Structures Congress 2018 217

Bridge Inspection and Condition Assessment Using Image-Based Technologies with UAVs
Shuhei Hiasa, Ph.D.1; Enes Karaaslan2; Wesley Shattenkirk3; Chase Mildner4; and F. Necati
Catbas, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE5
1
Visiting Scholar, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, Univ. of Central
Florida, 12800 Pegasus Drive, Suite 211, Orlando, FL, USA. E-mail:
hiasa615@Knights.ucf.edu; Civil Engineer, West Nippon Expressway Company Ltd. (NEXCO-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

West), Dojima Avanza 19F, 1-6-20 Dojima, Kita-ku, Osaka 530-0003, Japan. E-mail:
s.hiasa.aa@w-nexco.co.jp
2
Ph.D. student, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, Univ. of Central
Florida, 12800 Pegasus Drive, Suite 211, Orlando, FL, USA. E-mail: Enes.Karaaslan@ucf.edu
3
Student, Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Univ. of Central Florida, 12760
Pegasus Drive, Suite 307, Orlando, FL, USA. E-mail: WShattenkirk@Knights.ucf.edu
4
Student, Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Univ. of Central Florida, 12760
Pegasus Drive, Suite 307, Orlando, FL, USA. E-mail: chasemildner@Knights.ucf.edu
5
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, Univ. of Central
Florida, 12800 Pegasus Drive, Suite 211, Orlando, FL, USA (corresponding author). E-mail:
catbas@ucf.edu

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the capabilities and limitations of high-definition (HD) imaging and
infrared thermography (IRT) using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for bridge inspections.
Regarding HD imaging, this study shows the potential to detect the required minimum, 0.1 mm,
width of cracks using simulated cracks at a distance of 1-3 m from the bridge. As for IRT
application with UAVs, the effect of vibration caused by the drone was investigated. This paper
concludes that the hovering flight of drones was extremely stable and IRT with UAVs can
provide reliable data for bridge inspections. If IRT is used without hovering flight, the effect of
flying speed must be investigated since it might also affect the IRT results. This paper shows
great potential of image-based technologies with UAVs for bridge inspections without any traffic
disturbance as a complimentary approach to current practices.

INTRODUCTION
Aging and deterioration of road infrastructure is becoming a serious problem worldwide. In
order to prevent the impending degradation of these bridges, periodic inspection and assessment
for proper maintenance are indispensable. In the US, every bridge as defined by the National
Bridge Inspection Standards (23 CFR 650 Subpart C) is required to have a routine inspection
conducted, visual inspection at a distance to identify obvious defects, at regular intervals not to
exceed twenty-four months. In addition, in-depth inspections, to identify any deficiencies not
readily detectable using routine inspection procedures, are generally conducted over longer
intervals than routine inspections; the level and frequency are determined by the bridge
administrators. In-depth inspections consist of hands-on inspections by non-destructive
evaluation (NDE) methods to fully ascertain the existence of or the extent of any deficiencies,
and close-up visual assessment of every defective surface at a distance no further than an arm’s
length (FHWA 2012; GPO 2017).
Even though a routine inspection is conducted periodically, this type of inspection aims to

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 218

detect mainly severe and/or obvious defects. It may not be able to detect moderate or
insignificant defects, and cannot detect hidden defects such as delamination. In many cases, what
bridge administrators can do in response to those obvious/severe defects is corrective
maintenance, such as major repair work, rehabilitation and replacement. This requires a lot of
costs and time as well as lane closures, causing social impact on the road network for the
maintenance work. In order to reduce maintenance cost and extend the service life of bridges in
good condition, preventive maintenance is essential by detecting insignificant and/or hidden
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

