Small-Format Aerial Photography for

Highway-Bridge Monitoring
Shen-En Chen, M.ASCE1; Corey Rice2; Chuck Boyle3; and Edd Hauser4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta on 08/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Small-format aerial photography (SFAP) is a low-cost solution for bridge-surface imaging and is proposed as a remote bridge-
inspection technique to supplement current bridge visual inspection. Providing top-down views, photos taken from airplanes flying at 305 m
(1,000 ft) allow for the visualization of subinch (i.e., large) cracks and joint openings on bridge decks or highway pavements. An onboard
global positioning system can help geo-reference images collected and allow automated damage detection. However, the site lighting,
surrounding tree shades, and highway surface reflectivity may affect the quality of the images. Several examples of bridge evaluation using
SFAP are presented to demonstrate the capability of remote sensing as an effective tool for bridge-construction monitoring and condition
assessment. A deck condition rating technique for large crack detection is proposed to quantify the condition of the existing bridge decks.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000145. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Remote sensing; Bridges, highway; Monitoring; Aerial photography.
Author keywords: Remote sensing; Bridge-health monitoring; SI-SFAP; Aerial photography.

Introduction tion in which an inspector physically acquires information about

Bridges are essential components of one of our nation’s most criti-
cal infrastructure systems: highways and railways. The condition of
our bridges affects many facets of society, including the efficient
movement of people and goods, critical access to communities
during emergencies, and a mechanism to overcome physically
challenging environments. However, we often fail to recognize
the importance of maintaining these structures so that they can
continue to serve communities for years to come. A recent report
published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (2009)
recognizes that the current state of repair of all infrastructure sys-
tems, including highways and bridges, has an overall performance
rating of “D”; and the report states that more than a quarter of these
bridges are considered either structurally deficient or functionally
obsolete.
It is unlikely that every bridge in the United States will
be upgraded or retrofitted to higher standards soon; however,
with a systematic bridge-management approach using advanced
technologies—whether it be for sensing unsafe conditions or situa-
tions requiring immediate maintenance—a more effective mainte-
nance and rehabilitation program can be implemented. Currently,
the most common practice for bridge monitoring is visual inspec-
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of North
Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223
(corresponding author). E-mail: schen12@uncc.edu
2
Graduate Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of North
Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223.
3
Managing Principal, Boyle Consulting Engineers, LLC, Charlotte, NC
28223.
4 penetrating radar, ultrasound, and microwaves. Remote-sensing
Professor and Director, Center for Transportation Policy Studies, Univ.
of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC
28223.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 24, 2010; approved
on June 18, 2010; published online on March 15, 2011. Discussion period
open until September 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, Vol. 25, No. 2, April 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN
0887-3828/2011/2-105–112/$25.00.
the structure at the bridge site. Photos and text-based information
are gathered during an inspection. A decision is then made regard-
ing the integrity of the structure and a ratings report is recorded.
However, this technique is time-consuming, subjective, and relies
heavily on personal experiences. The resulting ratings may be
inconsistent (Moore et al. 2000).
This paper suggests the use of advanced remote-sensing tech-
nologies for more frequent and perhaps more comprehensive
inspections, which would be a significant improvement over cur-
rent practices. The technology recommended in this study is spatial
integrated-small-format aerial photography (SI-SFAP) technology
with an integrated onboard global positioning system (GPS) and
high-resolution optics. This unique technique allows low-cost,
rapid deployment and highly efficient image collection at a very
high resolution (i.e., subinches).
The objective of the flyovers is to obtain cost-effective, color,
digital photography and data of sufficient resolution and accuracy
to view meaningful and measurable bridge-deck distress and joint
movements. The visualization and measurement of crack patterns
and joint separations on bridge decks can be used to assess precur-
sor conditions related to bridge structural performance, deteriora-
tion, movement, and failure. The detection of potential problems is
accomplished with high-resolution digital color photography with
pixel sizes less than 1 in.
SI-SFAP is a commercial remote sensing (CRS) technique—
CRS technologies, in this case, loosely refer to all airborne,
satellite, and ground-based noncontact sensing techniques with
the exclusion of electromagnetic techniques such as ground-
techniques are usually employed to address large-scale problems
(Hinz and Baumgartner 2003; Lee and Shinozuka 2006; Uddin
2002). Any technique that collects information remotely can be
classified as a remote-sensing method.
In this paper, the SI-SFAP technique is described and several
bridge monitoring applications, including crack detection and
new-construction monitoring, are presented. A bridge-deck rating

