Damage Detection and Finite-Element Model Updating

of Structural Components through Point Cloud Analysis

Kasra Ghahremani, S.M.ASCE 1; Ali Khaloo, S.M.ASCE 2; Sara Mohamadi, S.M.ASCE 3;
and David Lattanzi, M.ASCE 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Accurate and rapid condition assessment of in-service structural components is critical to ensure safety and serviceability. One
major assessment consideration is the detection and quantification of structural section loss due to deterioration, for instance, from cor-
rosion. Modern three-dimensional (3D) imaging techniques, which generate high-resolution 3D point clouds, are capable of detecting and
measuring these deteriorations. However, despite advancements in the fields of automated point cloud analysis for as-built modeling and
structural inspection, the potential use of spatial 3D data for updating numerical finite-element (FE) models of structures is still an emer-
gent topic. This paper presents a localized methodology for the automatic and systematic detection and quantification of damages in
structural components using high-fidelity 3D point cloud data, followed by a corresponding local update to an FE model. In this study,
3D point cloud data of a targeted structure were first obtained by using dense structure from motion (DSfM) algorithms. Section loss
damage was then identified and located through computer vision and 3D data processing techniques. In order to preserve data integrity and
resolve localized high-fidelity details, direct 3D point cloud comparisons were performed. An experimental study validating the developed
approach is presented as well. The results indicate that the presented methodology will enable engineers to use the updated structural
model to determine the reserved capacity and remaining service life of structural elements, though further studies on methods to improve
mesh generation and defect quantification are warranted. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000885. © 2018 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction; Condition assessment; Computer vision; Damage detection; Finite-element
model; Computational mechanics; Structural damage; Digital image correlation; Infrastructure monitoring; 3D data processing.

Introduction capacity and performance. In general, there is a growing need

In-service structures are often faced with serious durability prob-
lems due to increasing service demand and natural aging. Com-
pounding the problem is that the inspection and survey methods
designed to assess structural integrity are often subjective,
primarily based on visual inspection, do not generate an objective
historical record, and observations typically cannot be directly
incorporated into existing numerical models of structural perfor-
mance. This is particularly true for the measurement of geometric
changes in components from phenomena such as section loss due to
steel corrosion or concrete spalling: two major sources of degrada-
tion across a range of structural systems. These degradations are
difficult to quantify using conventional measurement technologies,
further leading to discrepancies as to their impact on structural
1 changed drastically during the last few years (Fathi et al. 2015).
Structural Engineer, Walter P. Moore and Associates, 1301 McKinney,
Suite 1100, Houston, TX 77010. Email: kghahrem1@gmail.com
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure
Engineering, George Mason Univ., Fairfax, VA 22030. Email: akhaloo@
gmu.edu
3
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and
Infrastructure Engineering, George Mason Univ., Fairfax, VA 22030.
Email: smohama2@gmu.edu
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure
Engineering, George Mason Univ., Fairfax, VA 22030 (corresponding
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9247-0680. Email: dlattanz@
gmu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 3, 2017; approved on
March 2, 2018; published online on June 22, 2018. Discussion period
open until November 22, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0893-1321.
for accurate, quantitative, and consistent inspection and evaluation
processes that enable improved structural analysis and decision
making throughout the life cycle of a structure (Jahanshahi et al.
2009; Zhu et al. 2010).
Three-dimensional (3D) imaging technologies, such as laser
scanning or photogrammetry, and the 3D models they generate
are increasingly being studied for their applications in structural
defect detection and integrity assessments (Koch et al. 2015). These
applications include postdisaster damage estimation (Gong
and Maher 2014), deformation monitoring (Jafari et al. 2017;
Olsen et al. 2009), and damage detection (Erkal and Hajjar
2017; Khaloo and Lattanzi 2017; Laefer et al. 2014). While in
the past the acquisition of such 3D data was restricted to special-
ized and expensive cameras and laser scanners, this situation has
The rapid acquisition speed, high accuracy, and portability of
modern remote sensing technologies (e.g., camera-equipped un-
manned aerial vehicles and 3D laser scanners) make them an
efficient and economical alternative to conventional methods.
As such, they hold the promise of becoming a new and powerful
source of information regarding structural performance.
