See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344256747

3D Documentation and Condition Assessment of Surface and Subsurface of

Engineering Structures

Thesis · August 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10012.72328

CITATIONS READS

2 3,040

1 author:

Sunni Kanta Prasad Kushwaha

Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research
32 PUBLICATIONS 163 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sunni Kanta Prasad Kushwaha on 15 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 3D Documentation and Condition Assessment of
Surface and Subsurface of Engineering Structures

Thesis submitted to the Andhra University, Visakhapatnam in partial fulfilment of the

requirement for the award of Master of Technology in Remote Sensing and GIS

Submitted By:
Sunni Kanta Prasad Kushwaha
M.Tech Researcher (Remote Sensing & GIS)
Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing Department

Supervisor: Supervisor:
Dr. Hina Pande Mr. Raghavendra S
Scientist/Engineer – SF Scientist/Engineer – SD
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Department Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Department
Indian Institute of Remote Sensing Indian Institute of Remote Sensing

Indian Institute of Remote Sensing,

Indian Space Research Organisation,
Dept. Of Space, Govt. of Indian Dehradun – 248001
Uttarakhand, India
August 2018
 This thesis is dedicated to
My loving parents
Mahendra Prasad &Sangeetha Devi,
My brother
Anuj Kumar Kushwaha

ii | P a g e
 DISCLAIMER

This document describes the work undertaken as part of partial fulfilment of Masters in
Technology program in Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System at Indian
Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun of Indian Space Research Organization, Department of
Space, and Government of India. The author is solely responsible for the contents of the thesis.

Sunni Kanta Prasad Kushwaha

iii | P a g e
 DECLARATION

I Sunni Kanta Prasad Kushwaha, hereby declare that this dissertation entitled “3D
Documentation and Condition Assessment of Surface and Subsurface of Engineering
Structures”, submitted to Andhra University, Vishakhapatnam in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of M.Tech in Remote Sensing and GIS, is my own work. It is a
record of original research carried out by me under the supervision of Dr.Hina Pande
(Scientist/Engineer-SF) and Mr.Raghavendra S (Scientist/Engineer-SD). It contains no
material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial
extent has been accepted for the award of any degree or diploma of the university or other
institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.

Place: Dehradun Sunni Kanta Prasad Kushwaha

Date 08 August 2018

iv | P a g e
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr.Sunni Kanta Prasad Kushwaha has carried out the thesis entitled
“3D Documentation and Condition Assessment of Surface and Subsurface of Engineering
Structures” in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of Master of Technology (M.Tech)
in Remote Sensing and GIS during 16-08-2016 to 16-08-2018. The thesis has been carried out
in Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Department and is the original work of the candidate
under the guidance of Dr.Hina Pande, Scientist/Engineer-SF, and Mr.Raghavendra S,
Scientist/Engineer-SD, Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing Department, Indian Institute of
Remote Sensing, Dehradun, India.
No part of this thesis is to be published without the prior permission/invitation from the
undersigned.

..…………………… ..……………………
Dr.Hina Pande Mr.Raghavendra S
(Supervisor) (Supervisor)
Scientist/Engineer- SF Scientist/Engineer- SD
Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing Department Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing Department
IIRS IIRS

..…………………… ..……………………
Dr.Anil Kumar Ms.Shefali Agrawal
(Head of Department) (Group Head, GTOP Group)
Scientist/Engineer- SG Scientist/Engineer- SG
Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing Department Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing Department
IIRS IIRS

..……………………
Dr.S.K.Srivastav
(Dean Academics)
Scientist/Engineer- G
IIRS

v|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Dr Hina Pande (Scientist/Engineer-SF)
and Mr Raghavendra S (Scientist/Engineer-SD) whose valuable guidance, encouragement
and support allowed me to learn and explore new possibilities.

I also sincerely thanks Mrs Shefali Agarwal (Scientist/Engineer – SG) Group Head,
GTOP group, Mr.Anil Kumar (Scientist/Engineer-SG), HoD, PRSD, whose wisdom and
knowledge was a never-ending source of inspiration. Their constant motivation and guidance
helped me solve various problems encountered during this study.

I sincerely thank Dr. Prakash Chauhan, Director and Dr. A.Senthil Kumar former
Director, Dr. S. K. Srivastav, Dean (Academics), Dr. R.S. Chatterjee (Course Director),
Suresh Kannaujiya (Scientist/Engineer-SD), for providing all the necessary facilities required
for the research work and for giving me this golden opportunity to work with such a renowned
institution and have a practical exposure to the environment of a workplace. Their opinions and
technical suggestions have proved to be valuable and precious.

I thank my batch mates Abhishek Adhikari, Prateek Tripathi, Shubam Rana, Parth Naik,
my seniors Karun Reuel Dyal, Animesh Upadhyay and my juniors Arunima Singh,
sachchidanand, Yogender, Shaswath Shukla and Somalin Nath (JRF) for all their help directly
or indirectly throughout the duration of the course. I would like to extend my gratitude to all
the occupants of the PRSD laboratory for making my experience a memorable one.

I heartly thanks CMA department (Rahul sir, Ashish sir, Awdhesh sir, Azam sir,
Surendra sir, Bharat) for helping me in software’s installation and all necessary help.

I also thank my parents and brother for their support and motivation through all my ups
and downs in my life.

Sunni Kanta Prasad Kushwaha

vi | P a g e
ABSTRACT
Different engineering structures have different roles to play in the daily life. Bridges
are one of such important structures that has a direct impact in the transport system. The
research has been carried out on three different types of bridges those are Truss Bridge, Beam
Bridge and Cable Bridge. Analysing the condition of any structures on a regular interval of
time is very necessary for its maintenance and to avoid any fatal situations to arise.
Constructing the bridges are important but, the equal importance has to be given to monitor the
structural condition of the constructed bridge. Heavy traffic and aggressive environmental
conditions can reduce the strength of the bridge and can cause unexpected bridge deterioration
and damages. Traditional condition evaluation is expensive and time consuming. An alternative
technique is the use of remote sensing techniques which is non-destructive and non-invasive
techniques that is safe, fast, reliable and applicable in different weather conditions.

There are various surveying techniques used in Digital documentation of engineering

structures like buildings, roads, bridges, etc. but it takes too much time and also labour
intensive. But Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) and Close range Photogrammetry (CRP) are
one of the best techniques to generate detailed 3D model of real objects and to digitally
document the structures more accurately from integrated Point Cloud Dataset (PCD) obtained
from TLS and CRP. The PCD can be georeferenced with the help of Differential Global
Positioning System (DGPS) and Total Station (TS) points. The surface analysis can be done
on the PCD and images obtained from Digital Single-Lens Reflex Camera (DSLR). Ground
Penetrating Radar (GPR) can be utilised for generating subsurface profile scans. Subsurface
analysis can be done with the help of GPR scan profiles. The surface and subsurface
information can be visualised together to understand the surface or subsurface features
corresponding to each other’s location.

The ground truth validation for the measurements is done with the help of laser
distometer and the accuracy obtained are 0.0552mm, 0.0241mm, 0.0333 for Truss Bridge,
Beam Bridge and Cable Bridge respectively. The percentage of accuracy obtained for classified
images and classified points in the point cloud dataset are 79.69% and 94.494% respectively.

Keywords: Engineering structures, 3D digital documentation, TLS, CRP, DSLR, DGPS, TS,
Geo-Referencing, PCD, integration, GPR, Distometer, surface and subsurface analysis, image
classification, point cloud classification, accuracy assessment.

vii | P a g e
Table of Contents

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... viii

List of figures ...........................................................................................................................xii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... xv
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Need for 3D Documentation of different bridges ............................................................ 1
1.3 Terrestrial Laser Scanner ................................................................................................. 2
1.3.1 Instrument Description .............................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Principle of TLS ........................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Close Range Photogrammetry (CRP) .............................................................................. 3
1.4.1 Instrument Description .............................................................................................. 3
1.4.2 Principle of CRP ........................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) ........................................................ 4
1.5.1 Instrument Description......................................................................................... 4
1.5.2 Principle of DGPS................................................................................................ 4
1.6 Total Station (TS) ............................................................................................................. 5
1.6.1 Instrument Description .............................................................................................. 5
1.6.2 Principle of TS ........................................................................................................... 5
1.7 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) .................................................................................... 6
1.7.1 Instrument Description .............................................................................................. 6
1.7.2 Principle of GPR ........................................................................................................ 6
1.8 Distometer ........................................................................................................................ 6
1.8.1 Instrument Description .............................................................................................. 7
1.8.2 Principle of Distometer .............................................................................................. 7
1.9 Need for integration of information of surface and subsurface information.................... 7
1.10 Need for surface analysis ............................................................................................ 7
1.11 Need for subsurface analysis ....................................................................................... 7
1.12 Motivation and problem statement ................................................................................. 8
1.13 Research Objective ...................................................................................................... 8
1.13.1 Main Objective ........................................................................................................ 8
1.13.2 Sub-Objective .......................................................................................................... 8
1.14 Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 8
1.15 Structure of Thesis ...................................................................................................... 8

viii | P a g e
2 Literature review ................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 3D Documentation of structures .................................................................................... 10
2.2 Use of TLS, CRP, DGPS, TS and GPR in integration of surface and subsurface
information ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Surface analysis of Bridge structures ............................................................................. 13
2.4 Subsurface analysis of Bridge structures ....................................................................... 15
3 Study Area and Data Acquisition ......................................................................................... 18
3.1 study Area map............................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Study Area 1: Truss Bridge (Mussoorie - Sahastradhara Bypass road) ......................... 18
3.3 Data Acquisition ............................................................................................................. 19
3.4 Study Area 2: Beam Bridge (Kesherwala Road) ........................................................... 20
3.5 Data Acquisition ............................................................................................................. 21
3.6 Study Area 3: Cable Bridge (Haridwar Road) ............................................................... 23
3.7 Data Acquisition ............................................................................................................. 23
4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Methodological Flowchart ............................................................................................. 25
4.1.1 TLS Data Acquisition .............................................................................................. 26
4.1.2 Co-registration of TLS scans ................................................................................... 26
4.1.3 Point Cloud Generation ........................................................................................... 27
4.1.4 TLS Data Noise and Outlier Removal ..................................................................... 28
4.1.5 CRP Data Acquisition ............................................................................................. 28
4.1.6 Alignment of Images and Camera Position ............................................................. 29
4.1.7 Sparse Point Cloud generation ................................................................................ 29
4.1.8 Dense Point Cloud generation ................................................................................. 30
4.1.9 CRP Data Noise and Outlier Removal .................................................................... 30
4.1.10 Integration of TLS and CRP Point Cloud datasets ................................................ 30
4.1.11 Subset of DSLR RGB Images ............................................................................... 31
4.1.12 DGPS Points Acquisition ...................................................................................... 33
4.1.13 TS Points Acquisition ............................................................................................ 33
4.1.14 Geo-referencing of TLS and CRP Point Cloud ..................................................... 33
4.1.15 GPR Data Acquisition 3D ..................................................................................... 33
4.1.16 GPR Data Acquisition 2D ..................................................................................... 34
4.1.17 Move Start Time .................................................................................................... 34
4.1.18 Space Domain Filter (Background Removal) ....................................................... 35
4.1.19 Time Domain Filter (Bandpass) ............................................................................ 35
4.1.20 Linear Gain ............................................................................................................ 36

ix | P a g e
 4.1.21 Smooth Gain .......................................................................................................... 36
4.2 Instrument’s used ........................................................................................................... 37
4.3 Software’s used .............................................................................................................. 37
5 Results and Discussions ........................................................................................................ 38
5.1 Geometrical information extraction of three different bridges. ..................................... 38
5.1.1 Study Area 1: Truss Bridge (Mussoorie - Sahastradhara Bypass road) .................. 38
5.1.2 Study Area 2: Beam Bridge (Kesherwala Road) ..................................................... 39
5.1.3 Study Area 3: Cable Bridge (Haridwar Road)......................................................... 40
5.1.4 Ground Truth Validation ......................................................................................... 41
5.2 Integration of surface and subsurface information ......................................................... 44
5.2.1 Integration for the Truss Bridge .............................................................................. 44
5.2.2 Integration for the Beam Bridge .............................................................................. 46
5.2.3 Integration for the Cable Bridge .............................................................................. 47
5.3 Surface analysis .............................................................................................................. 47
5.3.1 Surface analysis of Study Area 1: Truss Bridge ...................................................... 48
5.3.1.1 Detection of corrosion .......................................................................................... 48
5.3.1.2 Detection of Biological crust ................................................................................ 49
5.3.1.3 Bridge deck linearity deformation ........................................................................ 49
5.3.2 Surface analysis of Study Area 2: Beam Bridge ..................................................... 50
5.3.2.1 Detection of corrosion .......................................................................................... 50
5.3.2.2 Detection of vegetation ......................................................................................... 51
5.3.2.3 Detection of water presence and biological crust in the pier ................................ 52
5.3.2.4 Bridge deck linearity deformation ........................................................................ 53
5.3.3 Surface analysis of Study Area 3: Cable Bridge ..................................................... 54
5.3.3.1 Detection of corrosion .......................................................................................... 54
5.3.3.2 Detection of water presence ................................................................................. 55
5.3.3.3 Detection of Biological crust ................................................................................ 56
5.3.3.4 Bridge deck linearity deformation ........................................................................ 57
5.3.4 Accuracy Assessment of classified images ............................................................. 57
5.3.5 Accuracy Assessment of classified Point Cloud Datasets. ...................................... 58
5.4 subsurface analysis ......................................................................................................... 58
5.4.1 Subsurface analysis of Study Area 1: Truss Bridge ................................................ 59
5.4.1.1 Bridge deck thickness measurement..................................................................... 59
5.4.1.2 Subsurface analysis using GPR Scans .................................................................. 59
5.4.2 Subsurface analysis of Study Area 2: Beam Bridge ................................................ 61
5.4.2.1 Bridge deck thickness measurement..................................................................... 61

x|Page
 5.4.2.2 Subsurface analysis using GPR Scans .................................................................. 62
5.4.3 Subsurface analysis of Study Area 3: Cable Bridge ................................................ 63
5.4.3.1 Bridge deck thickness measurement..................................................................... 63
5.4.3.1 Subsurface analysis using GPR Scans .................................................................. 64
6 Conclusion and Recommendation ........................................................................................ 67
Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 67
Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 68
References ................................................................................................................................ 69
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 72
Pre-survey of Different Bridges: .......................................................................................... 72
Related to study area 1: Truss Bridge .................................................................................. 73
Related to study area 2: Beam Bridge .................................................................................. 75
Related to study area 3: Cable Bridge .................................................................................. 76

xi | P a g e
List of figures
Figure 1- 1: Reigl VZ 400 .......................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1- 2: Time of Flight principle ......................................................................................... 2
Figure 1- 3: Scanning pattern of TLS ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 1- 4: Nikon D5300 DSLR............................................................................................... 3
Figure 1- 5: principle of CRP..................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1- 6: Base of DGPS ........................................................................................................ 4
Figure 1- 7: Rover of DGPS ...................................................................................................... 4
Figure 1- 8: working principle of DGPS.................................................................................... 4
Figure 1- 9: Total station............................................................................................................ 5
Figure 1- 10: Leica prism ........................................................................................................... 5
Figure 1- 11: Principle of Total station ...................................................................................... 5
Figure 1- 12: GPR ...................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 1- 13: Principle of GPR .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 1- 14: Leica Disto meter ................................................................................................. 7