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011 / 105

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2011, 25(2): 105-112

 system that quantifies bridge-deck cracking conditions is also Table 1. Equipment Minimum Requirements
introduced. Instrument and setup Requirements
Camera Canon 5D with 35 mm complementary metal-
Spatial Integrated-Small-Format Aerial Photography oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensor
Lens 105 mm (Canon Prime “L,”
Aerial photography is the original form of commercial remote calibrated, is recommended)
sensing and remains the most widely used method—typical appli-
Exposure setting Manual
cations include geographical mapping, military reconnaissance,
Shutter speed 1=1;000 s
environmental studies, and geological explorations (Sabins 1987).
Photos are generally taken at high altitudes, that is, at 1,524 m Fractional Aperture Stop F4.6
(5,000 ft) and higher, providing general spatial information such (F-stop)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta on 08/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

as coordinates, orientations, and colors. The digital single lens
reflex (DSLR) camera has recently demonstrated the potential
for widespread, remote-sensing, asset-management applications,
particularly if integrated with geographic information systems.
Its primary advantages include
• full frame sensors (35 mm) with high-electrostatic recharge
rates allowing rapid firing (4–5 frames per second) at maximum
pixel sensor utilization;
• the large selection of optics allowing for flexible altitude plan-
ning in the national airspace system and very high resolutions at
the altitudes employed [i.e., ground sample distances (GSD) of
less than 25.4 mm (1 in.)];
• the significant use by professional aerial photographers using
general aviation assets across the United States;
• extremely high shutter speeds, negating the need for forward
motion compensation (FMC) typically used in aerial cameras;
and
• low-cost and fast turnaround, particularly for temporal (i.e., time
sensitive) analysis applications.
For bridge inspection, higher resolution images are needed. The
aerial photographs used in this study were taken at a much lower
altitude [i.e., at approximately 305 m (1,000 ft)] so that higher res-
olution digital images were captured. Because these photos were
taken at a lower altitude, an orthogonal rectification of the imagery
was not performed.
In this study, a Cessna C210L plane was used for data collec-
tion. The camera (Fig. 1) was prepared by ensuring that the battery
was adequately charged and that a functional, cleared, internal
memory card capable of storing the total number of images iden-
tified during the photo mission planning (PMP) phase was in place.
With some variation of camera settings to accommodate the time of
year (i.e., season) and the time of day, the camera prepared is
described in Table 1.
ISO setting 200
Focus Manual, prefocused at 305 m (1,000 ft)
and taped
Image stabilization Off
It is recommended by Cessna that a flight in the C210L be con-
ducted no more than 4.0 h at the cruise power setting [i.e., approx-
imately 71:5 m=s (160 mi=h) at 17 gal:=h]. This gives the aircraft a
range of approximately 1,030 km (640 mi) without refueling. The
camera was docked to the underside of the aircraft for unrestricted
viewing. The photographic scale of the photo can be determined by
L
Scale ¼ ð1Þ
H
where L = the lens focal length; and H = the camera or flight height
(Fig. 2). The resolution of the digital images is defined as the ratio
of the object’s actual physical length to the its physical length in the
photo. Other parameters such as focal length and flight height can
be determined or defined beforehand. High-quality aerial photos
were initially used to determine the presence of possible surface
cracks and the width of expansion joints on bridge structures.
The primary intent of the aerial photo as a remote sensor is to detect
structural defects and other related structural problems, such as
bridge movements, integrity from cracking, or other major damages
to the bridge superstructure.
Digital images are not always naturally suitable for such evalu-
ation and measurements. Image processing may be necessary to
modify the data from the original imagery in such a manner that
it becomes useful. Image processing can be organized into four cat-
egories: enhancement, restoration, compression, and classification
(Gonzalez and Woods 2008). The manipulation performed on the
aerial photos in this study was primarily for enhancement and clas-
sification. The enhancement to improve the image for viewing and