While 3D imaging systems are increasingly accessible and
easy to use, they pose difficulties with regards to the 3D point
clouds they generate. Raw point cloud data provide geometrically
accurate and densely sampled representations of the surfaces of a
targeted structure, but they do not inherently provide information
as to the changes in a structure over time, and they do not provide
explicit information regarding structural integrity (Fathi et al.
2015; Riveiro et al. 2011). The result is that there is a growing

© ASCE 04018068-1 J. Aerosp. Eng.

J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068

 body of research on the translation of 3D point cloud data to
numerical models.
Prior Work
While laser scanning and photogrammetry have been used as effi-
cient 3D measurement techniques for some time, the idea of using
the acquired 3D point clouds to generate numerical finite-element
(FE) models is relatively new (Laefer et al. 2011; Riveiro et al.
2011). A review of the literature (Conde-Carnero et al. 2015;
Dai et al. 2014; Sánchez-Aparicio et al. 2014) in this field not only
presents a wide range of possible applications for 3D imaging in
structural engineering, but also highlights the potential in develop-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ing methodologies for creating and updating FE models.
In the work done by Lubowiecka et al. (2009), a 3D laser scan-
ner was used to capture the complex geometry of a medieval ma-
sonry bridge, and the resulting data were later used to create a FE
model. In their method, two-dimensional (2D) Delaunay flat tri-
angulation was used to create 3D surfaces from point clouds, which
was observed to produce inaccuracies in capturing the actual geom-
etry of damaged regions on the structure. In the study by Truong-
Hong et al. (2013), a combination of voxelization with an angle
criterion was used to convert point clouds to finite-element models
for building façades. In another work by Hinks et al. (2013), an
automated conversion of point cloud data into solid computer mod-
els was performed through a pointwise voxelization technique as
well. However, due to the inherent sensitivity of the algorithm
to voxel size, it suffered from a lack of accuracy in modeling small
and detailed regions.
Barazzetti et al. (2015) and Stavroulaki et al. (2016) investigated
using both 3D laser scanners and image-based reconstruction to
generate 3D point clouds of historic structures. Although these
models were later converted to solid models compatible for com-
putational analysis, the capabilities of their methods to incorporate
potential structural damages were not investigated. In the studies by
Ma et al. (2016) and Zeibak-Shini et al. (2016), automated acquis-
ition of an as-damaged building information model (BIM) for
evaluating the postearthquake state of reinforced concrete buildings
based on a laser-scanned 3D point cloud was presented. Fernandez
et al. (2016) utilized 3D scanning results to capture the geometry of
the corroded steel bars tested under cyclic or monotonic loads to
create their corresponding 3D FE model.
In most related prior efforts, a complete point cloud was used to
generate a new finite-element model of a damaged component or
structural system, typically through global surface reconstruction.
One major limitation of such approaches is the often undue number
of finite elements in the resulting models, leading to excessive
computational costs, particularly if nonlinear analysis is required.
Global reconstructions are also susceptible to inaccuracies stem-
ming from the meshing process itself, which in general attempt
to fit a local surface to a point cloud, with a corresponding degra-
dation of geometric features such as flat surfaces and sharp edge
boundaries within the 3D model. This problem is exacerbated as
the relative scale between a component and a defect increases.
Finally, such approaches are dependent on the generation of a
complete 3D point cloud of a component because occlusions and
missing data in such approaches result in artificial defects and in-
accurate finite-element models.
Contributions of This Work
The main objective of this study was to address these challenges
through the development of a localized approach to the updating of
finite-element models based on damage detected and quantified in
© ASCE 04018068-2
J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068
3D point clouds. To achieve this, computer vision algorithms were
used to automatically locate, identify, and quantify damage through
comparative analysis of two point clouds of a structural component,
followed by localized extraction of the point clouds corresponding
to a damaged region. These extracted point cloud data were then
used to locally update an existing solid model of a component, fol-
lowed by finite-element remeshing. This approach avoids the need
to perform a global surface reconstruction of a structural compo-
nent, and thus avoids the aforementioned difficulties. It also allows
for mesh refinement in localized regions of damage at the resolu-
tion of the point cloud without unnecessary computational cost.
The complete computational approach, including the detection,
quantification, and model updating processes, constitutes the pri-
mary contribution of this work.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The algo-
rithmic methodology is first presented. An evaluation of the accu-
racy of the damage detection and quantification subcomponents of
the algorithm is then provided. This is followed by a discussion of
the results of a series of experimental tests designed to evaluate the
overall numerical model updating process. The paper concludes
with an examination of the limitations of the approach and potential
avenues for future work and extensions.