Figure 3- 1: Study Area Map ................................................................................................... 18

Figure 3- 2: Study Area 1, Truss Bridge – Mussoorie - Sahastradhara Bypass road .............. 18
Figure 3- 3: DGPS points with their location near the truss bridge ......................................... 19
Figure 3- 4: GPR 2D scans pattern over the Truss Bridge deck .............................................. 20
Figure 3- 5: GPR 3D scans pattern over the Truss Bridge deck .............................................. 20
Figure 3- 6: Study Area 2, Beam Bridge - Kesherwala Road .................................................. 20
Figure 3- 7: DGPS points with their location near the Beam Bridge ...................................... 22
Figure 3- 8: GPR scans over the Truss Bridge ........................................................................ 22
Figure 3- 9: GPR 3D scans pattern over the Beam Bridge deck ............................................. 22
Figure 3- 10: Study Area 3, Cable Bridge - Haridwar Road ................................................... 23
Figure 3- 11: DGPS points with their location on the Cable Bridge ....................................... 24
Figure 3- 12: GPR scans over the Cable Bridge ...................................................................... 24

Figure 4- 1: Methodology for 3D Documentation and Surface analysis ................................. 25

Figure 4- 2: Few TLS scans with their positions ..................................................................... 26
Figure 4- 3: Co-registration of two scans to bring into same co-ordinates .............................. 27
Figure 4- 4: TLS point cloud after co-registration of all scans represented in different colours
.................................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 4- 5: TLS point cloud after noise and outlier removal ................................................. 28
Figure 4- 6: Few continuous images captured using CRP ....................................................... 28
Figure 4- 7: Figure showing alignment of images with camera position ................................ 29
Figure 4- 8: Tie points generated (sparse point cloud) ............................................................ 29
Figure 4- 9: Dense point cloud generated with noise and outliers ........................................... 30
Figure 4- 10: Dense point cloud without noise and outliers .................................................... 30
Figure 4- 11: Fusion of TLS and CRP point clouds ................................................................ 31
Figure 4- 12: RGB image of the bridge ................................................................................... 31
Figure 4- 13: subset of the image ............................................................................................. 31
Figure 4- 14: Methodology for Integration of TLS, CRP, GPR and Subsurface analysis ....... 32
Figure 4- 15: sample 3D GPR grid data acquisition pattern .................................................... 33
Figure 4- 16: Raw GPR radargram of the 2D scan profile of the bridge deck ........................ 34
Figure 4- 17: GPR scan profile after Move Start Time ........................................................... 34
Figure 4- 18: GPR scan profile after Space Domain Filter (Background Removal) ............... 35
xii | P a g e
Figure 4- 19: GPR scan profile after Time Domain Filter (Bandpass) .................................... 35
Figure 4- 20: GPR scan profile after Linear Gain .................................................................... 36
Figure 4- 21: GPR scan profile after Smoothed Gain .............................................................. 36

Figure 5- 1: 3D Point cloud of Truss Bridge in AutoCAD ................................................................... 38

Figure 5- 2: Side elevation drawing of Truss Bridge ............................................................................ 38
Figure 5- 3: Top drawing of Truss Bridge ............................................................................................ 39
Figure 5- 4: Bottom drawing of Truss Bridge....................................................................................... 39
Figure 5- 5: Front drawing of Truss Bridge .......................................................................................... 39
Figure 5- 6: 3D Point cloud of Beam Bridge in AutoCAD................................................................... 39
Figure 5- 7: Side drawing of Beam Bridge ........................................................................................... 40
Figure 5- 8: Bottom drawing of Beam Bridge ...................................................................................... 40
Figure 5- 9: 3D Point cloud of Cable Bridge ........................................................................................ 40
Figure 5- 10: Side drawing of Cable Bridge ......................................................................................... 40
Figure 5- 11: Bottom drawing of Cable Bridge .................................................................................... 41
Figure 5- 12: Ground Truth Validation using Distometer .................................................................... 41
Figure 5- 13: Parts of Truss Bridge whose measurements were taken for validation ........................... 41
Figure 5- 14: Parts of Beam Bridge whose measurements were taken for validation .......................... 42
Figure 5- 15: Parts of Beam Bridge whose measurements were taken for validation .......................... 43
Figure 5- 16: Image showing the subsurface information and the location with reference to PCD of the
deck ....................................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 5- 17: Image showing different cuts of the 3D subsurface structure (a) Cut 1 shows the top
view interpolated data to cover all the surface and show the voltage variation. (b) Cut 2 shows the
transverse slice of the subsurface. (c) Cut 3 shows the longitudinal slice of the subsurface. (d) Cut 4
shows the overall 3D view with 3D grid............................................................................................... 45
Figure 5- 18: Truss Bridge structure with reference to surface and the subsurface profile below the
bridge deck. ........................................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 5- 19: Image showing PCD data and the 3D GPR data corresponding to its location .............. 46
Figure 5- 20: Image showing different cuts belonging to 3D grid Beam Bridge (a) Cut 1 shows the
interpolated top view of the 3D grid surface. (b) Cut 2 showing the transverse slice at the location. (c)
Cut 3 showing the longitudinal slice at the location. (d) Cut 4 shows the overall 3D data with variation
in the voltage can be seen. .................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 5- 21: Beam Bridge structure with reference to the subsurface profile below the bridge deck . 47
Figure 5- 22: Beam Bridge structure with reference to the subsurface profile below the bridge deck . 47
Figure 5- 23: Corrosion on the bars ...................................................................................................... 48
Figure 5- 24: Classified corrosion map ................................................................................................. 48
Figure 5- 25: classified corrosion points on the truss surface ............................................................... 48
Figure 5- 26: Biological crust on the Bridge deck ................................................................................ 49
Figure 5- 27: Classified Biological Crust map...................................................................................... 49
Figure 5- 28: classified biological crust points on the side surface of truss deck ................................. 49
Figure 5- 29: Truss Bridge deck linearity deformation measurement .................................................. 49
Figure 5- 30: Truss bridge deck deflection graph ................................................................................. 50
Figure 5- 31: Corrosion on the grills of Baricade ................................................................................. 50
Figure 5- 32: Classified corrosion map ................................................................................................. 50
Figure 5- 33: classified corrosion points on the barricade rods ............................................................ 51
Figure 5- 34: Vegetation on the pier ..................................................................................................... 51
Figure 5- 35: Classified vegetation map ............................................................................................... 51
Figure 5- 36: classified vegetation points on the centre pier ................................................................ 52
Figure 5- 37: Pier with water and Biological crust presence ................................................................ 52
Figure 5- 38: Classified water and Biological crust map ...................................................................... 52

xiii | P a g e
Figure 5- 39: classified water and biological crust points on the centre pier ........................................ 53
Figure 5- 40: Beam Bridge deck linearity deformation measurement .................................................. 53
Figure 5- 41: Beam bridge deck deflection graph ................................................................................. 53
Figure 5- 42: corrosion on the top of Bridge ........................................................................................ 54
Figure 5- 43: Classified corrosion map ................................................................................................. 54
Figure 5- 44: classified corrosion points on the top portion ................................................................. 54
Figure 5- 45: Corrosion at the cable joint to the deck ........................................................................... 55
Figure 5- 46: Classified corrosion map ................................................................................................. 55
Figure 5- 47: Classified corrosion points on the cable and deck joint .................................................. 55
Figure 5- 48: water below the deck at right abutment .......................................................................... 55
Figure 5- 49: Classified water map ....................................................................................................... 55
Figure 5- 50: Classified water points on the left abutment water ......................................................... 56
Figure 5- 51: Biological crust below the deck on abutment ................................................................. 56
Figure 5- 52: Biological crust map ....................................................................................................... 56
Figure 5- 53: Classified Biological crust points below the deck on right abutment ............................. 56
Figure 5- 54: Cable Bridge deck linearity deformation measurement .................................................. 57
Figure 5- 55: Cable bridge deck deflection graph ................................................................................. 57
Figure 5- 56: Bridge deck thickness of Truss Bridge ........................................................................... 59
Figure 5- 57: GPR profile along the Truss bridge from 0 to 30 meters with subsurface features ........ 60
Figure 5- 58: GPR profile along the Truss bridge from 30 to 48 meters with subsurface features ...... 60
Figure 5- 59: GPR profile across the deck of Truss bridge with subsurface features ........................... 61
Figure 5- 60: Bridge deck thickness of Concrete Bridge ...................................................................... 61
Figure 5- 61: GPR profile of Beam bridge from 0 to 30 meters with subsurface features ................... 62
Figure 5- 62: GPR profile of Beam bridge from 0 to 30 meters with subsurface features ................... 62
Figure 5- 63: GPR profile across the deck of Beam bridge with subsurface features .......................... 63
Figure 5- 64: Bridge deck thickness of Cable Bridge ........................................................................... 64
Figure 5- 65: GPR profile along the Cable bridge from 0 to 35 meters with subsurface features ........ 64
Figure 5- 66: GPR profile along the Cable bridge from 35 to 70 meters with subsurface features ...... 65
Figure 5- 67: GPR profile along the Cable bridge from 70 to 105 meters with subsurface features .... 65
Figure 5- 68: GPR profile along the Cable bridge from 105 to 132 meters with subsurface features .. 66

Figure 1: Railway Bridges nearby Dehradun ........................................................................................ 72

Figure 2: Road Bridges nearby Dehradun............................................................................................. 72
Figure 3: Walkover bridges nearby Dehradun ...................................................................................... 73
Figure 4: Suspension bridge near Rishikesh ......................................................................................... 73
Figure 5: Few TLS scans and overall scans .......................................................................................... 73
Figure 6: Few CRP overlapping images ............................................................................................... 74
Figure 7: DGPS Survey near the bridge................................................................................................ 74
Figure 8: GPR Survey on the deck........................................................................................................ 74
Figure 9: Few TLS scans and overall scans .......................................................................................... 75
Figure 10: Few CRP overlapping images ............................................................................................. 75
Figure 11: Few TLS scans and overall scans ........................................................................................ 76
Figure 12: GPR Survey on the deck...................................................................................................... 76

xiv | P a g e
List of Tables
Table 3- 1: Instruments used for Data Acquisition and time taken for Truss Bridge .............. 19
Table 3- 2: TLS scans and parameters for Truss Bridge ......................................................... 19
Table 3- 3: Instruments used for Data Acquisition and time taken for Beam Bridge ............. 21
Table 3- 4: TLS scans and parameters for Beam Bridge ......................................................... 21
Table 3- 5: Instruments used for Data Acquisition and time taken for Cable Bridge ............. 23
Table 3- 6: TLS scans and parameters for Cable Bridge ......................................................... 24
Table 4- 7: Instruments used for datasets acquisition .............................................................. 37
Table 4- 8: list of software used and their purposes ................................................................ 37

xv | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Different engineering structures have different roles in the modern day to day life. Bridges are
one of the vital engineering structures that play a major role in connectivity between two sides.
Bridges have various purposes like walking (over crossing), road and railway connectivity, etc.
there have been many disaster’s due to collapsing of bridges, which has caused damage to lives
and property. In this research three different types of bridges are studied which are Truss
Bridge, Beam Bridge and Cable Bridge that are used for road transportation. Analysing the
condition of any structures on a regular interval of time is very necessary for its maintenance
and to avoid any fatal situations to arise. Constructing the bridges are important but, the equal
importance has to be given to monitor the structural condition of the constructed bridge.
Monitoring the structural condition over a period of time reduces the vulnerability of any
disaster to happen. Heavy traffic and aggressive environmental conditions can reduce the
strength of the bridge and can cause unexpected bridge deterioration and damages. Traditional
condition evaluation is expensive and time consuming. An alternative technique is by making
the use of Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) and Close Range Photogrammetry (CRP) which is
a non-destructive remote sensing. This research focuses on to analyse the structural condition
of the concrete bridges by identifying vegetation, corrosion, cracks, water presence, blocked
water pipes, bridge material loss, any structural shifts, etc. Surface conditional assessment can
be done with the help of Terrestrial Laser Scanner (TLS), Close Range Photogrammetry (CRP).
Subsurface conditional assessment can be done with the help of Ground Penetrating Radar
(GPR). This research will be helpful in analysing and remodifying any engineering structure
based on the external and internal results.

