.; Tatì, A.; Romano, R.; De Canio, G. Motion magnification analysis for structural monitoring of ancient
constructions. Measurement 2018, 129, 375–380. [CrossRef]
192. Acikgoz, S.; DeJong, M.J.; Kechavarzi, C.; Soga, K. Dynamic response of a damaged masonry rail viaduct: Measurement and
interpretation. Eng. Struct. 2018, 168, 544–558. [CrossRef]
193. Xu, Y.; Brownjohn, J.; Kong, D. A non-contact vision-based system for multipoint displacement monitoring in a cable-stayed
footbridge. Struct Control Health Monit. 2018, 25, e2155. [CrossRef]
194. Xu, Y.; Brownjohn, J.M.W.; Huseynov, F. Accurate deformation monitoring on bridge structures using a cost-effective sensing
system combined with a camera and accelerometers: Case study. J. Bridge Eng. 2019, 24, 05018014. [CrossRef]
195. Dhanasekar, M.; Prasad, P.; Dorji, J.; Zahra, T. Serviceability assessment of masonry arch bridges using digital image correlation. J.
196. Lydon, D.; Lydon, M.; Taylor, S.; Martinez Del Rincon, J.; Hester, D.; Brownjohn, J. Development and field testing of a vision-based
displacement system using a low cost wireless action camera. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2019, 121, 343–358. [CrossRef]
197. Hoskere, V.; Park, J.W.; Yoon, H.; Spencer, B.F. Vision-based modal survey of civil infrastructure using unmanned aerial vehicles.
J. Struct. Eng. 2019, 145, 04019062. [CrossRef]
198. Dong, C.Z.; Celik, O.; Catbas, F.N. Marker-free monitoring of the grandstand structures and modal identification using computer
vision methods. Struct. Health Monit. 2019, 18, 1491–1509. [CrossRef]
199. Dong, C.Z.; Bas, S.; Catbas, F.N. Investigation of vibration serviceability of a footbridge using computer vision-based methods.
Eng. Struct. 2020, 224, 111224. [CrossRef]
200. Fradelos, Y.; Thalla, O.; Biliani, I.; Stiros, S. Study of lateral displacements and the natural frequency of a pedestrian bridge using
low-cost cameras. Sensors 2020, 20, 3217. [CrossRef]
201. Fukuda, Y.; Feng, M.Q.; Narita, Y.; Kaneko, S.; Tanaka, T. Vision-based displacement sensor for monitoring dynamic response
using robust object search algorithm. IEEE Sens. J. 2013, 13, 4725–4732. [CrossRef]
202. Feng, D.; Feng, M.Q.; Ozer, E.; Fukuda, Y. A vision-based sensor for noncontact structural displacement measurement. Sensors
2015, 15, 16557–16575. [CrossRef]
203. Zhang, D.; Guo, J.; Lei, X.; Zhu, C. A high-speed vision-based sensor for dynamic vibration analysis using fast motion extraction
algorithms. Sensors 2016, 16, 572. [CrossRef]
204. Choi, I.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, D. A target-less vision-based displacement sensor based on image convex hull optimization for measuring
the dynamic response of building structures. Sensors 2016, 16, 2085. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
205. Hu, Q.; He, S.; Wang, S.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; He, L.; Wang, F.; Cai, Q.; Shi, R.; Yang, Y. A high-speed target-free vision-based
sensor for bus rapid transit viaduct vibration measurements using CMT and ORB algorithms. Sensors 2017, 17, 1305. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
206. Luo, L.; Feng, M.Q.; Wu, Z.Y. Robust vision sensor for multi-point displacement monitoring of bridges in the field. Eng. Struct.
2018, 163, 255–266. [CrossRef]
207. Erdogan, Y.S.; Ada, M. A computer-vision based vibration transducer scheme for structural health monitoring applications. Smart
Mater. Struct. 2020, 29, 085007. [CrossRef]
208. Park, J.H.; Huynh, T.C.; Choi, S.H.; Kim, J.T. Vision-based technique for bolt-loosening detection in wind turbine tower. Wind.
Struct. 2015, 21, 709–726. [CrossRef]
209. Poozesh, P.; Baqersad, J.; Niezrecki, C.; Avitabile, P.; Harvey, E.; Yarala, R. Large-area photogrammetry based testing of wind
turbine blades. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2017, 86, 98–115. [CrossRef]
210. Sarrafi, A.; Mao, Z.; Niezrecki, C.; Poozesh, P. Vibration-based damage detection in wind turbine blades using phase-based
motion estimation and motion magnification. J. Sound Vib. 2018, 421, 300–318. [CrossRef]
211. Poozesh, P.; Sabato, A.; Sarrafi, A.; Niezrecki, C.; Avitabile, P.; Yarala, R. Multicamera measurement system to evaluate the
dynamic response of utility-scale wind turbine blades. Wind Energy 2020, 23, 1619–1639. [CrossRef]

Infrastructures: Vision-Based Vibration Monitoring of Structures and Infrastructures: An Overview of Recent Applications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infrastructures: Vision-Based Vibration Monitoring of Structures and Infrastructures: An Overview of Recent Applications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infrastructures: Vision-Based Vibration Monitoring of Structures and Infrastructures: An Overview of Recent Applications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

infrastructures

Citation: Zona, A. Vision-Based 1. Introduction

Infrastructures 2021, 6, 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6010004 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/infrastructures

conditions on acquired measurements. The abundancy of information is inevitable, given

Vision-based monitoring process

Sources of errors and uncertainties

2.2. Errors and Uncertainties

3. Recent Field Applications of Vision-Based Vibration Monitoring in Civil Engineering

Table 1. Recent field applications of vision-based vibration monitoring in civil engineering.

Group Structure Country Authors and Reference

It is anticipated that comparisons in all cases provided good correlations between

3.2. Steel Bridges

3.3. Steel Footbridges

3.4. Steel Structures for Sport Stadiums

3.5. Reinforced Concrete Structures

3.6. Masonry Structures

3.7. Timber Footbridge

Funding: This research received no external funding.

You might also like