Methodology
The overall computational methodology (Fig. 1) was composed of
several steps that are described in the following subsections. This
process was designed to identify and quantify changes in the state
of the targeted component at different times. Therefore, the pre-
sented methodology required a baseline model in the form of
as-built or as-designed 3D solid and/or point cloud models of a
structural component, as well as a point cloud representing current
conditions (as-is) as input data. The current state point cloud, Pc ,
was used for comparative analysis with respect to the reference
point cloud, Pr , on a point-to-point scale to detect structural dam-
age in the component. Once damage was detected, the point cloud
of the defect was extracted and used to update an existing solid
model of the component, which can then be meshed for finite-
element analysis. The approach was designed for localized damage
on individual structural components, and is not meant for the gen-
eration of finite-element models of complete structural systems.
However, if a finite-element model of a system exists, this approach
can be used to locally update it in the region of a defect.
Damage Detection and Quantification
Point Cloud Generation
In general, 3D point clouds of the reference (Pr ) and current (Pc )
condition of a component can be generated via 3D laser scanning or
photogrammetry, or a combination of the two. In the absence of the
as-built reference point cloud, a 3D solid model of the as-designed
component can be used as a basis for sampling points on each
surface to generate a synthetic reference 3D point cloud.
In this study, point clouds were generated from a set of 2D dig-
ital images, using the photogrammetric approach known as struc-
ture from motion (SfM). SfM was chosen over laser scanning due
to the research team’s previous experiences working with the two
technologies (Khaloo et al. 2018; Khaloo and Lattanzi 2016). The
presented algorithm does not require SfM-generated point clouds to
function properly, and the choice of laser scanning or SfM should
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The SfM approach reconstructs the parameters of cameras (both
extrinsic and intrinsic parameters) solely from correspondences in
J. Aerosp. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Proposed methodology.
an unstructured image data set. This process includes salient feature
extraction and feature matching and estimation of relative camera
poses from known point correspondences, followed by the compu-
tation of the 3D coordinates of extracted features (Hartley and
Zisserman 2004). Upon finding the orientation of each image, a bun-
dle adjustment is then performed to optimize the resulting camera
orientations and 3D point coordinates. This procedure is repeated
until an orientation is available for all images. The result of this pro-
cedure is a relatively sparse set of points. Next, in order to densify the
reconstructed model and produce a photorealistic 3D model dense
enough to capture small geometric changes, a semiglobal (pixelwise)
multiview stereo (MVS) algorithm (Hirschmüller et al. 2012) is used
to capture information from all pixels in the input 2D images to
derive up to one 3D point for each pixel. The result is a dense
3D point cloud of the targeted structural component suitable for the
following analysis.
Point Cloud Data Preprocessing
The generated Pr and Pc point clouds then undergo preprocessing.
First, to improve computational efficiency and to overcome the
variability in local point density in both 3D models, a uniform sub-
sampling step is applied. This helps to eliminate redundant infor-
mation while preserving the geometric detail needed for automated
damage detection. In addition, the nonuniform point density in the
original point clouds could influence point correspondence match-
ing in the subsequent transformation and registration of 3D models.
One of the most efficient ways to achieve uniform sampling
within point clouds, and the approach taken here, is by subdividing
the data set into a set of cubical regions (3D voxel grid) and then
taking the centroid (average point inside a voxel) of the voxel grid
as a key point. The number of points in the resulting point cloud is
then reduced and downsampled uniformly.
© ASCE 04018068-3
J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068
Point clouds are then smoothed and denoised using a statistical
approach (Rusu et al. 2008). The mean, μ, and standard deviation,
σ, of the Euclidian distances of every point from its k-nearest neigh-
bors are computed. Next, every point that falls outside μ
ασ is
considered as noise and removed from the 3D point cloud. In this
study, k ¼ 30 and α ¼ 1 were assigned to account for varying local
point density, as recommended in Rusu et al. (2008).
The reference and current state point clouds are then automati-
cally aligned and globally registered against each other using the
iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm (Besl and McKay 1992). The
overall aim of the ICP algorithm is to estimate a rigid transforma-
tion between points pi ∈ Pr and points qi ∈ Pc by solving an
optimization problem in the least-squares sense. By using nearest-
neighbors search and Euclidean distance calculation, the algorithm
estimates the closest neighbors pi and qi as correspondence points.