1.2 Need for 3D Documentation of different bridges

3d Documentation has become a very efficient way of storing the geometrical information of
any structure for longer decades. By preventing it from any physical damages or decaying of
the drawings or maps as used to happen earlier days. There are various surveying techniques
used in Digital documentation of engineering structures like buildings, roads, bridges, etc. but
it takes too much time, it is labour intensive work. But Close range Photogrammetry (CRP)
and Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) are one of the best non-invasive remote sensing
techniques because these two techniques generates millions of dense point cloud within
relatively short time periods. Terrestrial laser scanning allows to derive complete and detailed
3D model of real objects from acquiring point cloud. Which is helpful to identify the

1|Page
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
geometrical condition of the structures. This research proposes the integration of TLS and CRP
dataset of the bridges involving 3D geometric documentation,
1.3 Terrestrial Laser Scanner
TLS is an active remote sensing instrument which gives us 3D point cloud. It calculates the
range, intensity, amplitude, RGB value (if the camera is mounted), etc.
1.3.1 Instrument Description
Terrestrial Laser Scanner Riegl VZ-400
Laser Wavelength – near infrared
Angle Measurement Resolution – 0.0005° (1.8arcsec)
Minimum Range 1.5m, Maximum Range 600m
Beam Divergence – 0.3 mrad
Scan Angle Range - Total 100° (+60°/-40°) for vertical and Total
360° for horizontal
Scanning mechanism - 3 lines/sec to 120 lines/sec for vertical
and 0°/sec to 60°/sec for horizontal Figure 1- 1: Reigl VZ 400

1.3.2 Principle of TLS

The basic principle of TLS is ‘time of flight’ of the laser pulse. It fires laser beam with high
repeatability pulse and traces the return signal from the surface of the target. It calculates the
distance of the target from the instrument by measuring the time taken by the laser pulse to hit
the target and back to sender.

Figure 1- 2: Time of Flight principle Figure 1- 3: Scanning pattern of TLS

The Distance is calculated by the formula:

𝑑 = 𝑐𝑡/2
D – distance between the instrument and target
c – speed of the light
t – Time of flight

2|Page
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
1.4 Close Range Photogrammetry (CRP)
CRP is used to generate a 3D model of the target with the RGB information. Overlapping
images are captured so as to locate a point in 3d coordinate system. If the camera is GPS
enabled then the 3d point cloud generated is georeferenced in the global coordinate system.
1.4.1 Instrument Description
Nikon D5300 DSLR
GPS enabled
Max resolution 6000 x 4000
Sensor Photo detectors 25 megapixel
Sensor type CMOS
Processor Expeed 4
Number of focus points 39
Dimensions 125 x 98 x 76 mm
Minimum and maximum shutter speed 30 sec Figure 1- 4: Nikon D5300 DSLR
and 1/4000 sec
1.4.2 Principle of CRP
The principle of CRP is Epipolar geometry. Let us consider two optical centre’s OL and OR
from where the left and right images are captured. There may be many common points in the
overlapping region. Let us consider a point x, image planes are formed behind the focal centre.
Here the plane shown are virtual planes. XR and XL are the projections of the point X onto the
right and left virtual image planes respectively. The line joining the optical centre and the
projection line of the point of interest through the focal centre gives the actual location of the
point X in the 3D coordinate system. This is how a 3D point is generated using CRP. Each
focal centre has a projection on the other image plane and these points are called epipolar points
EL on left and ER on right image planes respectively. XLEL and XRER are the epipolar lines for
left and right image planes respectively.

Figure 1- 5: principle of CRP

3|Page
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
1.5 Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)
DGPS is an improvised technology of Global Positioning System (GPS) which is used to know
the location of an unknown point with the help of base and rover. Base is a setup which is kept
in static and the rover can be operated in static or kinetic mode. DGPS can be used for precise
measurement which can give up to cm accuracy.
1.5.1 Instrument Description
Trimble R7 GNSS
Operates in L1 band
Power input 10.5-28 V DC
Operating temperature –40 °C to +65 °C
(–40 °F to +149 °F)
Base - static position Figure 1- 6: Base of Figure 1- 7: Rover of
DGPS DGPS
Rover - static or kinematic position
1.5.2 Principle of DGPS
Location of an unknown point is calculated with the help of known station referred as base
station which is set up on more stable platform. The rover is used to collect the location of the
unknown points whose platform may or may not be more stable. The signals are recorded from
the satellites. But the signals which are traced have pseudorange errors which are corrected
from the error value generated from the base station. Error values are generated between the
signals received from the satellites and the known location of the base station.

Figure 1- 8: working principle of DGPS

(https://www.researchgate.net/figure/6-Operational-principle-of-DGPS_fig8_270339281)

4|Page
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
1.6 Total Station (TS)
TS is used to calculate a geographical coordinates of any un-known point on the surface. Which
may or may not be parallel to the earth’s surface.
1.6.1 Instrument Description
Leica pinpoint r1000+
Laser class 3R product
Wavelength 658 nm
Pulse duration 800 ps
Pulse Repetition frequency (PRF) 100 MHz
Maximum average radiant power 4.8 Mw
Beam divergence 0.2 mrad x 0.3 mrad Figure 1- 9: Total Figure 1- 10: Leica
Range 1.5 m to 1200 m station prism

1.6.2 Principle of TS
Before any survey with the TS there must be two known points with their location. Initially the
TS is placed on one of the known point and the prism reflector (Figure 1-10) is placed on the
other known point. Back sighting is done from the TS. To set up the instrument. Back sighting
is done to cross check the location of the prism. Once instrument is set up thereafter, one can
start recording the unknown points (ts1, ts2, ts3) by shooting a laser pulse on the surface as
shown in figure below. TS follows time of flight principle as explained earlier in section 1.3.2.

Figure 1- 11: Principle of Total station

5|Page
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
1.7 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
GPR gives us the radargram of the subsurface. Radargram is based on tomography which is a
technique used to represent a cross section through a solid surface. GPR record the reflections
due to change in dielectric constant present in the subsurface.

1.7.1 Instrument Description

IDS make high mode dual frequency 200 and 600 MHz
Power supply of 12v
Not suitable in wet patches or high moisture content
Higher the frequency, lower the ground penetration,
higher the resolution
Data acquisition depend on wheel rotation
Figure 1- 12: GPR

1.7.2 Principle of GPR

The radargram generated from the GPR is based on the reflections obtained from the subsurface
features. Let us consider the figure 1-13 a target is present beneath the surface. Initially when
at position A all the signals sent are traced without any reflections but at position B due to the
presence of target reflections are recorded and a parabola is obtained in the radargram. Again
at position C due to absence of any target no parabola is generated. The reflections obtained
are due to change in the dielectric constant in the medium.

Figure 1- 13: Principle of GPR

1.8 Distometer
Distometer is used for the ground truth validation of the measurements of the Bridges. There
were few points which was not possible to measure with the help of measuring tape. In those
places distometer played an important role like points under the bridge deck which was not in
reach, point of the bridge above the water surface, etc.

6|Page
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
1.8.1 Instrument Description
Leica Distometer S910
Accuracy ± 1.0mm
Range 0.05m - 300m
Vertical range -40° to 80° and horizontal range 360°
Laser 635nm of class 2
Operation temperature -10° to 50°C
Figure 1- 14: Leica Disto meter
Range of Bluetooth and WLAN 10 m
(http://surveyequipment.com/leica-
Pulse Repetition Frequency 320MHz disto-s910-laser-distance-meter/)
Beam divergence 0.16 x 0.6 mrad
1.8.2 Principle of Distometer
Laser Distometer follows the ‘time of flight’ principle. As explained in the section 1.3.2 earlier.
1.9 Need for integration of information of surface and subsurface
information.
The need for integrating the surface and subsurface features is very necessary to identify the
exact location of the subsurface features corresponding to its surface location. So as to know
the subsurface information where it belongs to on the bridge deck. The surface and the
subsurface information can be better understood while analysing the information together.

1.10 Need for surface analysis

The surface of the structure gets damaged due to many reasons like heavy load on the bridge.
Adverse weather conditions, due to water flow, etc. The damages which are confined to the
surface like corrosion, biological crust, water presence, vegetation, etc. can be extracted with
the help of TLS point cloud classification obtained and RGB image classification. Due to the
load on the bridge deck, which slowly results in declining of load bearing capacity of the bridge.
To avoid any surface damages that may effect on the bridge condition in the near future it is
recommended for the surface analysis.

1.11 Need for subsurface analysis

Subsurface damages are not easy to identify until and unless someone tries to monitor the
internal structure of the bridge. Subsurface information like presence of water, corrosion, voids,
rebar’s, crack, thickness of asphalt layer and bridge deck can be extracted with the help of GPR
and TLS. The thickness of the bridge deck can be used to monitor the maintenance work and
to check the equal thickness of the bridge deck throughout the deck. The presence of rebar’s
can be used to cross check the construction work has been carried out according to the safety

7|Page
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
norms and to with stand the load of the bridge. The presence of water, corrosion, voids, cracks,
etc. can be used to identify the weak zones and take appropriate measures accordingly.
1.12 Motivation and problem statement
Several disasters has occurred due to improper condition and maintenance of the urban
structures. So to avoid such situations proper measures must be taken. Accurate surface and
subsurface condition of the bridge structure has to be monitored so as to identify and rectify
the problems within fatal time.
Monitoring the structural conditional of surface and subsurface in less time with more precision
can be done with the help of TLS, CRP and GPR. Moreover, manual and tradition approach
requires lot of time and there is difficulty in accessing remote parts of the urban structure.

1.13 Research Objective

1.13.1 Main Objective
The main objective of this research is Surface and Subsurface 3D documentation and
assessment of the condition of different bridges.
1.13.2 Sub-Objective
This research was sub-divided into four sub-objectives as following:
 To extract geometric information of the different bridges.
 To integrate TLS, CRP and GPR datasets.
 To analyse the surface condition of different bridges.
 To analyse the subsurface condition of different bridges.

1.14 Research Questions

 How to extract geometric information of the engineering structures?
 How to integrate surface and subsurface information?
 How accurate the surface and subsurface condition of the engineering structure can be
extracted?
1.15 Structure of Thesis
This research is divided into 8 chapters:
Chapter 1 deals with the introduction to the research, need for 3D documentation, need
for surface and subsurface analysis. Integration of information.
Chapter 2 deals with the literature review which briefly describes the past researches
carried out related to this research.
Chapter 3 deals with the study area with their locations in the map. Different data
acquisition that have been carried in the study areas.

8|Page
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Chapter 4 deals with the methodology of the research, Instruments and software’s used
to carry out the research.
Chapter 5 presents all the results with discussions that were generated throughout the
research corresponding to their objectives. It also describes the accuracy assessment and
ground truth validation.
Chapter 6 deals with the conclusion and recommendation part of the research. It also
presents the limitations and challenges faced during the research. It also enlightens the future
scope of the research that can be further carried out to strengthen the research further.
Chapter 7 shows all the references that were used to understand and carry out the
knowledge that were used for this research
Chapter 8 presents the appendix with the field images and datasets

9|Page
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
2 Literature review
This chapter deals with all the researches that have been carried out related to this
research. This chapter has been subdivided into four subsections. The first dealing with the 3D
documentation of the structure. The second section deals with the researches that have been
focused on the integration of the surface and subsurface information. Third section deals with
the researches that have been done on the surface analysis of different structures. Fourth
sections deals with the researches that have focused to analyse the sub surface features.