defects which cannot be detected by a routine inspection. Specifically, this is important in the US
since the number of bridges has been increasing year by year while the aging has been
progressing; e.g., 26% of 588,844 bridges were over 50 years in 2000 while 39 % of 614,386
bridges were over 50 years in 2016 (FHWA 2017; FHWA and FTA 2014). Therefore, better
methods are needed to detect such defects and quantify the extent and severity of bridge
conditions early, accurately, and rapidly with minimal traffic impact, ideally without lane
closures.
Image-based bridge inspection technologies are the promising candidates to meet the demand.
Authors have been conducting research on infrared thermography (IRT) and high-definition
(HD) imaging technologies. IRT can detect subsurface defects such as delamination and voids,
and HD imaging can detect surface defects such as cracks, thus, these technologies can
supplement both hands-on and close-up visual inspections. Since image-based technologies are
non-contact methods and can be used with vehicles, such as cars and unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) by attaching these cameras on them, it is feasible to scan bridges without traffic
disturbance. The data collection speed of the integrated IRT and HD systems is a great advantage
for periodic bridge inspections compared to current routine and in-depth inspections. Especially
for bridge deck inspection, image-based technologies have showed a great potential to conduct
much faster inspections than traditional practices by attaching cameras on a car and driving the
car at normal speeds without lane closures. As for other components, they can also be conducted
much faster than current practices by attaching cameras onto UAVs since they do not require
direct contact to the concrete surface, which can eliminate traffic control and lane closures for
special inspection vehicles and platforms such as snooper trucks.
This paper explores the capabilities of integrated system of image-based technologies and
UAVs for bridge inspections. Since application of UAVs for bridge inspections has been
developed very recently, exploring the capabilities, limitations and proper conditions of the
integrated system through field experiments is important for applying this system to real bridges.
As mentioned in (Omar and Nehdi 2017a), one of the limitations for applying image-based
technologies using UAVs is limited sizes of cameras can be utilized due to the small UAV
payload. Therefore, it is important to investigate the capabilities and limitations of both IR and
HD cameras which can be attached to UAVs.
High-speed scanning of bridge decks: For high-speed concrete bridge deck scanning at
highway speeds, Line Camera System (LCS) has been utilized by attaching cameras to a vehicle.
LCS can be considered as the most suitable type of HD camera to scan bridge decks since the
camera distance from the surface is fixed by mounting cameras on a car. As for the accuracy,
insignificant cracks, less than 0.3 mm (0.012 in.) width (AASHTO 2013), for reinforced concrete
can be detected from the collected images (Matsumoto et al. 2015). On the other hand, high-
speed application of IRT was not fully investigated. Actually, several different types of camera
have been used for high-speed scanning while ASTM standard recommends for data collection
speed at less than 16 km/h (10 mph) (ASTM 2014). Therefore, authors conducted comparative

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 219

studies to explore suitable conditions and IR camera specifications for high-speed scanning
(Hiasa et al. 2016b, 2017d).
UAVs application for bridge inspections: Recently, applications of UAVs for bridge
inspections have been increasing. For example, (Ellenberg et al. 2016a; Escobar-Wolf et al.
2017a; Omar and Nehdi 2017b) investigated the capability of the combination of UAV and IRT
for bridge deck inspections. On the other hand, (Ellenberg et al. 2014) investigated the
possibility of HD imaging application for crack detection. They tested the detectable crack width
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