Fig. 1. Camera setup inside plane Fig. 2. Image scale capture

106 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2011, 25(2): 105-112

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta on 08/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Aerial crack identification: (a) original image; and (b) zoomed image
measurement, included the addition of outlines for objects and
cracks present in the photographs to make them more easily iden-
tifiable for evaluation. The classification to extract information was
performed by assigning different colors to each class of object to
make them distinguishable for quick recognition. Fig. 3 shows the
aerial crack-detection process in which cracks are shown as features
with darker-colored pixels than the surrounding features and then
marked as possible cracking. Surface roughness, discoloring, and
other surface conditions could appear as cracks as well. Similar
problems appear if the color identification technique is used for
both concrete and asphalt bridge surfaces. After cracking and
expansion joints were identified, assumptions were made about
the bridge’s structural integrity. By using this approach, crack
length, width, description (i.e., crack types), and severity were mea-
sured from the digital photos. The depth of the crack is the only
information that cannot be identified even with higher resolution
images. Other defects such as patching, scaling, spalling, delami-
nation, and exposed reinforcement and potholes can also be iden-
tified by using aerial photography.
High-resolution SFAP technology is dependent on actual flight
height and photo quality. Photo quality implications and problems
include but are not limited to shadows from surrounding objects,
material surface roughness, traffic, lighting situations, lens smudg-
ing, and major vibrations, which could leave some images blurred
and could affect the photo resolution. Fig. 3 shows that the crack
analysis aerial-photography method effectively identified cracks
larger than 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) (shown as white markings). Not
shown in Fig. 3 are the joint openings between the bridge spans
and the expansion joints.
Bridge Deck Condition Rating
A bridge surface condition index (BSCI) similar to the pavement
condition index (PCI) was developed for aerial-photography analy-
sis (Shahin 1994). The current version of the BSCI rating only con-
siders cracking on the bridge surface and does not differentiate
crack types or crack orientations but slightly differentiates crack
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011 / 107
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2011, 25(2): 105-112
severity by assigning values for low severity, L, medium severity,
M, and high severity, H. (Table 2 shows the default distress type as
1 for longitudinal cracks and 2 for transverse cracks.) The low
severity cracks are cracks are approximately 0.3 m (1.0 ft) or less,
the medium severity cracks are between 0.3 and 1.5 m (1.0 and
5.0 ft), and the high severity cracks are longer than 1.5 m (5.0 ft).
Also shown in Table 2 is the crack analysis from ground measure-
ments indicating a rating value of 78 (Hu et al. 2009). The example
bridge is a three-span, prestressed-concrete bridge. The difference
between the ground-based and aerial-based imaging techniques
was approximately 10.3%.
The BSCI rating process includes five steps: (1) identify cracks
and quantify crack numbers, N, from the aerial photos; (2) deter-
mine the area of each span, A, of the bridge structure by using an
inspection report or information from the original design; (3) calcu-
late the crack density by using Eq. (2) and expressed as a percent-
age; (4) determine the deduction value by using Fig. 4 or by using
Eq. (3); and (5) subtract the deduction value for the final rating
[Eq. (4)]. Because the BSCI rating can be used with either ground
photography or aerial photography, a suffix “AP” for aerial photog-
raphy method is appended to the rating. Fig. 5 shows the relative
rating profile that is used to associate the rating value to the deck
condition. The rating shown in Fig. 5 was adopted from the pave-
ment management system and is recommended for bridge deck
evaluation. The BSCI rating equations are as follows:
D ¼ N=A ð2Þ
DV ¼ 50 × logðDÞ ð3Þ
BSCIAP ¼ 99
maxðDVÞ ð4Þ
where DV = deduction value; D = crack density; A = individual
span area; and N = number of cracks per span.
Additional adjustments of the BSCI rating can be developed to
ensure realistic rating values. Because the index rating was derived
 Table 2. Sample of BSCI Rating Process for Example Bridge
Deck distress rating based on
Distress type Quantity Severitya Span Span area [m2 (ft2 )] Density (%) Deduct value ground measurements (Hu et al. 2009)
1, 2 9 L 1 148.6 (1,600) 0.6 1.0
1, 2 63 M 1 148.6 (1,600) 3.9 29.7
1, 2 1 H 1 148.6 (1,600) 0.1 1.0
1, 2 0 L 2 164.1 (1,766) 0.0 0.0
1, 2 70 M 2 164.1 (1,766) 3.9 29.9
1, 2 3 H 2 164.1 (1,766) 0.2 1.0
1, 2 2 L 3 147.3 (1,586) 0.1 1.0
1, 2 36 M 3 147.3 (1,586) 2.8 17.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta on 08/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1, 2 6 H 3 147.3 (1,586) 0.4 1.0