2.1 3D Documentation of structures

Unexpected bridge deterioration can take place due to aggressive environment and heavy
traffic conditions so monitoring them using non-contact approach, using TLS involving bridge
measurement documentation can be done that is fast ,safe and applicable to different weather
conditions (Truong-Hong & Laefer, 2014). The previous studies shows that this task can be
done successfully. Few of the glimpse of them are shown here. Many 3D documentation works
have been carried out. 3D documentation of AL-Khasneh, a well-known monument in Petra,
Jordan by generating a 3D virtual model. Integration of TLS and CRP was used to improvise
the geometry and visual quality to enhance the position of edges and linear surface features
(Alshawabkeh & Haala, 2004) An UNESCO world heritage site A’Famosa Fortress, Porta de
Santiago, Malaysia was 3D documented using integration of FARO Photon Laser Scanner and
Nikon DSLR digital camera images. The documentation was done to preserve the historical
monument (Wei, Chin, Majid, & Setan, 2010).Different spatial data collection techniques
(CRP, Videogrammetry, 3D camera Ranging, TLS) are compared with their benefits and
limitations and to identify the appropriate technique based on the structures application
requirements (Zhu, Brilakis, & Asce, 2009)

An automatic approach for efficiently monitoring the status of buildings under construction
like as-built dimension calculation and control can be done with the help of CAD models
generated from lidar scans. The approach is made more efficient by increasing the registration
quality by point matching method which uses iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm (Bosché,
2010).There are various surveying techniques used in Digital documentation of engineering
structures like buildings, roads, bridges, etc. but it takes too much time, it is labour intensive
and highly subjective to determine the structure external surface condition. But Close range
Photogrammetry (CRP) and Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) are one of the best techniques
because these two techniques generates millions of dense point cloud within relatively short
time periods, terrestrial laser scanning allows to derive complete and detailed 3D model of real

10 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
objects from acquiring point cloud. Which is helpful to identify the condition of the structures.
The purpose of this research is integration of TLS and CRP on the structures, measurement
involving 3D geometric documentation, surface defect estimation, corrosion evaluation, and
crack identification. Also estimate the damaged area of the structure and apply the maintenance
aspect of the structure.
2.2 Use of TLS, CRP, DGPS, TS and GPR in integration of surface and
subsurface information
The TLS is used for the modelling of any historic or other feature externally, the internal
parameters are unrevealed anyway. So, a time of flight (ToF) TLS, Trimble GX was used for
the study of external geometry. The scanner covers 360‫ ﹾ‬in horizontal direction and 100 ‫ﹾ‬in
vertical direction, the panoramic view is also empower. The accuracy of the distance
measurement is 2 mm at a 10 m range using 532 nm of wavelength. The vertical angular step
width is 0.0014‫ﹾ‬, and the horizontal one is 0.0012‫ﹾ‬. The diameter of the laser spot is 1 mm at
10 m. The efficiency of the instrument is to collect 5000 points per second (Villarino, Riveiro,
Gonzalez-aguilera, & Sánchez-aparicio, 2014). A dual axis compensator in incorporated in the
scanner so that a perfect Z – direction is defined during data acquisition. Due to limitation in
the vertical direction acquisition four scanner stations are used in four directions of 1 cm
diameter of the spot at 10 m just to cover whole area in one go. The resulting points not only
gives the 3D of the points, but also the intensity of the point values processed using 8 bit
electronics.

All the targets were validated and georeferenced with the TLS using geophysical prospection
with the artificial targets, in order to integrate GPR that is underground geometry with the
results of TLS survey a local reference system was needed , which is a network of control
points defined by the planar targets. The referenced system is the key to compare and integrate
these two methodology (TLS and GPR) together. This operation requires location of these
targets along the profile of the GPR measurements. Also, the other vertical walls targets and
their own floor for aligning the four scanner stations that enclose the whole external geometry.

The Ground penetrating radar is used for the elicitation of the internal geometry on the urban
features as well as natural features. The information generally acquired by this instrument is
the type of minerals, and the internal geometry of any bridge or pavement. This instrument is
well replacement for the spatial resolution and the depth of detection. The depth can be
measured up to 6 m, the interval can be varied manually and a vertical resolution of 5 cm,
which differentiate the two adjacent signals. The trace interval is 2 cm and time window is of

11 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
100 ns. This also provides the best interpretation of the profile on the basis of the TLS
georeferencing. The two other profiles were seized and considered as a reference. The program
usually refers to the registration of data for TLS and GPR at locations in which the composition
of previously known underground details. The registration of TLS and GPR under the same
coordinate system was done.

The point cloud generated from TLS lack information like the texture, some parts of the facade
which can be added with the help of point cloud obtained from CRP. By bringing both the
clouds into a common reference system by ICP algorithm and Helmert (seven parameter)
transformation (Han, Chong, Li, & Fritsch, 2014). The integrated point cloud generated from
TLS and CRP has to be transformed to a geodetic coordinate system, with the help of GPS
receiver the point cloud can be geo-referenced (Schuhmacher & Böhm, 2005). Another similar
research has been carried out for integration using TLS and Global Navigation Satellite System
(GNSS) with continuous reference stations and was registered with international terrestrial
reference frame (Schuhmacher & Böhm, 2005).Different frequencies of GPR antenna were
used to test for getting optimal resolution and depth of penetration for geological mapping of
mines and quarries (Hamed Rafezi, Alexandre Novo, 2015).A research has been carried using
combined datasets from TLS and GPR to document different types of tectono-geomorphic
features that changes the morphology of bedrock scraps involved with active extensional
faults, Italy (A. Bubeck, M.Wilkinson, G.P.Roberts, P.A. Cowie, K.J.W.McCaffrey, R.
Phillips, 2015). One more study related to this is the applied GPR and photogrammetric
techniques to document a megalithic tomb (Lorenzo & Arias, 2005)

A joint use of TLS for accurate geometry measurement and surface defects detection, GPR for
detecting inner pathologies and Infrared Thermography (IRT) for evaluating the state of the
subsurface of the paving is used to determine the condition of the paving (Lagüela, Solla,
Puente, & Prego, 2018). The integration of the TLS and GPR provide the 3D structure of the
external and internal parts of any feature. The use of GPR can be very much pragmatic to study
the internal or hidden areas or inaccessible areas below the ground or the features like bridges
which cannot be broken to study the internal structures, once constructed. The GPR can be
advantageous for the landslides and extracting the hidden or buried information. For the
documentation of the historic structures, the multidisciplinary approaches can be very much
useful. The previous researches are there, which describes the successful use of more than two
disciplines for the same purpose, as one of the studies shown previously, in that the integration
of the digital photogrammetry and GPR was done to evaluate the possible reasons for the

12 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
structural damages and possible failures of a mediaeval bridge(Arias et al., 2007).The
integration of the GPR and ERT (Electrical Resistivity Tomography) has been applied to study
archaeological structures in a mausoleum and in the Acropolis to reveal a bronze foundry
complex. The use of TLS was also carried out in Scotland for the characterization of small
mountainous catchment, where a combination of geomatics and geophysical methodologies for
geomorphology was used. In this context, TLS was used to generate a detailed digital elevation
model (DEM) and the differential global positioning system (DGPS) to augment the other
geophysical techniques. Also one more study related with this same preference using TLS,
GPR, and ERT to estimate the slope stability with respect to the change in climate in the higher
alpine rock walls.

2.3 Surface analysis of Bridge structures

Use of TLS point cloud textured with RGB images can be an improvised technique than visual
inspection technique. To extract the elemental and surface damages like delamination,
corrosion, cracks, steel section loss and spall concrete loss of the bridge structure (Guldur, Yan,
& F. Hajjar, 2015) (Rabah, Elhattab, & Fayad, 2013). Surface analysis like biological crust,
water presence can be extracted with the help of intensity of lidar data. Two different classifier,
Fuzzy C-means and K-means were also used to automatically extract the biological crust
present on the bridge concrete (González-Jorge, Gonzalez-Aguilera, Rodriguez-Gonzalvez, &
Arias, 2012).

Real time dynamic monitoring of the bridge displacement is very important factor for its health
structure. Using TLS which gives the measurement with high accuracy and less time with much
precise data (Zhao et al., 2015). Vertical bridge deflection measurement using CRP for two
different kind, like steel and concrete girder were used. The deflections were measured due to
the load and were compared with the level rod readings, finite element analysis and curvature
based deflection measurements as discussed in the paper (Lee & Park, 2011). Beam
deformation monitoring with the help of Photogrammetry can be done using the concept of
photogrammetric reconstruction by model based image fitting and image matching based
reconstruction. Both horizontal and vertical beam displacements were measured while
subjecting a concrete beam to different loads with the help of a hydraulic actuator (Wei et al.,
2010). TLS can also be used for monitoring the stress accumulated on various parts of the
bridges are important. An automatic approach for stress estimation at the beam is calculated
with the help of TLS data variation and Finite Element Method (FEM) (Lee & Park, 2011).

13 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
An automatic approach for extracting vertical minimum under clearance of the pressurised
concrete bridges are compared with high accurate value of total stations. Results show high
statistical correlation, briefly explained in the papers (Tang & Akinci, 2012) (Wei et al., 2010).
In the paper (Xiao et al., 2018) the impact and potential of geoinformatics for the measurement
of official Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicators, as well as UNESCO’s Culture
for development indicators are discussed. Digital images can also be used as a vision based
approach for automatic detection of deformed structure parts, corrosion and cracks in bridge
structures. Various image processing techniques can be utilised for enhancing the required
defects in the structure (Jahanshahi, Kelly, Masri, & Sukhatme, 2009). Surface analysis is the
extraction of the surface features, such as presence of water on the bridge deck, biological crust
present on the walls of the bridge, corrosion in the grills and bars of the bridge due to presence
of the water with the help of image processing techniques, for this purpose the classification
technique used is supervised classification in the Erdas imagine software. The traditional
methods used for the supervised classification are parallelepiped method, spectral angler
method and maximum likelihood method, out of all these the most accepted one is maximum
likelihood method, because evaluating visually the images generated by the classifiers, it is
observed that the method of maximum likelihood is more compatible with the reality (Camilo,
Duarte, Zanetti, & Junior, 2016).

The spectral signatures of classes were extracted with the training samples and then the
classifier analysis maximum likelihood were performed. The number of training samples taken
were 250 for each images. The classified images were generated by using these training
samples. The surface features extracted were classified as a separate classes. The training
samples were taken by the ground observation and previous knowledge about the place and the
features. Hence, this method is also used for the validation of the classified results, kappa
statistics of the classifier was calculated in the accuracy report, thus, to carry out the analysis,
for the verification accuracy report was generated for the classified image, since the image
taken was not satellite data rather an JPEG format image, it was quite challenging to complete
this task but the maximum likelihood classification technique used was the most suitable
outcome for this purpose.

However, the maximum likelihood method, is the most used in remote sensing within the
statistical approach. This method suits ellipse, so that the location, shape and ellipse size reflect
the average variance and covariance of two variables. The distribution of reflectance values is

14 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
described by a probability function that evaluates the possibility of a given pixel belongs to a
category and classifies the pixel to a category which it is more likely to associate.

The results and accuracy obtained are quite relevant to the reality. Kappa statistics obtained are
based on the error matrix and it shows the relevancy of the observed accuracy with the expected
accuracy, it is not only to evaluate single classifier but also the classifier among themselves.

2.4 Subsurface analysis of Bridge structures

The subsurface analysis of the bridge structures was done using GPR. A similar research using
GPR for diagnostics of three different concrete structures the ground floor structure, railway
viaduct abutment and the concrete well to identify the amount of reinforcement and distribution
including the thickness of the concrete layer (Jacek .L and Magdalena .R,2015). A study has
been carried on bridge deck, Elkobba, Cairo .Detecting the steel rebars embedded inside the
concrete and to determine concrete slab thickness and asphalt layer thickness and generating
corrosion map for the steel rebars (Ata, Abouhamad, H Serror, Marzouk, & Abdelakder, 2018).
A destructive evaluation of the bridge cover has been done in Texas, inadequate concrete cover
values were determined by the radargram which is generated from the GPR scans. An
inaccurate concrete dielectric constant was due to presence of water on the deck (Hasan &
Yazdani, 2014).

The GPR as a non-destructive method can be applied on the bridge for acquiring the data was
earlier performed on the historic masonry arch bridge in Olesnica/Poland (Trela, Wöstmann,
& Kruschwitz, 2008). 3D imaging technique over a historic semi rigid pavement with complex
structures of layers was carried out to detect large infrastructural objects of linear shape and
detection of cracks and joints (Krysinski & Sudyka, 2016). The pre-processing steps of GPR
datasets like time zero correction, filtering steps were necessary for enhancing the GPR profile
(S. Magdalena and S. Piotr, 2013).The mobile GPR can be very much useful for obtaining the
information related to the depth of rebar, asphalt pavement thickness and concrete damage
beneath the pavement (Hugenschmidt, 2002). The subsurface analysis can be done using
Ground penetrating radar (GPR). This instrument is used for the Characterization of the
subsurface features such as impact craters, iron rods, the type of minerals used, buried culverts,
historical graves, reservoir analogs. In the previous studies these features are successfully
extracted with the help of GPR. The feature like buried culverts was already been done using
this, there the best images were elicited. The measurements of soil were compared with the
field experiments and other sources. The radar velocity were estimated for a set of antenna
frequencies in order to use in imaging and depth conversion of the GPR data. The

15 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
synchronization of GPR can be done with the control unit of GPR, which can be triggered
based on time interval or spatial interval measured with an odometer (Aziz, 2016). The trace
tagging can be done by connecting the GPR acquisition software to an external source. After
the proper connection, the GPR acquisition software creates a no of files, to get GPR traces
paired with GGA sentence. These traces later on referenced as trajectory. The main objective
of the GPR software is to create competent desktop application, which can provide different
thickness of the pavement using graphics. The main requirement is to develop a programming
language which can handle these kind of task and also to develop Graphical User Interface
(GUI) application with the support of graph implementation.