using simulated cracks, and validated that HD imaging could detect the crack with 0.75 mm
thickness at distances of 3 m without postprocessing and 12 m after postprocessing. Throughout
these experiments, UAV application with image-based technologies has demonstrated high
potential to compliment current routine and in-depth inspections.
Regarding bridge deck inspections, it can be assumed that high-speed scanning using a car is
much faster, more reliable and safer than using a drone since it might require some traffic control
to collect the whole decks surface data. For example, (Escobar-Wolf et al. 2017b) missed some
areas of bridge decks due to the difficulty to check the coverage areas during the operation of the
UAV. Furthermore, it can be expected that taking whole deck images may be difficult for busy
traffic roads since most of the decks might be covered by the traffic. Moreover, using a drone
over bridges without lane closure has a potential danger such as falling on the road or hitting by
cars. Therefore, UAVs application may be better to be used for sides of bridge, substructures and
underside of decks.
Review of HD imaging and IRT technologies: As (Koch et al. 2015) reviewed on computer
vision based crack detection of concrete infrastructure, the rate of the application of computer
vision methods for civil infrastructure inspection have been exponentially increasing over the last
decade, and automation of detection and measurements of defects has been developing. As for
the accuracy, the most critical factor for accuracy is image quality, regardless if the system is
manual or automatic.
In terms of IRT, NDE Web Manual of FHWA (FHWA 2015) lists the limitations of IRT,
such as 1) it is difficult to select the optimal conditions for effective application, 2) obstacles,
such as water, stains, or debris, can cause misdetection, 3) unable to provide information about
delamination depth, and 4) difficulty of detecting defects located at deeper than 10-13 cm (4-5
in.). Authors have conducted several studies to identify the uncertainties and challenges of IRT,
such as data collection time, delamination size, camera specifications and data collection speed,
in order to enhance the usability, reliability and accuracy of IRT for concrete bridge inspections.
Furthermore, proper methods, ideal conditions, and data interpretation methods for more
effective application have been explored.
In terms of 1), ideal data collection time (nighttime) and proper camera specifications
depends on data collection speed (cooled type IR cameras for high-speed scanning) were found
in past studies (Hiasa et al. 2016b)(Hiasa 2016) (Hiasa et al. 2017d; Watase et al. 2015).
Regarding 2), those misleading thermal contrasts can be distinguished by comparing IR images
with HD images; thus, authors recommend integrated use of IRT and HD imaging for an image-
based structural health monitoring at local level (Hiasa et al. 2017d). Furthermore, it was also
found that debris generate higher thermal contrast than delamination on the concrete surface;
thus, it is proposed that temperature differences due to obstacles can be distinguished by
analyzing the data (Hiasa 2016). As for 3), delamination depth estimation method was developed
using finite element (FE) modeling (Hiasa et al. 2017b). In regard to 4), authors found the
correlation between size of delamination and detectable depth (Hiasa et al. 2017a). Actually,

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 220

(Kee et al. 2012) were able to detect a 15.2 cm (6 in.) depth of delamination by IRT. Therefore,
IRT can detect delamination that is deeper than 10-13 cm if the delamination size is large
enough. In addition to these limitations, authors have been developing more objective data
interpretation method than just judging the color contrast of IR images by incorporating FE
model simulations (Hiasa et al. 2016a, 2017c). Even though more data is needed to enhance the
reliability and usability of IRT for bridge inspection, significant improvements within the IRT
method have already been achieved through past studies.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

HD IMAGE SCANNING FOR SIDE OF BRIDGES

Test method: As shown in Figure 1, a footbridge (L = 54 m (177 ft.)) in University of
Central Florida was scanned on October 12, 2017 using an HD, 2.7K resolution camera with 30
fps, with a commercially available drone; the DJI Phantom 3 Advanced. In this test, images of
the railing (side of the bridge) were taken from the drone as shown in Figure 2. Images were
taken from two different distances, 1 m and 3 m, from the side of the bridge. As depicted in
Figure 3, markers were set up every 1 m from the bridge up to 5 m on both banks, and the
distance from the bridge was checked by two people from each bank. 1 m was chosen as the
closest distance, and 3 m was decided at the test site by reviewing images taken from 1 m to 5 m
on the display of the controller. Since the top of the railing to the bottom of the deck (assumed
height of concrete handrails) could be captured from 3 m, that distance was chosen as the
maximum distance needed to take images for side of bridges.

Figure 1. Tested footbridge.

Figure 2. Locations where the operator controlled the drone.

In this experiment, simulated cracks as shown in Figure 4(a, b) were used to explore how
much thickness of crack can be observed from HD images using the drone. These cracks were
depicted on different colors of paper, white and three different gray scales, as shown in Figure
4(c). Figure 4(a) draws different widths of straight lines, every 0.1 mm up to 2.0 mm thereafter
3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 10.0 mm. Furthermore, some other widths of line were drawn to meet several
criteria defined by several bridge inspection manuals/standards. Some of these widths were
validated by crack scale as shown in the figure. These straight lines were attached on the railing
angled in different directions to make these lines longitudinal, horizontal and diagonal as shown

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 221

in Figure 4(d) to investigate the effect of crack direction for HD imaging. Regarding Figure 4(b),
different widths of lines defined as criteria were drawn.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3. How to check the distance from the bridge.

