Dynamic response and tension estimation of stay cables with disturbed images acquired from vision sensors
Source abstract
Abstract
This study introduces a novel approach to measure cable responses of such bridges using a vision sensor comprising a digital camcorder mounted on a tripod. Prioritizing simplicity and efficiency, this setup requires minimal equipment. The sensor is strategically positioned to ensure the target cable remains within the camcorder’s field of view. However, operational bridge imagery is frequently disturbed by vehicular traffic, leading to defocusing and blurring due to the camcorder’s automatic focus adjustments. These disturbances complicate the identification of reference points essential for accurate cable response measurements, potentially skewing results. To address this, we apply an image quality evaluation method to distinguish reference points from disturbed images, mitigating the impact of these disturbances on measurement accuracy. We evaluated the method’s effectiveness in estimating cable tension under disturbances by capturing images of an operational cable-stayed bridge experiencing ambient vibrations. Cable tension estimations were derived from the analysed responses using the vibration method and validated against data from a long-term monitoring accelerometer. This comparison highlights the potential of the proposed vision sensor method to enhance the accuracy of cable tension measurements in cable-stayed bridges, even in the presence of disturbed images.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Fiber Optic Sensors · Optical measurement and interference techniques · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Pusan National University
Korea Authority of Land & Infrastructure Safety
Mokpo Office
Funding
National Research Foundation of Korea
References (63)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1680/jbren.15.0003510.1680/jbren.15.00035 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2020.10282910.1016/j.advengsoft.2020.102829 ↗
3. 10.1007/s13349-015-0115-x10.1007/s13349-015-0115-x ↗
4. 10.1002/stc.250810.1002/stc.2508 ↗
5. 10.3390/s1709215110.3390/s17092151 ↗
6. 10.1007/s11831-020-09430-410.1007/s11831-020-09430-4 ↗
7. 10.1080/0305215X.2015.105705710.1080/0305215X.2015.1057057 ↗
8. 10.1680/bren.14.0000510.1680/bren.14.00005 ↗
9. 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.000146310.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001463 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.measurement.2020.10834310.1016/j.measurement.2020.108343 ↗
11. 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2006)11:6(716)10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2006)11:6(716) ↗
12. 10.1002/stc.188910.1002/stc.1889 ↗
13. 10.12989/sem.2012.41.1.13910.12989/sem.2012.41.1.139 ↗
14. 10.1080/15732479.2018.145974310.1080/15732479.2018.1459743 ↗
15. 10.1155/2013/80451610.1155/2013/804516 ↗
16. 10.1177/147592171350051310.1177/1475921713500513 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.06010.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.060 ↗
18. 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.000042110.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000421 ↗
19. 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.000205410.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002054 ↗
20. 10.1117/12.91754010.1117/12.917540 ↗
21. 10.3390/s1802046610.3390/s18020466 ↗
22. 10.1080/15732479.2017.137596210.1080/15732479.2017.1375962 ↗
23. 10.3390/app704038410.3390/app7040384 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.jsv.2007.03.01210.1016/j.jsv.2007.03.012 ↗
25. 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.000036410.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000364 ↗
26. 10.1260/1369-4332.17.11.165710.1260/1369-4332.17.11.1657 ↗
27. Zhao Z, Sun J, Fei X, et al. Wireless sensor network based cable tension monitoring for cable-stayed bridges. In: International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, ICACT 2012; Pyeongchang, Korea; 2012. p. 527–532.
28. 10.1007/s13349-015-0132-910.1007/s13349-015-0132-9 ↗
29. 10.1155/2018/864067410.1155/2018/8640674 ↗
30. 10.1111/mice.1255710.1111/mice.12557 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2009.11.00710.1016/j.ndteint.2009.11.007 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.measurement.2023.11250810.1016/j.measurement.2023.112508 ↗
33. 10.1155/2012/81068210.1155/2012/810682 ↗
34. 10.1007/s13349-017-0226-710.1007/s13349-017-0226-7 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.measurement.2021.11005310.1016/j.measurement.2021.110053 ↗
36. 10.1002/stc.298510.1002/stc.2985 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.istruc.2022.11.06710.1016/j.istruc.2022.11.067 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.measurement.2016.12.02010.1016/j.measurement.2016.12.020 ↗
39. 10.1088/1361-6501/ab72c810.1088/1361-6501/ab72c8 ↗
40. 10.3390/s2203096210.3390/s22030962 ↗
41. 10.1117/12.86243110.1117/12.862431 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.image.2012.01.00210.1016/j.image.2012.01.002 ↗
43. 10.1109/JAS.2024.12447010.1109/JAS.2024.124470 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.patrec.2006.06.01910.1016/j.patrec.2006.06.019 ↗
45. 10.1109/83.84194010.1109/83.841940 ↗
46. Lukin A. Improved visible differences predictor using a complex cortex transform. In: 19th International Conference on Computer Graphics and Vision, GraphiCon’2009 - Conference Proceedings; Moscow, Russia; 2009. p. 145–150.
47. 10.1109/97.99582310.1109/97.995823 ↗
48. 10.1109/TIP.2003.81986110.1109/TIP.2003.819861 ↗
49. 10.1007/s11760-009-0144-110.1007/s11760-009-0144-1 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2017.09.01010.1016/j.ygeno.2017.09.010 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.05.02810.1016/j.measurement.2019.05.028 ↗
52. 10.1109/TIP.2011.210973010.1109/TIP.2011.2109730 ↗
53. 10.1186/s13640-018-0246-110.1186/s13640-018-0246-1 ↗
54. 10.1007/s11831-021-09587-610.1007/s11831-021-09587-6 ↗
55. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:6(651)10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:6(651) ↗
56. 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.000020010.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000200 ↗
57. 10.2208/jscej.1994.501_16310.2208/jscej.1994.501_163 ↗
58. 10.1111/j.1475-1305.2006.00258.x10.1111/j.1475-1305.2006.00258.x ↗
59. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2013.05.00210.1016/j.ndteint.2013.05.002 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.01.02210.1016/j.ymssp.2018.01.022 ↗
61. 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.000155610.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001556 ↗
62. 10.1080/10589759.2022.209437810.1080/10589759.2022.2094378 ↗
63. 10.1109/TMECH.2023.332553810.1109/TMECH.2023.3325538 ↗