The traces obtained by the radar signals and the thickness of the pavement can be better
obtained using graphs. Now the processing tool of the GPR is shown for the software
applications for the Mala GPR files, for that input files are needed, the formats are .RAD and
.R03 extensions. The RAD files are the binary ASCII files that stores header information for
the GPR data configurations such as number of traces, frequency, etc. The main window of the
software is user interface that can be divided into two parts, one is dealing with the input data
and can be designated as subarea1, 2, and 3. The subarea is required to configure the output
format. The layer can be drawn in the subarea 1, which is new layer, to add a new layer one
should need to identify the points in all traces with similar amplitude to the clicked points.
Layer corrections can be done on the radargram (M. Solla, X. Nunez-Nieto, M. Varela-
Gonzalez, J. MartInez-Sanchez, 2014). The single click can be useful to draw the layer on the
radargram, by assigning the starting point display of the layer automatically completed in the
GPR profile or by selecting the trace and clicking on the corresponding peak of the reflected
signal. The contrast values can be increase or decrease in the subarea provided, all needed is
the transmission velocity of each layer to be acquired. The thickness can be obtained in the
GPR profile on the basis of the wave travel time between two different reflectors or layers. The
thickness can be calculated by knowing the velocity of the Radar signal and time travel distance
to and from the layer or target. The thickness calculated by this is collateral with distance
travelled by the radar signal as well as the velocity of the radar signal. The stored file will be
only in .gpr or ASCII format. This will create a table, having the columns represented distance
from current point to the trajectory starting point. The depth of the layer can be seen with the
successive columns by ascending order only that are defined as the distance of one layer to the
next one. The .gpr file exported in the visualization application from the processing tool, and
can be loaded in the application itself. This tool is efficient enough to display the thickness of
the layer which is synchronized with the trajectory that was followed by the vehicle during

16 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
acquisition of the depth of the pavement. The vehicle possess GPS and GPR sensors that is
already installed. The data shown in the application are of varying depth so the intervals can
also be change. The graph may be linked with the previously loaded trajectory so that the
current thickness data shown for the geographic location indicated by a dot on the trajectory,
the grey graph shows the displaying distance as well as the depth. Moreover, the time lapse is
configurable for the visualization. In addition, there is possibility to make any change on the
trajectory. The alignment and the current coordinate area shown in other table that can be
manually change if required. The layer can be drawn by clicking on the radargram, once the
user loaded the starting point the system automatically display layer through the complete GPR
profile.

17 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
3 Study Area and Data Acquisition
3.1 study Area map
Different types of bridges in and around Dehradun were surveyed and out of which three
different bridges were identified suitable to carry out the research work. First bridge identified
was Truss bridge which is on Mussoorie – Sahastradhara Bypass road. Second bridge identified
was Beam Bridge, which is on kesherwala road. Third bridge identified was Cable Bridge
which is on Haridwar road. Location of all the three bridges is shown in the study area map
below.

Figure 3- 1: Study Area Map

3.2 Study Area 1: Truss Bridge (Mussoorie - Sahastradhara Bypass road)

The first bridge chosen is a truss bridge which is located at a Latitude 30°22'42.81"N and
Longitude 78°5'29.06"E. Truss bridge is constructed by assembling of many trusses with
many small elements.

Figure 3- 2: Study Area 1, Truss Bridge – Mussoorie - Sahastradhara Bypass road

18 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
3.3 Data Acquisition
Different instrument were used for the data acquisitions. TLS scans, CRP images, DGPS
points and GPR scans were carried out accordingly. The further information is provided in the
following table:
Instrument Acquisition Time taken
TLS 7 scans 5 hrs
CRP 371 images 4 hrs
DGPS 2 Points 6 hrs
TS 11 Points 40 min
GPR 2D 3 Scans 1 hr
GPR 3D 44 + 3 Scans 6 hrs
Table 3- 1: Instruments used for Data Acquisition and time taken for Truss Bridge
TLS scans were carried out to make a complete 3D model of the bridge. The scans were taken
so as to cover the structure from all the angles and parameters are given below in the table:
Instruments used for Data Acquisition and time taken for Truss Bridge
Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Vertical Scan Time
TLS
Coverage Resolution Coverage Resolution (minutes)
Scan Position 1 70 100 11.46
Scan Position 2 80 90 13.17
Scan Position 3 130 80 21.14
Scan Position 4 140 0.03 80 0.03 22.51
Scan Position 5 80 70 12.54
Scan Position 6 110 80 18.00
Scan Position 7 150 80 24.28
Total scan time 123.1

Table 3- 2: TLS scans and parameters for Truss Bridge

Two DGPS points were taken near the bridge on both the sides of the bridge. Their location is
also provided with their positions in the image below.

Figure 3- 3: DGPS points with their location near the Truss Bridge

19 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
GPR scans were performed on the bridge deck for the subsurface information. The scan
positions and the scans directions are clearly shown in the image below.

Figure 3- 4: GPR 2D scans pattern over the Truss Bridge deck

The 3D GPR scans have to be performed in a gridded pattern. The below image shows the
grid pattern with 47 scans 43 along deck and 3 across deck scan lines.

Figure 3- 5: GPR 3D scans pattern over the Truss Bridge deck

3.4 Study Area 2: Beam Bridge (Kesherwala Road)

The second bridge chosen is a beam bridge which is located at a Latitude 30°20'29.20"N and
Longitude 78° 6'53.43"E. Beam bridge is mostly constructed with the help of Reinforced
Concrete Cement (RCC). In this bridge, there are three spans and supported with abutment on
both the sides of the bridge.

Figure 3- 6: Study Area 2, Beam Bridge - Kesherwala Road

20 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
3.5 Data Acquisition
The following table shows the data acquired by the instruments with their number of scans,
images and points.
Instrument Acquisition Time taken
TLS 21 scans 16 hrs
CRP 376 images 4 hrs
DGPS 2 Points 6 hrs
TS 176 points 3.5 hrs
GPR 2D 4 Scans 1.2 hr
GPR 3D 42 + 4 Scans 6 hrs

Table 3- 3: Instruments used for Data Acquisition and time taken for Beam Bridge

Number of TLS scans with their parameters which were used for the data acquisition in the
beam bridge is shown in the table.
Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Vertical Scan Time
TLS
Coverage Resolution Coverage Resolution (minutes)
Scan Position 1 170 70 27.08
Scan Position 2 130 90 21.27
Scan Position 3 110 100 18.18
Scan Position 4 130 90 21.27
Scan Position 5 90 100 15.04
Scan Position 6 120 100 20.01
Scan Position 7 120 90 19.49
Scan Position 8 120 90 19.49
Scan Position 9 90 0.03 100 0.03 15.04
Scan Position 10 110 90 18.11
Scan Position 11 50 90 8.21
Scan Position 12 30 90 5.07
Scan Position 13 30 90 5.07
Scan Position 14 110 40 17.02
Scan Position 15 140 40 21.40
Scan Position 16 100 40 15.30
Scan Position 17 120 40 18.35
Scan Position 18 60 50 7.04
Scan Position 19 40 40 4.42
0.05 0.05
Scan Position 20 60 40 7.01
Scan Position 21 50 50 5.54
Total scan time 309.41

Table 3- 4: TLS scans and parameters for Beam Bridge

21 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Two DGPS points were collected on the either side of the beam bridge and their location is
also provided in the figure below.

Figure 3- 7: DGPS points with their location near the Beam Bridge

Four GPR scans were taken on the deck of the beam bridge. Their scan positions and
directions are depicted in the given figure 3.7

Figure 3- 8: GPR scans over the Beam Bridge

The 3D GPR scans have to be performed in a gridded pattern. The below image shows the
grid pattern with 46 scans 42 along the deck and 4 across the deck scan lines.

Figure 3- 9: GPR 3D scans pattern over the Beam Bridge deck

22 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
3.6 Study Area 3: Cable Bridge (Haridwar Road)
The third bridge chosen is a cable bridge which is located at a Latitude 29°57'28.74"N and
Longitude 78°10'31.58"E over river Ganga. In this cable bridge there is a single pier and 14
cables are connected to the deck on the either side of the pier. The bridge is supported with
abutment on either side of the river.

Figure 3- 10: Study Area 3, Cable Bridge - Haridwar Road

3.7 Data Acquisition

The instruments which were used for acquiring datasets of the study area with their parameters
and their time duration are given in the table below:

Instrument Acquisition Time taken

TLS 14 scans 10 hrs
CRP 444 images 5 hrs
DGPS 3 Points 9 hrs
GPR 2D 4 Scans 1.2 hr
Table 3- 5: Instruments used for Data Acquisition and time taken for Cable Bridge

Different TLS scan positions with their scanning parameters and time taken for each scans.
Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Vertical Scan Time
TLS
Coverage Resolution Coverage Resolution (minutes)
Scan Position 1 110 100 18.18
Scan Position 2 110 100 18.18
Scan Position 3 110 0.03 100 0.03 18.18
Scan Position 4 140 100 23.19
Scan Position 5 160 80 26.05
Scan Position 6 140 0.05 60 0.05 16.36
Scan Position 7 150 60 23.55
0.03 0.03
Scan Position 8 130 100 21.36
Scan Position 9 180 0.05 100 0.05 21.47
Scan Position 10 160 40 24.53
0.03 0.03
Scan Position 11 100 70 15.58

23 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Scan Position 12 140 80 22.42
Scan Position 13 100 70 16.02
Scan Position 14 60 70 9.53
Total scan time 274.6
Table 3- 6: TLS scans and parameters for Cable Bridge

Three DGPS point were taken two on the either side and one point at approximately at the
middle of the deck on the footpath of the bridge.

Figure 3- 11: DGPS points with their location on the Cable Bridge

GPR scans were taken on the road and over the footpath of the cable bridge. No across scans
were taken due to heavy traffic rush as this is the main road transportation line of Haridwar.
Scan direction and positions are highlighted in the image below.

Figure 3- 12: GPR scan over the Cable Bridge

24 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
4 Methodology
4.1 Methodological Flowchart
The different datasets that were acquired at the study areas were mentioned in the earlier
chapter. In this chapter the methodology of that was followed to complete the research is briefly
explained with the steps involved. The overall methodology is divided into two sections (Figure
4.1 and Figure 4.14). Figure 4.1a deals with the workflow used for 3D documentation and
surface analysis. Figure 4.1b deals with the workflow used for integration of information from
TLS, CRP and GPR and subsurface analysis. Further explained briefly in each sections.

Figure 4- 1: Methodology for 3D Documentation and Surface analysis

25 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
4.1.1 TLS Data Acquisition
Before the start of the TLS data acquisition proper field planning has to be done. Like
determining the number of scans, the positions from where the scans have to be taken and the
resolution parameters which are sufficient for this research. Optimum number of scans were
taken so that the scans cover all the sides of the structure and no portion is left unscanned.

Figure 4- 2: Few TLS scans with their positions

4.1.2 Co-registration of TLS scans

After all the scan acquired all the scans have to be brought to the same coordinate system from
the instruments own coordinate system. That can be done by co-registration of each scans. Co-
registration of two scan positions can be done at a time by taking minimum of 4 common points

26 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
in each scans precisely. The more precise we select the points much accurate the co-registration
of scans will be.

Figure 4- 3: Co-registration of two scans to bring into same co-ordinates

4.1.3 Point Cloud Generation

All the scans after co-registration are transferred to the same co-ordinate system. Generating a
heavy point cloud of the TLS data. Different scans are coloured differently only for
visualisation purpose.

Figure 4- 4: TLS point cloud after co-registration of all scans represented in different colours

27 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
4.1.4 TLS Data Noise and Outlier Removal
This point cloud data generated has lot of noise and outliers. That has to be removed so as to
reduce the data size and making data handling much easier. The noise and outliers are removed
with the help of filters.

Figure 4- 5: TLS point cloud after noise and outlier removal

4.1.5 CRP Data Acquisition

The TLS point cloud generated does not have any (Red Blue Green) RGB information. As the
TLS used in this study works in Near Infra-Red (NIR) band to overcome this limitation the
concept of CRP is used. Multiple RGB images were capture throughout the accessible areas of
the structure with a certain amount of overlap between the consecutive images. The images
should be captures at regular interval of distance. Illumination due to sunlight should be
considered during the acquisition of images. As camera images works in optical wavelength
and is a passive remote sensing technique.

Figure 4- 6: Few continuous images captured using CRP

28 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
4.1.6 Alignment of Images and Camera Position
Once the images are captured covering the whole structure. The images need to be aligned with
their camera position respectively.

Figure 4- 7: Figure showing alignment of images with camera position

4.1.7 Sparse Point Cloud generation

The tie points are generated from all the images together. Tie points are the common features
that are easily recognisable in two or more images. All the tie points generated can be referred
as sparse point cloud. Optimum number of points should be generated, so as to avoid any loss
in the critical points generation

Figure 4- 8: Tie points generated (sparse point cloud)

29 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
4.1.8 Dense Point Cloud generation
With reference to the tie points (sparse point cloud) dense point cloud is generated. The dense
point cloud generated including all the rest of common points between the overlapping images.
The dense point cloud generated has noise and outliers.

Figure 4- 9: Dense point cloud generated with noise and outliers

4.1.9 CRP Data Noise and Outlier Removal

The noise and outliers are removed with filters and the point cloud of the required structure is
segmented out.

Figure 4- 10: Dense point cloud without noise and outliers

4.1.10 Integration of TLS and CRP Point Cloud datasets

The CRP point cloud is having RGB information. Which is fused with the TLS point cloud to
get much higher accurate and denser point cloud. The fusion of TLS and CRP point clouds is

30 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
done with the co-registration of both the point clouds. As explained earlier in TLS point cloud
co-registration.

Figure 4- 11: Fusion of TLS and CRP point clouds

From the resulted point cloud 3D Documentation and surface analysis like bridge deck linearity
deformation is done. 3D documentation is done by creating sections of the 3D model and
extracting the edges from different view. Bridge deck linearity deformation is measured from
an idle line joining the base of the bridge deck at both ends at the abutment to the actual shape
of the bottom of the bridge deck. This deflection gives us the amount of deformation at different
points of the bridge deck.