BSCI 70.0 (AP)a 78 (GP)a
a
Legend: L = low severity; M = medium severity; H = high severity; AP = aerial photography; GP = ground photography.

from the PCI rating method, additional research is needed to gen-
erate modification graphs for different crack patterns and distress
types. Special considerations should include punching shear, corner
cracking, spalling, potholes, expansion movement data, and other
damages to the bridge.
Fig. 4. Initial logarithmic curve for deduction values versus density
Another important feature of the SI-SFAP method is the poten-
tial for quantifying bridge relative movements by measuring expan-
sion joint openings. Current inspection reporting does not require
the exact measurement of expansion joints. As a result, the docu-
mentation of bridge substructure movements has not been included
in the national bridge inventory database. However, by using peri-
odic, high-resolution aerial photography such as SI-SFAP, it is pos-
sible to establish a temporal record of bridge joint movements.
Table 3 shows the actual surface measurements of expansion joints
and the measured values determined from aerial photos (Fig. 6).
Further studies of the temporal data of bridge joint movements
may help with the interpretation of bridge movements and may
reveal temperature and substructure movement effects on the bridge
superstructure.
By measuring the expansion joints, an inspector can see bridge-
span horizontal movements at a specific time. With the further
analysis of temporal data, that is, with additional aerial photos
taken of a bridge over a period of months or even years, the actual
movement of a the bridge can be observed, and actions can be pro-
posed to address the situation at hand. Vertical movements were not
studied because horizontal movements seem much more critical to
structural damage (Moulton et al. 1985) The apparent logical tol-
erable movement limits to the horizontal direction could be a value
between 25.4 and 50.8 mm (1.0 and 2.0 in.), which would account
for the normal movements associated with seasonal temperature
changes. Movement tolerances have not been strongly established.
Therefore, for this and future research, it was assumed that the
maximum tolerable horizontal bridge movement was 50.8 mm
(2.0 in.) Also included in the Tolerable Movement Criteria
(Moulton et al. 1985), allowable abutment horizontal movements
were limited to 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) Bridges experiencing noticeably
larger horizontal movements, that is, greater than 50.8 mm (2 in.)
and greater than 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) for abutments, should be flagged
and noted for immediate inspections to clarify any structural issues
that could produce such movements.
Concrete and asphalt are hard and brittle materials that will
crack and break under stress. Therefore, if a typical roadway bridge
is experiencing distress, surface cracking will likely occur, making

Table 3. Expansion Joint Comparison (Fig. 7)

Joint Actual measurement from Measurement from SI-SFAP
number ground surface [mm (in.)] aerial photos [mm (in.)]
J1 25.4 (1.00) 25.4 (1.00)
J2 44.5 (1.75) 38.1 (1.5)
Fig. 5. Standard rating scale used in pavement management system J3 44.5 (1.75) 50.8 (2.00)