At first, the drone was controlled from the bridge side as shown in Figure 2(a) to make it
easier for the operator to check the distance between the bridge and the drone while controlling
the drone; however, controlling it at a distance while taking several images was little bit
challenging in this test due to the strong winds, as well as the metal railing interfering with the
GPS/compass system on the drone, which led to a less stable drone based on position. According
to the closest meteorological station data, about 300 m away from the test site, winds speeds
during the test (5:30 PM to 6:10 PM) were 2.7 m/s to 3.6 m/s (WeatherUnderground 2017) and
these can be classified as light to gentle breeze in Beaufort Scale (Royal Meteorological Society
2017). Although controlling from the bridge side was not impossible, the operator being on the
bridge and walking along with the drone to be closer to it in this test as shown in Figure 2(b)
made it easier to control the drone. Since the drone operator must also take pictures at the
specific locations while controlling the drone in this test, the burden to check distance from the
bridge was reduced by checking the distance with two other people from both banks as shown in
Figure 3.
Test result: Table 1 summarizes several crack size criteria defined by several manuals or
standards (AASHTO 2013; FDOT 2016; FHWA 2012). This test aims to verify the capability
how well thin cracks can be detected from different distances by HD imaging used with a drone,
i.e., exploring potentially applicable criteria by this method using simulated cracks. If 0.1 mm
thick cracks can be captured by HD images, it means this method may be able to be applicable
for any type of concrete bridge. If not, this paper can define the bounds of which criteria can be
applied for this method.
Figure 5 shows a result of straight lines of three different directions on white papers taken
from 1 m away. These thin lines are little bit difficult to see from the normal size of the images;
however, even 0.1 mm thick of lines can be observed from enlarged images. Regarding the effect
of line’s direction, no difference can be observed in this test. Therefore, this method has a
potential to be applicable for any types of bridges and criteria. In terms of the effect of
background colors, random lines with different color papers were compared since straight lines
are dense and a little bit challenging to decide bounds of detectable crack widths. Figure 6 shows

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 222

those images taken from 1m away. From Figure 6(a-c), even 0.1 mm cracks can be observed
from this distance by enlarging the images. However, it was difficult to see the 0.1 mm crack
from dark gray background as shown in Figure 6(d). From this image, somehow 0.3 mm width
line can be distinguished from the enlarged image, and 1.27 mm and 4.76 mm cracks can be
observed clearly.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 4. Simulated cracks.

In terms of the effect of distance between the bridge and the drone, Figure 7 shows images of
random lines with different background colors. In this distance, 0.1 mm width of cracks can be
observed from Figure 7(a, b); however, that crack cannot be seen from Figure 7(c). From this
image, the limit of minimum detectable thickness was 0.3 mm from the enlarged image.
Regarding Figure 7(d), only 1.27 mm and 4.76 mm can be observed even from the enlarged
image.

IRT WITH UAVS

Test method: As mentioned in the review of IRT, optimal conditions for IRT methods have
been explored by authors. However, only one thing is still uncertain regarding UAV application

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 223

of IRT methods, which is the effect of vibrations from the drone. (Hiasa et al. 2016b) found that
even vibration arising from idling of a car generated blurred images for uncooled type IR
cameras. In Table 2, some commercially available IR cameras for drones are summarized along
with a handheld IR camera, the T420 manufactured by FLIR Systems, Inc. Since the payload of
the UAV is limited, IR cameras with uncooled detector types are ideal for the application.
Therefore, the effect of vibration caused by drones must be further investigated before applying
it to bridge inspections. This study examined the effect by using the handheld IR camera, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

T420, with the same drone utilized throughout. Since the T420 is not intended for UAV
application, if the drone can fly steadily without generating blurred images from the T420, other
IR cameras meant for UAVs may be used without vibration problems regarding blurred images
caused by uncooled IR cameras. In this test, a target sheet which has two 10 x 10 cm lattice
pattern squares (1 x 1 cm and 2 x 2 cm grids) as shown in Figure 8(a) was attached on a brick
wall as shown in Figure 8(b).

Table 1. Crack size criteria defined by several manuals/standards.