4.1.11 Subset of DSLR RGB Images

Images taken from the DSLR camera are selected from all the images in which significant
surface damages have occurred for further surface analysis. Subsets of the selected Images are
made by mostly removing the unnecessary portion other than the bridge part.

Figure 4- 12: RGB image of the bridge Figure 4- 13: subset of the image

Supervised classification approach is used to extract the damaged portion of the bridge due to
corrosion, biological crust, vegetation, and water, etc.

31 | P a g e
3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 4- 14: Methodology for Integration of TLS, CRP, GPR and Subsurface analysis

32 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
4.1.12 DGPS Points Acquisition
The base of the DGPS was setup at Latitude N30°20’28.49013 and Longitude
E78°02’36.37886 with elevation of 666.380m. With the help of rover, points were taken near
the bridge for study area 1, 2 and one point on the bridge deck for study area 3. DGPS points
were collected on the surface which were much stable and near to the bridge.

4.1.13 TS Points Acquisition

DGPS geo-referenced points were further used for TS survey. For TS survey, two geo-
referenced points are needed one for the instrument and one for the prism reflector for back
sighting as explained in the introduction chapter.

4.1.14 Geo-referencing of TLS and CRP Point Cloud

Once the TS points were collected these points were used for geo-referencing the TLS and CRP
point cloud. Geo-referencing is done by co-registration of TLS and CRP point cloud with TS
geo-referenced points.

TLS and CRP point cloud dataset is used to calculate the thickness of the bridge deck which is
a part of subsurface analysis. The thickness can be found by Slicing the point cloud from the
top view across the deck with few centimetres of thickness.

4.1.15 GPR Data Acquisition 3D

GPR scans were taken in the Grid format, so as to produce 3D GPR dataset. The grid has to be
equally spaced and was taken at 1m interval. The 3D GPR dataset acquired is processed. The
integration of the information obtained from the TLS and CRP with GPR is carried out.

Figure 4- 15: sample 3D GPR grid data acquisition pattern

33 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
4.1.16 GPR Data Acquisition 2D
GRP 2D scan were taken along and across the bridge deck. The scan is chosen such that it has
less noise interference due to bump on the small stones and dust or any other obstacle. The
signal that are penetrated and reflected are traced by the instrument and recorded. The raw
radargram profile is shown below.

Figure 4- 16: Raw GPR radargram of the 2D scan profile of the bridge deck

4.1.17 Move Start Time

Move start time is used to match the surface reflections to the actual surface position. Adjusting
the start time to the actual position throughout the data results in all the reflections to be aligned
correctly. It helps us to measure the actual depth of the target. There may be shift in the actual
first layer reflection due to the air temperature, damaged cable, instrument’s internal
temperature difference.

Figure 4- 17: GPR scan profile after Move Start Time

34 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
4.1.18 Space Domain Filter (Background Removal)
Background removal is used to remove the horizontal noise that might have occurred due to
surface reflection, system noise and any other source of electromagnetic interference. The
mean of all the traces in a section is subtracted from each trace in this step. Once background
removal is applied near surface reflections are removed which can be easily seen in the figure
below:

Figure 4- 18: GPR scan profile after Space Domain Filter (Background Removal)

4.1.19 Time Domain Filter (Bandpass)

Band pass filter is applied to remove the upper and lower limit frequency of signals, to avoid
unnecessary reflections that might create noise in the dataset. Uniform sensitivity of the dataset
is produced by the Bandpass filter. Bandpass filter is a combination of two filters i.e. high pass
filter to stop high frequency signals and loss pass filter to stop low frequency signals. It only
allows a specific range of signal that is required to identify the targets.

Figure 4- 19: GPR scan profile after Time Domain Filter (Bandpass)

35 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
4.1.20 Linear Gain
Linear gain is applied to regain the data, to increase or suppress the amplitude of the reflections
obtained from the GPR. Linear gain should be applied equally throughout the data so as to
enhance the whole data and bring out the targets easily.

Figure 4- 20: GPR scan profile after Linear Gain

4.1.21 Smooth Gain
When there are multiple reflections recorded at the same point it generates random noise which
are incoherent in nature. And generates abrupt spikes. To eliminate amplitude of incoherent
noise without loosing actual smooth signals in the dataset smooth gain filter is applied.

Figure 4- 21: GPR scan profile after Smoothed Gain

Once the processing steps are completed the data analysis and interpretation are to be carried
out. As GPR gives us subsurface information of the structure profile. Possible presence of
water, pier, voids, rebar’s, cracks, asphalt layers, deck layers etc. are interpreted.

36 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
4.2 Instrument’s used
Different datasets were acquired with the help of different instruments. All the instrument that
were used were non-invasive and non-destructive remote sensing technique. Given below is
the different instruments that were used acquire the datasets.
Instrument used for
Dataset
Data Acquisition
TLS Riegl VZ 400
CRP DSLR Nikon 5300
DGPS Trimble R7 GNSS
Total Station Leica R1000+
IDS RIS Hi-Mod dual frequency
GPR
(200 MHz and 600 MHz)
Disto meter Leica S910
Table 4- 7: Instruments used for datasets acquisition

4.3 Software’s used

Different software’s were used throughout the research to accomplish the objectives. The list
of software’s that were used and their purpose is mentioned below:

Software Name Purpose

RiSCAN Pro TLS Data Acquisition and pre-processing
Agisoft PhotScan CRP pre-processing
CloudCompare Point Cloud processing and model generation
ReCap (Student version) Point cloud to AutoCAD format
AutoCAD 2018
3D Documentation
(Student Version)
K2FastWave GPR Data Acquisition
GRED HD GRP Processing
Trimble Business Centre DGPS processing
ArcGIS Field planning
Erdas Imagine Image processing and Classification
Table 4- 8: list of software used and their purposes

37 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
5 Results and Discussions
In this chapter, all the results obtained are briefly presented mainly in four sections. The
results are presented according to the objectives taken at the beginning of the research. The
first section deals with the 3D documentation of the external surface of the structure from the
point cloud dataset obtained from the TLS and CRP. The second section deals with the
integration of the point cloud dataset obtained from TLS, CRP and 3D grid GPR data. The third
section deals with the surface analysis of the structure extracting the defects on the surface.
The fourth section deals with the subsurface information obtained from the 2D profile scans
through the GPR.
5.1 Geometrical information extraction of three different bridges.
Different drawings of the bridges were made by extracting the corresponding sections required
from the point cloud dataset. The drawings are shown with their measurements in millimetres
(mm). The front elevation, side elevation, top view and bottom view drawings were made out
of the point cloud.
5.1.1 Study Area 1: Truss Bridge (Mussoorie - Sahastradhara Bypass road)
The below diagram shows the skeleton image of the point cloud dataset of Truss bridge in
AutoCAD software. From which the drawings of different sections were extracted.

Figure 5- 1: 3D Point cloud of Truss Bridge in AutoCAD

Figure 5- 2: Side elevation drawing of Truss Bridge

38 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Side elevation of the Truss bridge is identical on either sides of the bridges. Side elevations
showing grill rods which were used as a barriers at the bridge edges.

Figure 5- 3: Top drawing of Truss Bridge

Figure 5- 4: Bottom drawing of Truss Bridge

Figure 5- 5: Front drawing of Truss Bridge

5.1.2 Study Area 2: Beam Bridge (Kesherwala Road)
The below image depicts the skeleton image of the beam bridge point cloud dataset.

Figure 5- 6: 3D Point cloud of Beam Bridge in AutoCAD

39 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 7: Side drawing of Beam Bridge

Figure 5- 8: Bottom drawing of Beam Bridge

5.1.3 Study Area 3: Cable Bridge (Haridwar Road)

The skeleton image of the cable bridge point cloud dataset from which the side elevation and
bottom drawings were extracted.

Figure 5- 9: 3D Point cloud of Cable Bridge

Side elevation drawing can extract the length of each cable and the position of the cable joints

Figure 5- 10: Side drawing of Cable Bridge

40 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 11: Bottom drawing of Cable Bridge

The girders used for the support of the deck can be clearly extracted from the bottom section.
5.1.4 Ground Truth Validation
Ground truth validation of the measurements of integrated point cloud dataset (TLS and CRP)
is done with the help of Laser Distometer. The measurements of the bridge parts were done on
the PCD and with distometer, both the measurements were compared and the mean difference
was calculated in each bridge.

Figure 5- 12: Ground Truth Validation using Distometer

Below figure shows the different parts of the truss bridge like chords, strut, railing, hip, road,
etc.

Figure 5- 13: Parts of Truss Bridge whose measurements were taken for validation

41 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
All the measurements that were taken on the Truss bridge with the help of TLS and CRP,
distometer are tabulated below. Further difference in the measurements were calculated.
Measurement in Measurement Difference
Name of the
point cloud dataset in Laser between
Bridge component
(TLS + CRP)(m) Distometer(m) Measurements(m)
Top chord 24.124 23.989 0.135
Bottom chord 36.494 36.457 0.037
Hip vertical 6.389 6.360 0.029
Railing 36.559 36.598 0.039
Strut 4.638 4.573 0.101
Portal strut 4.680 4.572 0.108
Hip diagonal 8.496 8.588 0.092
Road width 4.694 4.705 0.011
Slab thickness 0.458 0.432 0.026
Vertical Hip width 0.109 0.106 0.003
Diagonal Hip width 0.177 0.150 0.027
Mean in the difference of the measurements 0.0552
Table 5- 1: comparison of measurements of Truss Bridge

All the important parts of the Beam Bridge are highlighted in the below figure

Figure 5- 14: Parts of Beam Bridge whose measurements were taken for validation

The readings that were taken on the beam bridge for comparison of the measurements are
tabulated in the table below
Measurement in Measurement Difference
Name of the Bridge
point cloud dataset in Laser between
Component
(TLS + CRP)(m) Distometer(m) Measurements(m)
Beam length 35.951 35.941 0.010
Beam thickness 0.425 0.413 0.012
Beam width 3.752 3.698 0.054

42 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Railing 32.830 32.817 0.013
Cap sill width 1.399 1.368 0.031
Cap sill thickness 0.280 0.273 0.007
Cap sill length 5.160 5.096 0.064
Pier width 1.280 1.256 0.024
Pier height 3.302 3.301 0.001
Mean in the difference of the measurements 0.0241
Table 5- 2: comparison of measurements of Beam Bridge

The below figure shows the parts of the cable bridge, that were taken for the measurement.

Figure 5- 15: Parts of Beam Bridge whose measurements were taken for validation

All the measurements taken on the cable bridge are tabulated in the table below
Measurement in Measurement Difference
Name of the Bridge
point cloud dataset in Laser between
Component
(TLS + CRP)(m) Distometer(m) Measurements(m)
Pylon height 20.932 20.846 0.086
Pylon thickness 1.051 1.042 0.009
Road width 7.564 7.501 0.063
Foundation length 5.352 5.306 0.046
Foundation height 1.283 1.279 0.004
Foundation width 8.361 8.343 0.018
Deck length 130.354 130.329 0.025
Distance between 6.012 5.996 0.016
neighbouring masses
Mean in the difference of the measurements 0.0333
Table 5- 3: comparison of measurements of Beam Bridge

After ground truth validation of the measurements taken on Truss Bridge, Beam Bridge and
Cable Bridge, the mean difference in the measurement taken with TLS and CRP with laser
distometer obtained was 0.0552m, 0.1102m and 0.0333m respectively.

43 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
5.2 Integration of surface and subsurface information
PCD generated from the integration of TLS and CRP point clouds were georeferenced with the
help of DGPS and TS which gives us the surface information of the structure. The 3D data
produced from the GPR in a gridded format which gives us the subsurface information is
integrated with the surface information corresponding to the same location on the bridge deck
surface is analysed together. At a particular instance only two slices (2D profile sections)
corresponding to the transverse and longitudinal profile.
5.2.1 Integration for the Truss Bridge
The PCD and 3D GRP information of the Truss bridge corresponding to the location of the
surface and subsurface information is shown side by side in the figure given below. When the
subsurface damage is identified we can easily correlate where the exact location of the
subsurface damage is present with reference to the surface structure.

Figure 5- 16: Image showing the subsurface information and the location with reference to PCD of the
deck

The 3D information from the GRP scans can be viewed in four different parts (cuts) as shown
in Figure 5- 17. The top view of the dataset with the interpolated surface between the scan lines
can be viewed in Cut 1, with the variation in the amplitude the subsurface features highlighting
the internal rebar’s can also be seen in cut 1 view. The transverse slice or the across scan profile
corresponding to a particular location on the 3D grid can be visualised in cut 2. The longitudinal
slice or the along scan profile at the location can be viewed in cut 3. The overall 3D grid with
the longitudinal and transverse scans corresponding to the particular location can be visualised
in cut 4 view. The instrument used was capable of getting the information up to a depth of 4.5
meters but the actual information required was less than that because the thickness of the deck
was less than1m.

44 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 17: Image showing different cuts of the 3D subsurface structure (a) Cut 1 shows the top view
interpolated data to cover all the surface and show the voltage variation. (b) Cut 2 shows the transverse
slice of the subsurface. (c) Cut 3 shows the longitudinal slice of the subsurface. (d) Cut 4 shows the
overall 3D view with 3D grid

The integration of the surface and subsurface information in the form of raster image with the
scale in metres of the Truss bridge is shown below

Figure 5- 18: Truss Bridge structure with reference to surface and the subsurface profile below the
bridge deck.

The deck layer with the thickness of the asphalt layer can clearly be differentiated in the
subsurface profile. The rebar’s under in the bridge deck can be identified.