108 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2011, 25(2): 105-112

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta on 08/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Aerial joint identification including marking of shadows and sporadic spalls: (a) original image; and (b) zoomed image
the structural damage apparent in aerial photographs. Gravel is any
loose rock that is larger than 2.0–76.2 mm (0.079–3 in.) When the
structural elements of a railway bridge move, crack, expand, or
contract, the gravel bed will typically move and shift with these
elements, and no surface cracking will be evident.
Whereas crack detection from aerial photographs of railway
bridges is nearly impossible, other possible methods for evaluating
structural deficiencies by using the images exist. One possibility for
using the images for the detection of structural deficiencies is look-
ing at any lateral or horizontal movement in the railroad track itself.
To identify movement in the track, many temporal images may be
needed to compare the changes and to track movement.
Geo-Referencing Images
Individual images for each bridge are simultaneously rectified and
geo-referenced for viewing in a geographic information system.
The technique used is “manual feature matching” to available
orthoimagery datasets available from the ArcGIS desktop frame-
work. Ground-control reference points may be used but are not
required unless the bridge to be photographed is not present
in an available orthodataset. The following steps are used to geo-
reference the acquired images:
1. A base map image is opened in ArcView. The bridge site is
located and bookmarked.
2. The bridge image is imported into ArcView and geo-
referencing is accomplished by point matching the image to
the base map. To create a general scale, two points are assigned
to opposite sides of the image to bring the image to the general
location over the orthoimage base map.
3. After the initial points are set, additional points are matched,
starting with the outside edges of the image, then the bridge,
and then the interior points of the bridge. During the point-
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011 / 109
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2011, 25(2): 105-112
matching process, the “swipe” or “fade tool” is used to check
the accuracy of the matching against the underlying orthoimage.
4. After all points have been added, the image is rectified and
saved in a TIFF or JPEG file format. The preferable file type
is TIFF.
The procedure described is used to establish and verify an
accurate image scale for measurement purposes and not to precisely
geo-position the bridge images to the landscape. The accuracy of
the scaling, therefore, is primarily a function of the geo-positional
and resolution quality of the orthoimagery dataset used for feature
matching. In addition, the points used for feature matching should
coincide with joint locations to assure the highest degree of scale
accuracy for joint locations.
Obstruction Detection
When analyzing the aerial photos for surface deficiencies, it is
important to identify the noise in the photos. Noises are composed
of objects such as cars, shadows, and trees, which may obscure the
view of the camera, making it difficult and sometimes impossible to
identify cracks in certain areas. The photos are analyzed at the level
at which individual pixels are visible, and an outline of each object
is carefully drawn. Fig. 7 shows shadows outlined. Those created
by trees may sometimes have the appearance of surface cracks
when looking closely at the photos. Depending on the time of
day, shadows from objects such as trees, side rails, and cars
may stretch over large areas of the roadway surface. Solid obstruc-
tions such as trees, railings, and cars are outlined. Although the
view of the roadway surface may be obscured by shadows, some
larger objects such as holes in the surface and asphalt patches may
still be observed within the shadows shown as outlines in Figs. 6
and 7. Because these objects are still visible, they are also outlined
during the image noise analysis. Cracks with lesser widths can be