In order to calculate the rotation R and translation t between pi
and qi , the error function shown in Eq. (1) is minimized given all
points pi ∈ Pr , with pi and qi represented numerically as a set of
3D spatial (x, y, z) coordinates
X
EðR; tÞ ¼ minR;t kpi − ðRqi þ tÞk2 ð1Þ
i
In case of using the original ICP algorithm (Besl and McKay
1992) to align the entire reference (as-built) 3D model (using all
available points) to the deformed one (current condition), inaccu-
rate registration may happen due to the sensitivity of this method to
incorrect point pairing when the compared model is severely de-
formed (Rusinkiewicz and Levoy 2001). In order to avoid errone-
ous registration, in this study the rigid transformation was only
executed at a component level, rather than for the global structural
configuration, minimizing the effect of large distortions. Further-
more, it is possible to utilize a combination of both rigid and
J. Aerosp. Eng.
 nonrigid transformations such as the method proposed in Ali et al.
(2015) to exclude corresponding pairs that consider points associ-
ated with parts of the structure that have undergone significant
changes due to the damage, though such approaches were not
necessary in this study.
Density Analysis for Damage Detection
Once the two clouds are registered against each other, the goal is to
first identify changes in the structural component that occurred in
the interim between the reference and current component condition.
The changes are then quantified with respect to a neighborhood of
points around each individual point in the reference cloud.
Intuitively, geometric regions that are present in Pr but not in Pc
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
correspond to deformed regions or section loss. At this step of the
presented method, the primary aim of the change detection is to
identify changes in the targeted scene over time in a simple binary
change/no changes assessment.
To identify the deformed regions, the local point density of the
reference and compared models Pr and Pc are first computed. Next,
Pr and Pc models are merged together to form a combined cloud,
Pm , that contains points associating with both reference and com-
pared dense 3D models. By computing the local point density in the
merged model, Pm , and later isolating the points with a point den-
sity, ρ, less than or equal to the lesser value of the estimated location
parameter (e.g., mean or median) of the point density distribution in
Pr and Pc , point sets corresponding to the damaged surfaces can be
detected. Incorporating the uniform sampling using 3D voxel grids
at the preprocessing stage helps to generate a relatively homog-
enous density in the models that can improve the damage identi-
fication using density analysis.
To obtain an estimate of local point density ρ at a point p,
ρ ¼ ðk þ 1Þ=½ð4=3Þπr3 , where r is the radius of the enclosing
sphere of the k-nearest neighbors of p, denoted by the index set
N p , given by
r ¼ maxi∈N p kp − pi k ð2Þ
where r = distance from the point of interest to the furthest neigh-
bor. Upon estimating the local point density for each point in the
merged point cloud Pm , as well as Pr and Pc , an M-estimator with a
logistic ψ-function (Rousseeuw and Verboven 2002) was used to
represent the point density location parameter in Pr and Pc in order
to lessen the impact of noise in the 3D models. Consequently, the
result of this step in the process was an automated identification of
changes in the structural component undergone damage.
Direct Cloud-to-Cloud Damage Quantification
Once damage is detected through the density analysis, damage
quantification is performed on a pointwise basis using a cloud-
to-cloud (C2C) distance measurement. There are several methods
available to calculate the distance between two 3D point clouds
(or point sets) (Qin et al. 2016). In the current study, the approach
presented by Girardeau-Montaut et al. (2005) was utilized. For each
already detected and isolated point from the merged model Pm , the
distance (e) to its correspondence in the reference model Pr was
calculated. The linear solution for the nearest-neighbor search
had a running time of O½n, where n is the number of points. In
order to make this process more efficient, the k-d tree algorithm
(Friedman et al. 1977) was implemented to find the corresponding
points within the 3D models.
The approximate distance between two 3D models can be
expressed as the Euclidean distance between the corresponding
nearest points in the models. Given a point p ∈ Pm and a reference
cloud Pr , it is possible to define the distance eðp; Pr Þ as
© ASCE 04018068-4
J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068
eðp; Pr Þ ¼ minp 0 ∈Pr dðp; p 0 Þ ð3Þ
where dðÞ = Euclidian distance between two points in R3 . The one-
sided distance between two models Pr and Pm is then defined as
EðPr ; Pm Þ ¼ maxp∈Pr eðp; Pm Þ ð4Þ
This definition of distance is not symmetric since there exist
parts of the point clouds such that EðPr ; Pm Þ ≠ EðPm ; Pr Þ. How-
ever, a two-sided distance such as the Hausdorff distance
(Huttenlocher et al. 1993) can be obtained by taking the maximum
of EðPr ; Pm Þ and EðPm ; Pr Þ to overcome this issue.