Crack size (mm) 0 0.10 0.15 0.18 0.23 0.25 0.30 1.27 1.59 4.76
Crack size (in.) 0 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.009 0.010 0.012 0.05 0.06 0.19
Prestressd concrete
AASHTO
FDOT
PCI w > 0.15 mm: be evaluated to affirm adequate design and
(Precast Prestressed Concrete Bridge) performanc
Reinforced concrete
AASHTO
FDOT
(aggressive environment)
FDOT
(non-aggressive environment)
ACI
0.15 mm: Lower bound of moderate cracking
(marine or seawater spray environments)
ACI
0.23 mm: Lower bound of moderate cracking
(structures exposed to de-icing chemicals)
ACI 0.3 mm: Lower bound of
(a humid, moist environment) moderate cracking
Insignificant *Aggressive environment: near salt or brackish water, and the portions of the structure in the
splash zone. Otherwise, the environment should be deemed non-aggressive.
Moderate
**AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, FDOT:
Wide Florida Department of Transportation, PCI: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, ACI:
American Concrete Institute

Figure 5. Straight lines (white paper) taken from 1 m.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 224
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 6. Random lines taken from 1 m.

Figure 7. Random lines taken from 3 m.

Figure 9 shows the test situation. The IR camera was attached to the drone using gummed
tape, and IR images were taken every 1 m from the wall up to 5 m. In order to take snapshot
using the IR camera, the camera was connected by a cable to a laptop. While the drone was
hovering, several IR images were taken at each distance. As can be seen the figure, the IR
camera was attached directly to the drone. Since IR cameras for drones are typically used with a
gimbal, it can be assumed that most of the vibration effect can be mitigated using a gimbal even
if the T420 is affected by the vibration in this experiment.

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 225

Table 2. IR camera specifications.

Camera FLIR Duo FLIR Vue Pro 336 FLIR Vue Pro 640 T420
Detector Uncooled Uncooled Uncooled Uncooled
type microbolometer microbolometer microbolometer microbolometer
Field of 57° × 44° 25° × 19° (13 mm) 45° × 37° (13 mm) 25° × 19°
View
Resolution 160 × 120 336 × 256 640 × 512 320 × 240
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Spectral 7.5 – 13.5 μm 7.5 - 13.5 μm 7.5 - 13.5 μm 7.5 - 13 μm

range
Accuracy ± 5°C or 5% of NA NA ±2°C or ±2%
reading

Figure 8. A target for IRT test and the test site.

Figure 9. IRT test situation.

Test result: Figure 10 displays IR images taken from each distance. Since the drone and the
IR camera were controlled by different operators, it was difficult to capture the target at the
center part of the IR images; however, as can be seen from these images, both lattice pattern
squares were captured clearly without blur at every distance. These results indicate that the
hovering flight of drones is very stable and IRT with UAVs can provide reliable data for bridge
inspections. It should be noted that this test investigated the effect of drone vibration with
hovering flight, assuming each IR image is taken during hovering flight. Thus, if IRT is used
without hovering flight, the effect of flying speed must be investigated since it could potentially
affect the IRT results.
Furthermore, Table 3 summarizes the approximate pixel size and capable of height for
capturing stills at every distance with this IR camera. As the distance from the object becomes
closer, a higher quality of IR images can be obtained; however, the area can be scanned by the IR
camera becomes smaller. Therefore, the photographing distance and the structural area must be
inspected and considered well prior to the bridge scanning using this method. If the distance is
too close, the drone would have to fly back and forth several times to take the entire structure’s

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 226

IR images, although this depends on the camera specifications. In this case, even in the IR image
taken from 5 m, two lattice pattern squares can be distinguished clearly, indicating IRT can
detect at least a 10 x 10 cm square of delamination. Since it can be assumed that real
delamination occurred in real concrete bridges may be much larger than 10 x 10 cm, 4-5 m might
be better for this camera with bridge scanning using with UAVs.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 10. IR images taken from different distances.