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta on 08/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Obstruction of tree and shadows produced by trees: (a) original
bridge image; and (b) zoomed image
difficult to see in the images. By identifying the holes in the surface
which are relatively easily observed, some cracks which radiate
from the holes can be located.
The presence of traffic on the roadways is beyond the control of
the pilot responsible for taking the photos. Traffic volumes can be
such that large areas of the roadway surface are blocked by cars.
When performing the aerial photo analysis for this study, more cars
were present on the bridges located in urban areas, especially on
bridges located at or near intersections. The removal of a vehicle
and a vehicle induced shadow from the aerial photos was necessary
(Fig. 8). Other obstructions that may appear on aerial photos that
may affect a bridge deck evaluation include debris, water spots,
Fig. 8. Detection of vehicles and shadows: (a) original image; and
(b) zoomed image
110 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2011, 25(2): 105-112
weeds, paint, screech marks, and traffic control markings. These
obstructions need to be removed to allow the accurate evaluation
of bridge crack conditions.
Bridge-Construction Monitoring
The SI-SFAP method was also useful for monitoring bridge con-
struction. The images can be used to determine the surroundings,
bridge construction processes, and bridge measurements. In addi-
tion, collecting images during bridge construction will record initial
temporal data sets that can be used for later bridge movement
data. Fig. 7 shows the temporal image data acquired at different
construction stages for the Cuthbertson Road Bridge in North
Carolina. Photos were recorded on April 24, 2009, for predemoli-
tion, May 15, 2009, for foundation construction, and on June 29,
2009, for the completion of the bridge superstructure. The Cuth-
bertson Road Bridge construction was located at
80:7519 longi-
tude and 34.9575 latitude. The temporal image data was acquired to
show the construction process. The left-most image in Fig. 9 shows
the condition of the original bridge before its demolition and is fol-
lowed by images taken later. The images appear in their original
formatting to show the surrounding construction objects that would
be considered important to on-site and off-site managers. The
stitching of images is essential to compose the full site conditions
and is completed in ArcGIS.
Discussion
Like all airborne imaging techniques, SI-SFAP is highly dependent
on the execution of the flight plan. The actual execution of the flight
track from takeoff to landing is dependent on many factors includ-
ing weather and available light, airspace flight restrictions, and
estimated time of arrival (ETA) at the bridge site. The goal is to
minimize shadows on the bridge deck and to achieve the correct
camera exposure at the time of the bridge overflight. Camera set-
tings may need to be adjusted during the progress of the flight to
adjust for changes in the position of the sun.
After becoming airborne and flying to the defined camera
approach waypoints for each bridge, the aircrew must function
as a team. Accurate communication in the cockpit and with air traf-
fic control personnel is imperative to accomplish the job safely and
Fig. 9. Bridge-construction monitoring at different stages
 Fig. 10. SI-SFAP flight plan
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta on 08/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
efficiently and to arrive at the defined waypoint at the correct
airspeed and altitude, ready for camera activation. The camera
operator will take manual shots beginning at the selected “Camera
On” waypoint and continue until the “Camera Off” waypoint is
reached (Fig. 10). The camera operator and the pilot must help
one another with the assigned tasks of maneuvering the aircraft
and activating the camera shutter during each bridge overflight.
A system of verbal communication among the aircrew to verify
that the aircraft is positioned correctly and that the camera is firing
correctly is very important.
The accurate tracking over the bridge is accomplished with
strong piloting and the use of a portable GPS unit used at the correct
scale as required. It is important for the pilot to remember that the
wide area augmented system (WAAS)–enabled portable GPS is ac-
curate to 3 m (10 ft) and has a delayed update period for the precise
tracking over the bridge. Alternatively, a remote miniature video
camera with a cockpit monitor can be installed at the belly camera
portal to facilitate the visual acquisition of the bridge under the nose
of the aircraft.
Both crew members must remain vigilant during the bridge
overflights to ensure adequate scanning for other aircraft is accom-
plished. Additional safety measures are available from the air traffic
controller (ATC) when operating in Class B, C, and D airspace and
when visual flight rules (VFR) flight advisories are requested by
the pilot.
Upon landing, the camera is retrieved from the aircraft and all
images are downloaded and organized into folders corresponding
to each site. Exposure issues are corrected en masse by lightening
or darkening the exposure of photos to improve contrast, saturation,
and color.
Being a low-cost alternative to orthoaerial imaging, SI-SFAP
has several transportation infrastructure related applications that
have been identified (Chen et al. 2009):
• Applications during project planning—For project planning,
high-resolution aerial photography can be used to assess envir-
onmental impact potentials and can be used as quantitative tools
for project estimations. These applications provide sufficient