45 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
5.2.2 Integration for the Beam Bridge

The integration of the 3D PCD and 3D GPR information corresponding to the longitudinal and
transverse direction with reference to the surface location where it belongs to. Three piers were
present in the Beam Bridge, which were easily recognizable in the GPR data.

Figure 5- 19: Image showing PCD data and the 3D GPR data corresponding to its location

As explained about the different views of the 3D GPR in the earlier section. The 3D GPR data
can be visualised in four different cut.

Figure 5- 20: Image showing different cuts belonging to 3D grid Beam Bridge (a) Cut 1 shows the
interpolated top view of the 3D grid surface. (b) Cut 2 showing the transverse slice at the location. (c)
Cut 3 showing the longitudinal slice at the location. (d) Cut 4 shows the overall 3D data with variation
in the voltage can be seen.

46 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
The below figure shows the overview integration of the surface and subsurface information in
the raster image format with the depth and height on the y axis and distance along the bridge.

Figure 5- 21: Beam Bridge structure with reference to the subsurface profile below the bridge deck

5.2.3 Integration for the Cable Bridge

3D GPR data acquisition was not possible to acquire due to the heavy traffic condition so only
the along GPR scans were possible and the figure below shows the visual representation of the
surface and the subsurface information together.

Figure 5- 22: Beam Bridge structure with reference to the subsurface profile below the bridge deck

5.3 Surface analysis

Surface analysis of any structure is very important to monitor the structural health. In case of
bridge surface analysis plays a vital role as it contributes to the strength of the bridge. Surface
analysis were majorly focused to extract corrosion, Biological crust, vegetation, water presence
and bridge deck linearity deformation.

47 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
5.3.1 Surface analysis of Study Area 1: Truss Bridge
5.3.1.1 Detection of corrosion
The corroded portion has changed its colour into reddish brown due to the formation of ferric
oxide (Fe2O3). The colour based classification on RGB images has provided a better result to
enhance the corroded portion on the rods of the Truss Bridge.

Figure 5- 23: Corrosion on the bars

Figure 5- 24: Classified corrosion map

The point cloud classification was done on the basis of reflectance values obtained from
corroded and non corroded portions of the rods.

Figure 5- 25: Classified corrosion points on the Truss surface

The reflectance classification range for the left bracing is 28.58 to 35.29 and for the right
bracing is 27.421 to 33.98.

48 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
5.3.1.2 Detection of Biological crust
The part were the biological crusts were present were dark yellowish green in colour and were
classified in the RGB images as shown below:

Figure 5- 26: Biological crust on the Bridge deck Figure 5- 27: Classified Biological Crust map

Biological crust form layer on the surface with abrupt roughness different from the actual
surface. So classification on the basis of roughness index can be done, it is easier to classify
the areas with biological crusts

Figure 5- 28: Classified biological crust points on the side surface of truss deck
The roughness was calculated with the kernel size of 0.035 and the range of points used to
classify the biological crust was from 0.025437 to 0.003658.
5.3.1.3 Bridge deck linearity deformation
The bridge deck linearity deformation was measured between the idle conditions of the deck
linearity with the actual linearity due to deformation in the deck. The sample measurements
were taken at regular interval of distance between each sample. The least deviations were
observed at the both ends of the bridge due to the presence of abutment and the abutment hold
the bridge with much stability.

Figure 5- 29: Truss Bridge deck linearity deformation measurement

49 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 30: Truss Bridge deck deflection graph

The graph shows the variation in the deflection of the truss bridge compared to the idle
condition. The centre of the bridge shows more deflection compared to the rest of the portions.
The highest deflection observed is 112.23 mm.
5.3.2 Surface analysis of Study Area 2: Beam Bridge
5.3.2.1 Detection of corrosion
The corrosion presence was found on the grills that were used as barricade on the either side
of the bridge. The image shows the RGB image of the grill rod.

Figure 5- 31: Corrosion on the grills of Baricade

The corresponding image shows the classified portion of the corrosion separated from the
other portions of the image.

Figure 5- 32: Classified corrosion map

50 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 33: Classified corrosion points on the barricade rods

The reflectance range used here for PCD classification to enhance corrosion in the Beam bridge
grills is from 24.957 to 30.2824.
5.3.2.2 Detection of vegetation
There were vegetation presence on each pier. Vegetation presence on the centre pier is shown
in the figure 5- 34. With the classified image highlighting dry and green vegetation in the figure
5- 35. The formation of the vegetation was due stagnation of water under the deck at the pier.

Figure 5- 34: Vegetation on the pier Figure 5- 35: Classified vegetation map

The Figure 5-36 highlights the vegetation presence on the surface of the bridge. The point cloud
classification was done on the basis of roughness values, the roughness was calculated with the
kernel size 0.03 and the range of points that were used to classify vegetation is from 0.027297
to 0.004223.

51 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 36: Classified vegetation points on the centre pier

5.3.2.3 Detection of water presence and biological crust in the pier

The RGB image of the pier showing water presence and the biological crust and the classified
images are shown below.

Figure 5- 37: Pier with water and Biological Figure 5- 38: Classified water and Biological
crust presence crust map

There were many points which had both water presence and the biological crust and those
points were not classified as estimated.

52 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 39: classified water and biological crust points on the centre pier

The range of reflectance values used for water points classification is from 0.4301 to 29.0359
and biological crust classification is 42.2652 to 43.8843.
5.3.2.4 Bridge deck linearity deformation

Figure 5- 40: Beam Bridge deck linearity deformation measurement

Figure 5- 41: Beam Bridge deck deflection graph

53 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
The above graph represents the amount of deflection at sample points on the deck. Case-1, the
deflection at the left pier is 7. The deflections just to the left and right are 12.75 and 3.56
respectively. The deflection 12.75 is towards the left abutment is greater than the deflection
towards centre of bridge. Case-2, the deflection at the centre pier is 28.94. The neighbouring
deflection towards left pier is 15.84, which is less than the neighbouring deflection towards the
right pier is 53.52. Case-3, the deflection at the right pier is 11.23. The neighbouring left
deflection is 21.48 towards the centre pier which is more than the neighbouring deflection
towards the right abutment. The highest deflection is present just right to the centre pier. The
deck is more deflected between the centre pier and the right pier portion.
5.3.3 Surface analysis of Study Area 3: Cable Bridge
5.3.3.1 Detection of corrosion

Figure 5- 42: corrosion on the top of Bridge Figure 5- 43: Classified corrosion map

Figure 5- 44: classified corrosion points on the top portion

54 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
The range of reflectance values used to classify the corrosion at the top portion of the Pylon of
the Cable Bridge is from 24.2853 to 33.2242.

Figure 5- 45: Corrosion at the cable joint to the Figure 5- 46: Classified corrosion map
deck

Figure 5- 47: Classified corrosion points on the cable and deck joint

The range of reflectance values used to classify the corrosion at the Cable joint at the deck of
the Cable Bridge is from 25.1329 to 30.8567.
5.3.3.2 Detection of water presence

Figure 5- 48: water below the deck at right Figure 5- 49: Classified water map
abutment

55 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 50: Classified water points on the left abutment water

The classification for water presence was done on the left abutment of the Cable Bridge due
to unavailability of the data of the right abutment. The range of reflectance value used to
classify water presence is from 33.0052 to 42.82.
5.3.3.3 Detection of Biological crust

Figure 5- 51: Biological crust below the deck on Figure 5- 52: Biological crust map
abutment

Figure 5- 53: Classified Biological crust points below the deck on right abutment

56 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
The biologiocal crust points were classified on the basis of roughness values from reflectance
values 33.8263 to 36.9111.
5.3.3.4 Bridge deck linearity deformation

Figure 5- 54: Cable Bridge deck linearity deformation measurement

Figure 5- 55: Cable Bridge deck deflection graph

The deflections at the Cable joints towards the left and right of the centre pier is highlighted.
The maximum deflection observed is at the left cable 4 which is 103.91mm. The deflection
observed at the centre pier was nearly uniform between 9.35 mm, 9.12 mm, 9.25 mm, 9.23 mm
and 9.2 mm.
5.3.4 Accuracy Assessment of classified images
The percentage of accuracy and Kappa statistics obtained for the classification of each image
is tabulated with reference to each classified image (figure no.) mentioned below:
classification Figure No. Accuracy (%) Kappa Statistics
Truss Bridge Corrosion 5-24 86.07 0.7613
Truss Bridge Biological crust 5-27 90.40 0.8720
Beam Bridge Corrosion 5-32 83.60 0.7405
Beam Bridge Vegetation 5-35 80.00 0.7270
Beam Bridge Water presence
5-38 70.00 0.5715
and Biological crust

57 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Cable Bridge Corrosion 5-43 84.40 0.7769
5-46 76.00 0.5254
Cable Bridge Water Presence 5-49 60.40 0.3455
Cable Bridge Biological crust 5-52 86.40 0.7641
Table 5- 4: Accuracy Assessment of classified images

The overall accuracy obtained from image classification technique is 79.6966%.

5.3.5 Accuracy Assessment of classified Point Cloud Datasets
The percentage of accuracy obtained from the point cloud classification technique is
tabulated with reference to the corresponding RGB image below:
RGB Image Point Cloud Accuracy
Point Cloud Dataset (%)
classification Figure Area(m2) Figure Area(m2)
No. No.
Truss Bridge 5-23 1.3214 5-25 1.2455 94.26
Corrosion
Truss Bridge 5-26 0.19177 5-30 0.18469 96.31
Biological crust
Beam Bridge 5-31 0.02211 5-33 0.0211 95.87
Corrosion
Beam Bridge 5-34 0.085 5-36 0.077 91.23
Vegetation
Beam Bridge Water 0.2118 0.1834 86.61
presence 5-39
5-37
Beam Bridge 0.6070 0.5619 92.58
Biological crust
5-42 0.00583 5-44 0.00557 95.69
Cable Bridge
Corrosion 5-45 0.0230 5-47 0.0217 94.53
Cable Bridge Water 5-48 0.73431 5-50 0.6955 93.72
Presence
Cable Bridge 5-51 0.1952 5-53 0.16424 84.14
Biological crust
Table 5- 5: Accuracy Assessment of classified Point Cloud

The overall accuracy obtained from the point cloud classification on the basis of reflectance
is 94.494%.

5.4 subsurface analysis

Subsurface analysis of the bridges are very important to study. The internal damages which
cannot be identified just with the help of visual inspection or any other surface data acquisition
technique can be highlighted with the help of GPR technique which provides us the subsurface
information. The internal features like corrosion, presence of water, non-uniformity of the
thickness of the deck, number of rebar’s can be easily extracted.

58 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
5.4.1 Subsurface analysis of Study Area 1: Truss Bridge
5.4.1.1 Bridge deck thickness measurement
The thickness of the bridge deck can be extracted from the PCD data. The PCD data set is
clipped across the bridge deck with minimum width and the thickness of the bridge deck can
be measured between the deck surface and the bottom surface of the bridge. The bridge deck
thickness of Truss Bridge measured was 370 mm.

Figure 5- 56: Bridge deck thickness of Truss Bridge

5.4.1.2 Subsurface analysis using GPR Scans

The length of GPR profile scan was large so that it has to be shown in parts from 0 to 30 m and
30 to 48 m. The GPR scan has the penetrating depth up to 4.3 meters due to the antenna
frequency (600 MHz) used. Different layers like asphalt, deck, road soil were easily
differentiable. Features like cracks, corrosion, moisture, rebar’s with their spacing between
them, delineation in the deck layer, piers, abutments were identified.

59 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 57: GPR profile along the Truss Bridge from 0 to 30 meters with subsurface features

The above figure shows the GPR profile of truss bridge from 0 to 30 meters along the bridge
deck. The profile clearly depict the presence of moisture content and many more signs such as
cracks, corrosion etc. The along track acquisition of data helps in the finding of internal features
also the length of the bridge can be very well extracted.

Figure 5- 58: GPR profile along the Truss Bridge from 30 to 48 meters with subsurface features

The above figure is the GPR profile of the truss bridge across the deck of the bridge, showing
the internal features such as asphalt layer, rebar spacing etc. This will help in the calculation
of the bridge width accurately. The data also shows ripples due to the noise and hindrance to
the radar signal retrieval.

60 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 59: GPR profile across the deck of Truss Bridge with subsurface features
The GPR profile of the bridge is mentioning the subsurface features, also the thickness of the
asphalt layer is clearly seen. This will help in the extraction of the girder and rebars for the
further validation of the bridge construction.
5.4.2 Subsurface analysis of Study Area 2: Beam Bridge
5.4.2.1 Bridge deck thickness measurement
The thickness of the deck of Beam Bridge was measured to be as 622.46 mm

Figure 5- 60: Bridge deck thickness of Concrete Bridge

The bridge deck thickness can be accurately measured using this analysis, so that the further
construction can be proceed with good quality. The main objective of the subsurface analysis
is only showing the correct parameter. The subsurface analysis is done to check the external

61 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
and internal condition of the bridge so that further improvement can be done while constructing
another bridge, also it will help in the same bridge maintenance procedure. The beam bridge is
supported by the piers to balance the undue pressure of the bridge. Sometimes, due to under
load the beam top surface is compressed while the bottom edge is stretched due to tension
created by the upper load. So, measuring the thickness as well as the width of the bridge helps
in the procurement of this phenomena. The continuous spans are created to support the bridge
length because the longer length will weaken the bridge and reduce its life. There are so many
reasons to use these type geometry while constructing the bridge.
5.4.2.2 Subsurface analysis using GPR Scans

Figure 5- 61: GPR profile of Beam Bridge from 0 to 30 meters with subsurface features

The construction of the bridge was done using materials such as iron bars and concreate. Radar
is very much helpful in finding out the internal geometry of the bridge, the figure clearly shows
the signs of rebars, spacing between them, also the sign of presence of damage occurred due to
rigorous use of the deck.