Table 3. Approximate one pixel and image size per photography distance.
Distance (m) 1 pixel size-x (mm) 1 pixel size-y (mm) Height of 1 image (cm)
1 1.5 1.4 36
2 2.8 2.8 69
3 4.1 4.0 99
4 4.9 4.9 124
5 6.2 5.9 144

DISCUSSION
Throughout the test, some challenges were found. The wind condition was not good during
the test which made it a little bit challenging to maintain a specific distance and stabilize the
drone. However, real bridges over rivers or seas can be expected stronger winds, so that more
experiments under such weather conditions are important. Furthermore, the test bridge railing
was metal and interfered the GPS/compass on the drone, thus, bridges with concrete railings
should also be tested to determine if it becomes easier to scan the bridge using a drone.
Furthermore, it was found that if two operators could control UAV, with one operator controlling
the flight path and the other controlling the gimbal/ camera position, it would be much easier to
scan bridges as opposed to everything being controlled by one operator.
Regarding the capability of image-based technique with UAVs, this test showed good
potential to use it for bridge inspection, although more tests on real bridges are needed since this
test used a target sheet for IRT test and simulated cracks printed on different colors of papers for
HD imaging. However, as (Ellenberg et al. 2016b) mentioned, bridge inspection using image-
based technologies with UAVs has a great potential to be a complimentary approach to current
routine and in-depth inspection methods as well as other NDE methods as a “rapid screening”
method. In regard to the scanning speed, 54 m long bridge was scanned within 2 minutes. This
would be much faster by accumulating more experiences to control drones for bridge inspections.

CONCLUSION
This study investigated the capabilities of integrated systems of image-based technologies
and UAVs for bridge inspections. Regarding HD imaging, simulated cracks printed on different
colors of papers were attached to a footbridge. Although some challenges were found using a
real bridge, even 0.1 mm thick of lines, minimum requirement for concrete bridges, can be

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 227

observed from enlarged images taken from 1-3 m distance from the bridge. However, these
simulated cracks were printed on papers, and some thin cracks on darker gray scales of
background could not be distinguished from the enlarged images. Thus, further investigation is
needed, at real bridges, to identify the capability of this method. As for IRT application with
UAVs, the effect of vibration caused by the drone was investigated. Even though the IR camera
used for this study was not meant for use with a drone, the effect of vibration cannot be observed
from this test. Therefore, this paper concluded that hovering flight of drones is very stable and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

IRT with UAVs can provide reliable data for bridge inspections, although if IRT is used without
hovering flight, the effect of flying speed must be investigated since it might also affect the IRT
results. Through these field experiments, this paper shows a great potential of image-based
technologies with UAVs for bridge inspections without any traffic control, as a complimentary
approach to current inspection methods.

REFERENCES
AASHTO. (2013). Manual for Bridge Element Inspection, 1st Edition, with 2015 Interim
Revisions.pdf.
ASTM. (2014). Standard Test Method for Detecting Delaminations in Bridge Decks Using
Infrared Thermography. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Ellenberg, A., Kontsos, A., Moon, F., and Bartoli, I. (2016a). “Bridge deck delamination
identification from unmanned aerial vehicle infrared imagery.” Automation in Construction,
Elsevier B.V., 72, 155–165.
Ellenberg, A., Kontsos, A., Moon, F., and Bartoli, I. (2016b). “Bridge deck delamination
identification from unmanned aerial vehicle infrared imagery.” Automation in Construction,
Elsevier B.V., 72, 155–165.
Ellenberg, a., Branco, L., Krick, a., Bartoli, I., and Kontsos, a. (2014). “Use of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle for Quantitative Infrastructure Evaluation.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 21(3),
4014054.
Escobar-Wolf, R., Oommen, T., Brooks, C. N., Dobson, R. J., and Ahlborn, T. M. (2017a).
“Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)-Based Assessment of Concrete Bridge Deck
Delamination Using Thermal and Visible Camera Sensors: A Preliminary Analysis.”
Research in Nondestructive Evaluation, Taylor & Francis, 0(0), 1–16.
Escobar-Wolf, R., Oommen, T., Brooks, C. N., Dobson, R. J., and Ahlborn, T. M. (2017b).
“Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)-Based Assessment of Concrete Bridge Deck
Delamination Using Thermal and Visible Camera Sensors: A Preliminary Analysis.”
Research in Nondestructive Evaluation, Taylor & Francis, 0(0), 1–16.
FDOT. (2016). Florida Department of Transportation Bridge Inspection Field Guide national
Bridge, Bridge Mnagement and Agency Defined Elements.
FHWA. (2012). Bridge Inspector’ s Reference Manual.
FHWA. (2015). “Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology: Nondestructive
Evaluation (NDE) Web Manual.”
<https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/ndep/DisplayTechnology.aspx?tech_id=14> (Sep. 28, 2017).
FHWA. (2017). “Highway Bridges by Year Built 2016.”
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/yrblt16.cfm> (Sep. 28, 2017).
FHWA, and FTA. (2014). 2013 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions & Performance.
GPO. (2017). “Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.” U.S. Government Publishing Officem,