details to allow project managers to establish specific project
scopes. Clear photos from SI-SFAP have also been found to
be useful in public presentations, because they provide a strong
visual image for the audience; and therefore, can enhance public
relations.
• Applications during project construction—Frequent SI-SFAP
flyovers would provide temporal recordings of construction pro-
cesses allowing project management teams to ensure site safety,
optimize operation logistics, reduce traffic flow, minimize
construction and environmental impacts, and ensure schedule
compliance.
• Applications for asset condition assessment and inventory
tracking—High-resolution aerial photos can help identify
defects and damage causes and are therefore useful for estab-
lishing asset conditions and repair prioritization, which can
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011 / 111
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2011, 25(2): 105-112
optimize rehabilitation design and fiscal planning. At times,
SI-SFAP can also be deployed for emergency evaluation opera-
tions and planning.
• Applications during bridge operations—High-resolution ima-
gery can be used to study the impacts from activities near a
bridge, including construction blasting and land developments.
Conclusions
In this paper, the remote sensing of bridge structures with high-
resolution aerial photography, specifically the SI-SFAP technique,
was introduced. Detailed data collection and image processing pro-
cedures were described, indicating that remote sensing technology
is capable of detecting visible defects on bridge superstructures,
which can help in the identification of possible stress formations
and movement patterns within the bridge structure. This paper
discussed the process for obtaining aerial images of bridge struc-
tures, evaluating those images for cracklike features, evaluating
images for quality, and for recommending a bridge-surface rating
approach.
Although this technology may not replace current inspection
processes, it can be used as an important structural inspection tool
within current processes because the aerial images provide crack
detection, bridge movement information, and a record of surround-
ing issues that can help the inspector rate a given bridge.
Acknowledgments
This project is supported by Grant No. DTOS59-07-H-0005 from
the DOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration
(RITA). The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions reflected
in this publication are the responsibility of the writers only and
do not represent the official policy or position of the DOT, RITA,
any state, or other entity. The writers also would like to acknowl-
edge the guidance and contributions of Mr. Caesar Singh, the
Program Manager at the DOT; and the continued technical assis-
tance of Mr. Garland Haywood of the North Carolina Department
of Transportation Division 10 and of Mr. Jimmy Rhyne of the City
of Charlotte Department of Transportation.
We also acknowledge and appreciate the excellent review and
input of our national advisory committee: Sreenivas Alampalli,
New York State Department of Transportation; Mrinmay (Moy)
Biswas, North Carolina Department of Transportation; Hamad
abu-Harash, Iowa Department of Transportation; Kelley Rehm,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO); K. T. Thirumalai, STI International; Dan
Turner, University of Alabama; and Phillip Yen, Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Turner-Fairbank Research Center.
Last, but not least, a significant amount of work was performed
by Brian Philbrick of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
and by Brian Sain and Todd Spanish of Boyle Consulting
Engineering, LLC.
 References
ArcGIS [Computer software]. ESRI, Redlands, CA.
ASCE. (2009). Report card for America’s infrastructure-bridges, ASCE,
Reston, VA.
Chen, S. E., et al. (2009). “Bridge health monitoring using commercial
remote sensing.” Proc., 7th Int. Workshop on Structural Health
Monitoring, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, 308–315.
Gonzalez, R. C., and Woods, R. E. (2008). Digital image processing,
3rd Ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hinz, S., and Baumgartner, A. (2003). “Automatic extraction of urban road
networks from multi-view aerial imagery.” ISPRS J. Photogramm.
Remote Sens., 58(1–2), 83–98.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta on 08/16/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Hu, Z., Eguchi, R., and Chung, H. (2009). “Automated management bridge
information system.” Final Rep., Center for Transportation Policy Stud-
ies, Univ. of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC.
112 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2011, 25(2): 105-112
Lee, J. J., and Shinozuka, M. (2006). “A vision-based system for remote
sensing of bridge displacement.” NDT&E Int., 39(5), 425–431.
Moore, M., Phares, B., Graybeal, B., Rolander, D., and Washer, G. (2000).
“Reliability of visual inspection for highway bridges.” FHWA-RD-01-
020, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC.
Moulton, L. K., GangaRao, H., and Halvorsen, G. T. (1985). “Tolerable
movement criteria for highway bridges.” Final Rep. FHWA-TS-85-228,
FHWA, McLean, VA.
Sabins, F. F. (1987). Remote sensing principles and interpretation,
Freeman, New York.
Shahin, M. Y. (1994). Pavement management for airports, roads, and
parking lots, Chapman & Hall, New York.
Uddin, W. (2002). “Evaluation of airborne LiDAR digital terrain mapping
for highway corridor planning and design.” Proc., Pecora 15/Land
Satellite Information IV/ISPRS Commission I/FIEOS 2002 Conf., Int.
Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Beijing.