Figure 5- 62: GPR profile of Beam Bridge from 30 to 47 meters with subsurface features

62 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
The figure help in the finding the abutment, which is a structure built to support the lateral
pressure of an arch or span, the GPR profile also shows the position of the piers. Besides the
noise, the internal geometry can be very well studied using this subsurface analysis technique.
Mentioning the accurate measurement help in the progressive analysis of the impairment in the
bridge if any.

Figure 5- 63: GPR profile across the deck of Beam Bridge with subsurface features

The asphalt layer can be very well seen in the above mentioned figure, the delineation in the
deck layer is also depicted, the procurement of the moisture and corrosion in the bridge can be
seen due to unusual acquisition of the data at that point.
5.4.3 Subsurface analysis of Study Area 3: Cable Bridge
5.4.3.1 Bridge deck thickness measurement
The cable bridge is almost similar to the suspended bridge which is having towers, and a deck,
also supported with the cables or suspenders. The below mentioned bridge is also a cable or
suspension bridge. The Beam Bridge Deck thickness is measured as 792.57 mm. There are
many advantages and disadvantages with the cable bridge, the spanning of the length of the
cable bridge can be extended, there are many other advantages like inexpensive to build, easy
to maintain, pleasing to the eyes etc. there are also disadvantages related to the cable bridge
such as vulnerability to the wind, limitation on the loads, requires time and money, limited
applications due to restriction in the load carrying capacity of the bridge

63 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 64: Bridge deck thickness of Cable Bridge

5.4.3.1 Subsurface analysis using GPR Scans

Figure 5- 65: GPR profile along the Cable Bridge from 0 to 35 meters with subsurface features

The above mentioned figure is related to the GPR profile of the cable bridge, in this figure the
cable can be clearly marked out. The sublayers of soil with high moisture content can be seen,
the delineation of the deck layer is also there.

64 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 66: GPR profile along the Cable Bridge from 35 to 70 meters with subsurface features

The above figure helps the illustrating the spacing between the rebars in the bridge also the
thickness of the rebars can also be calculated. Which helps in the further investigation. The
right support beam foundation and left beam support foundation can be seen. Also the centre
beam of the foundation can be shown with the help of this GPR profile.

Figure 5- 67: GPR profile along the Cable Bridge from 70 to 105 meters with subsurface features

The moisture and corrosion is very crucial for the life of the bridge, with the help of this GPR
profile one can easily find out the internal as well as external damages occurred due to rigorous
involvement of the bridge, this figure shows the moisture content, which weakens the internal
geometry of the bridge.

65 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 5- 68: GPR profile along the Cable Bridge from 105 to 132 meters with subsurface features

The above mentioned figure shoes the length of the bridge deck, which is 105 to 132 meters,
also the subsurface features can be very much pronounced in this output such as abutment,
rebars, cables expansion joints, etc. this will helps in the further construction of the another
bridge or the maintenance of the same bridge, also the accuracy of the material use can be
clearly seen.

66 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
6 Conclusion and Recommendation
Conclusion
In this study, 3D documentation of three different bridges (Truss Bridge, Beam Bridge and
Cable Bridge) is done with mm accuracy in AutoCAD software. The integration of the surface
and subsurface information to visualise both the dataset is made. Surface analysis is done to
enhance the external features and to understand the structural condition using image
classification technique from RGB images and Point cloud classification technique. Subsurface
analysis is done from the GPR scan profiles to enhance the internal surface conditions of the
structure. The study will majorly focused to help the engineering departments, construction
and management department, Bridge monitoring authorities, etc. The study is helpful in
answering all the research questions as given below:

 How to extract geometric information of the engineering structures?

The precise documentation of the engineering structure was done from the PCD data obtained
from integration of the TLS and CRP point cloud. The PCD is opened in AutoCAD software.
The PCD data was so dense and well textured due to which the edges were clearly identifiable
from which drawings were extracted up to mm accuracy.

 How to integrate surface and subsurface information?

The surface information provided from the TLS and CRP was georeferenced with the help of
DGPS and TS. The subsurface information provided from the GPR was overlaid with the
surface information. So, as to identify the subsurface information corresponding to the surface
location. Integration helps to identify the exact position of the subsurface feature corresponding
to the surface features.

 How accurate the surface and subsurface condition of the engineering structure can be
extracted?

The surface features like bridge deck linearity deformation obtained from the PCD dataset gave
the deflections up to mm level. The overall accuracy of surface features like corrosion,
biological crust, vegetation, and water obtained from classified RGB images from DSLR is
79.6966 % accuracy and from PCD is 94.494% accuracy. The point cloud classification
provided a better results compared to Image classification technique.

67 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
The subsurface features like bridge deck thickness can be obtained very precisely up to mm
accuracy which can be used to monitor the deck every time a new layer of road
(asphalt/concrete) is constructed or maintained on the bridge deck. Other subsurface features
like moisture presence, corrosion, presence of piers, internal voids, location rebar’s, spacing of
rebar’s, location of expansion joints, road with soil layers asphalt layer, deck layer, girders,
delineation in the deck layer can be differentiated with an moderate accuracy.

Recommendation
 A proper methodology can be generated for automatic point cloud classification on the
basis of reflectance with a workflow for accuracy assessment of the classified point cloud
in case of terrestrial laser scanner point cloud.
 A classification technique can be established which uses both reflectance value and RGB
values to classify the features. This has to be done so accurately that the coregistartion of
the RGB images has to be done so accurately with the point cloud or the classification can
induce error due to mismatch of texture with the reflectance value at a particular point in
the point cloud.
 With increasing the frequency of GPR antenna the subsurface features can be extracted
with much higher resolution and accuracy.
 A platform can be generated for visualising the 3D pointcloud dataset and 3D GPR dataset
together.

68 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
References
A. Bubeck, M.Wilkinson, G.P.Roberts, P.A. Cowie, K.J.W.McCaffrey, R. Phillips, P. S.
(2015). The tectonic geomorphology of bedrock scarps on active normal faults in the
Italian Apenninesmapped using combined ground penetrating radar and terrestrial laser
scanning, 44.
Alshawabkeh, Y., & Haala, N. (2004). Laser Scanning and Photogrammetry : A Hybrid
Approach for Heritage Documentation.
Arias, P., Armesto, J., Di-Capua, D., González-Drigo, R., Lorenzo, H., & Pérez-Gracia, V.
(2007). Digital photogrammetry, GPR and computational analysis of structural damages
in a mediaeval bridge. Engineering Failure Analysis, 14(8 SPEC. ISS.), 1444–1457.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.02.001
Ata, M., Abouhamad, M., H Serror, M., Marzouk, M., & Abdelakder, E. (2018). On the Use
of Ground Penetrating Radar for Bridge Deck Assessment, (February).
https://doi.org/10.12783/dtcse/csae2017/17510
Aziz, A. S. (2016). 3D Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) Investigations: Buried Culverts,
Historical Graves, A Sandstone Reservoir Analog, And An Impact Crater.
Bosché, F. (2010). Automated recognition of 3D CAD model objects in laser scans and
calculation of as-built dimensions for dimensional compliance control in construction.
Advanced Engineering Informatics, 24(1), 107–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2009.08.006
Camilo, D., Duarte, D. O., Zanetti, J., & Junior, J. G. (2016). Comparison of supervised
classification methods of Maximum Likelihood image , Minimum Distance ,
Parallelepiped and Neural network in images of Unmanned Air Vehicle ( UAV ) in, , 12–
21.
González-Jorge, H., Gonzalez-Aguilera, D., Rodriguez-Gonzalvez, P., & Arias, P. (2012).
Monitoring biological crusts in civil engineering structures using intensity data from
terrestrial laser scanners. Construction and Building Materials, 31, 119–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.053
Guldur, B., Yan, Y., & F. Hajjar, J. (2015). Condition Assessment of Bridges Using Terrestrial
Laser Scanners, 355–366.
Hamed Rafezi, Alexandre Novo, F. H. M. (2015). An investigation into application of Ground
Penetrating Radar ( GPR ) in surface mining, (September).
https://doi.org/10.4133/SAGEEP.28-006
Han, L., Chong, Y., Li, Y., & Fritsch, D. (2014). 3D Reconstruction By Combining Terrestrial
Laser Scanner Data And Photogrammetric Images, (129).
Hasan, I., & Yazdani, N. (2014). Ground Penetrating Radar Utilization In Exploring Inadequate
Concrete Covers In A New Bridge Deck. Case Studies in Construction Materials.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2014.04.003
Hugenschmidt, J. (2002). Concrete bridge inspection with a mobile GPR system, 16(January),
147–154.
Jacek LACHOWICZ, M. R. (2015). Application of GPR Method In Diagnostics of Reinforced
Concrete Structures, 16(2), 31–36.

69 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Jahanshahi, M. R., Kelly, J. S., Masri, S. F., & Sukhatme, G. S. (2009). A survey and evaluation
of promising approaches for automatic image-based defect detection of bridge structures,
(October 2013), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470801945930
Krysinski, L., & Sudyka, J. (2016). Case study of step-frequency radar application in evaluation
of complex pavement structure, 14, 2930–2935.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.412
Lagüela, S., Solla, M., Puente, I., & Prego, F. J. (2018). Joint use of GPR , IRT and TLS
techniques for the integral damage detection in paving, 174, 749–760.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.159
Lee, H. M., & Park, H. S. (2011). Gage-Free Stress Estimation of a Beam-like Structure Based
on Terrestrial Laser Scanning, 26, 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8667.2011.00723.x
Lorenzo, H., & Arias, P. (2005). A Methodology for Rapid Archaeological Site Documentation
Using Ground- Photogrammetry, 20(5), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20061
M. Solla, X. Nunez-Nieto, M. Varela-Gonzalez, J. MartInez-Sanchez, P. A. (2014). OPR for
Road Inspection : Oeoreferencing and Efficient Approach to Data Processing and
Visualization, 913–918.
Rabah, M., Elhattab, A., & Fayad, A. (2013). Automatic concrete cracks detection and mapping
of terrestrial laser scan data. NRIAG Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics, 2(2), 250–
255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrjag.2013.12.002
Schuhmacher, S., & Böhm, J. (2005). Georeferencing Of Terrestrial Laserscanner Data For
Applications In Architectural Modelling.
Szymczyk Magdalena, S. P. (2004). Preprocessing of gpr data, 18(2), 83–90.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10248-012-0082-3
Tang, P., & Akinci, B. (2012). Automatic execution of workflows on laser-scanned data for
extracting bridge surveying goals. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26(4), 889–903.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2012.07.004
Trela, C., Wöstmann, J., & Kruschwitz, S. (2008). Contribution of radar measurements to the
inspection and condition assessment of railway bridges – case study at a historic masonry
arch bridge in Ole ś nica / Poland, 97, 535–544. https://doi.org/10.2495/HPSM080541
Truong-Hong, L., & Laefer, D. F. (2014). Application of Terrestrial Laser Scanner in Bridge
Inspection: Review and an Opportunity. IABSE Symposium Report, 102(9), 2713–2720.
https://doi.org/10.2749/222137814814070190
Villarino, A., Riveiro, B., Gonzalez-aguilera, D., & Sánchez-aparicio, L. J. (2014). The
Integration of Geotechnologies in the Evaluation of a Wine Cellar Structure through the
Finite Element Method, 11107–11126. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs61111107
Wei, O. C., Chin, C. S., Majid, Z., & Setan, H. (2010). 3D Documentation And Preservation
of Historical Monument using Terrestrial Laser Scanning, 10(1), 73–90.
Xiao, W., Mills, J., Guidi, G., Rodríguez-gonzálvez, P., Gonizzi, S., & González-aguilera, D.
(2018). Geoinformatics for the conservation and promotion of cultural heritage in support
of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.01.001

70 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Zhao, X., Liu, H., Yu, Y., Xu, X., Hu, W., Li, M., & Ou, J. (2015). Bridge Displacement
Monitoring Method Based on Laser Projection-Sensing Technology, 8444–8463.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s150408444
Zhu, Z., Brilakis, I., & Asce, A. M. (2009). Comparison of Optical Sensor-Based Spatial Data
Collection Techniques for Civil Infrastructure Modeling, 23(3), 170–177.

71 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Appendix
Pre-survey of Different Bridges:

Figure 1: Railway Bridges nearby Dehradun

Figure 2: Road Bridges nearby Dehradun

72 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 3: Walkover bridges nearby Dehradun

Figure 4: Suspension bridge near Rishikesh

Related to study area 1: Truss Bridge

Figure 5: Few TLS scans and overall scans

73 | P a g e
3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

Figure 6: Few CRP overlapping images

Figure 7: DGPS Survey near the bridge

Figure 8: GPR Survey on the Truss deck

74 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Related to study area 2: Beam Bridge

Figure 9: Few TLS scans and overall scans

Figure 10: Few CRP overlapping images

75 | P a g e
 3D DOCUMENTATION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE OF
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Related to study area 3: Cable Bridge

Figure 11: Few TLS scans and overall scans

Figure 12: GPR Survey on the deck

76 | P a g e

View publication stats