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018

 Structures Congress 2018 228

Subpart C, Title 23, 650.311, <http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-

idx?rgn=div5&node=23:1.0.1.7.28> (Sep. 28, 2017).
Hiasa, S. (2016). Investigation of Infrared Thermography for Subsurface Damage Detection of
Concrete Structures. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 5063.
<http://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5063>.
Hiasa, S., Birgul, R., and Catbas, F. N. (2016a). “Infrared thermography for civil structural
assessment: demonstrations with laboratory and field studies.” Journal of Civil Structural
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 04/23/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Health Monitoring, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 6(3), 619–636.

Hiasa, S., Birgul, R., and Catbas, F. N. (2017a). “Investigation of effective utilization of infrared
thermography (IRT) through advanced finite element modeling.” Construction and Building
Materials, 150, 295–309.
Hiasa, S., Birgul, R., and Catbas, F. N. (2017b). “Effect of Defect Size on Subsurface Defect
Detectability and Defect Depth Estimation for Concrete Structures by Infrared
Thermography.” Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 36(3), 57.
Hiasa, S., Birgul, R., and Necati Catbas, F. (2017c). “A data processing methodology for infrared
thermography images of concrete bridges.” Computers & Structures, 190, 205–218.
Hiasa, S., Catbas, F. N., Matsumoto, M., and Mitani, K. (2016b). “Monitoring Concrete Bridge
Decks using Infrared Thermography with High Speed Vehicles.” Structural Monitoring and
Maintenance, An International Journal, Techno-Press, Daejeon, Korea, 3(3), 277–296.
Hiasa, S., Necati Catbas, F., Matsumoto, M., and Mitani, K. (2017d). “Considerations and Issues
in the Utilization of Infrared Thermography for Concrete Bridge Inspection at Normal
Driving Speeds.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, 22(11), 4017101.
Kee, S.-H., Oh, T., Popovics, J. S., Arndt, R. W., and Zhu, J. (2012). “Nondestructive Bridge
Deck Testing with Air-Coupled Impact-Echo and Infrared Thermography.” Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 17(6), 928–939.
Koch, C., Georgieva, K., Kasireddy, V., Akinci, B., and Fieguth, P. (2015). “A review on
computer vision based defect detection and condition assessment of concrete and asphalt
civil infrastructure.” Advanced Engineering Informatics, Elsevier Ltd, 29(2), 196–210.
Matsumoto, M., Mitani, K., and Catbas, F. N. (2015). “NDE for Bridge Assessment using Image
Processing and Infrared Thermography The pilot Project.” Transportation Research Board
94th Annual Meeting, TRB, Washington, D.C., USA, No. 15-5620.
Omar, T., and Nehdi, M. L. (2017a). “Remote sensing of concrete bridge decks using unmanned
aerial vehicle infrared thermography.” Automation in Construction, Elsevier, 83(February),
360–371.
Omar, T., and Nehdi, M. L. (2017b). “Remote sensing of concrete bridge decks using unmanned
aerial vehicle infrared thermography.” Automation in Construction, Elsevier, 83(February),
360–371.
Royal Meteorological Society. (2017). “Beaufort Scale.” <https://www.rmets.org/weather-and-
climate/observing/beaufort-scale> (Oct. 15, 2017).
Watase, A., Birgul, R., Hiasa, S., Matsumoto, M., Mitani, K., and Catbas, F. N. (2015).
“Practical identification of favorable time windows for infrared thermography for concrete
bridge evaluation.” Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier Ltd, 101, 1016–1030.
WeatherUnderground. (2017). “Weather History for Orlando, FL [KFLORLAN72].”
<https://www.wunderground.com/personal-weather-
station/dashboard?ID=KFLORLAN72&cm_ven=localwx_pwsdash#history/tdata/s20171012
/e20171012/mdaily> (Oct. 15, 2017).

© ASCE

Structures Congress 2018