The damage in a detected region of Pm is then quantified by
offsetting the corresponding points in Pr using each point’s calcu-
lated displacement vector e. This can be used to create an offset
point set for each extracted damaged region.
Finite-Element Model Updating
Volumetric Reconstruction of Damage
After pointwise damage quantification, there are two point sets for
each damaged region: a damaged surface (DPSi ) corresponding to
the reference surface and an offset point set (O-DPSi ) correspond-
ing to the estimated deficiencies in the current condition. Once DPS
and O-DPS are converted into their corresponding surfaces, the
volume enclosed by these surfaces corresponds to a volumetric
quantification of section loss or surface expansion (depending
on the direction of vector e). This is accomplished by generating
a meshed surface encompassing the volume created between each
O-DPS and DPS. The created surface is then converted into a solid
3D model of the defect.
Fundamentally, surface reconstruction algorithms generate a
polygonal mesh from a dense point cloud model in order to recover
the original surface on which those points lie. The ideal method
should take into account properties of point clouds such as sam-
pling density, noise, outliers, misalignment, and missing data, all
of which have an impact on the accuracy of reconstruction algo-
rithms (Berger et al. 2017).
In this study, two alternative methods for surface reconstruction
were implemented to further evaluate the impact of the utilized
meshing technique on the presented algorithm. First, an interpola-
tory reconstruction technique using a 2.5-dimentional (2.5D)
Delaunay-based triangulation (Dyn et al. 1990) was used. The gen-
eral idea behind this method is to reconstruct triangulated surfaces
that are formed by a subcomplex of Delaunay triangulations. In
addition, the screened Poisson surface reconstruction developed
by Kazhdan and Hoppe (2013) was also used to generate 3D water-
tight surfaces of the damaged regions. By using points as interpo-
lation positional constraints, Kazhdan and Hoppe (2013) were able
to significantly improve the accuracy (optimize the oversmoothing)
and sharpness of their original Poisson surface reconstruction tech-
nique (Kazhdan et al. 2006) without amplifying noise and overfit-
ting data. These two methods, Delaunay triangulation and Poisson
reconstruction, were chosen for this study because they are well-
established but fundamentally different approaches to surface
meshing and, as such, provide insight into how the choice of mesh-
ing algorithm impacts the results of the overall approach.
The created meshes from both approaches are then converted
into a boundary-representation (B-rep) solid model (Várady et al.
1997). B-reps were adopted herein because of their compatibility
with commercial FE analysis packages (e.g., ANSYS) (Hinks
et al. 2013).
J. Aerosp. Eng.
 Model Updating and Meshing
Prior to updating the FE model, the last step is to use this solid
volume of quantified damage to update the reference solid model
of the component via Boolean operators (subtraction for section
loss or addition for expansion) (Hoffmann 1989). The updated solid
model is then exported into a finite-element mesh generator and
subsequently imported into an FE analysis program. Typically, a
finer mesh (i.e., smaller element size) is required at locations with
complex geometry or at locations around the damaged regions to
capture the induced stress concentration effects. This has the de-
sired result of improving numerical accuracy in damaged regions
while maintaining computational efficiency and scalability for the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
overall model.
Experimental Validation
Damage Quantification Accuracy
For experimental validation of damage quantification accuracy, the
methodology was tested using two different types of specimens.
The specimens included a built-up section made from medium-
density fiberboard (MDF) material (Fig. 2), and an aluminum plate.
The 19-mm-thick I-profile specimen represented a structural com-
ponent with planar surfaces. The aluminum plate specimen, with
dimensions of 203.2 × 152.4 × 12.7 mm, was used to represent
planar and textureless structural components. Controlled flaws
of known dimensions were machined into both specimens using
a computer numerical control (CNC) machine.
In order to create dense 3D point cloud data for the targeted
specimens before and after being damaged, a multiscale structure-
from-motion technique was utilized (Khaloo and Lattanzi 2016) in
order to maximize the resolution of the point clouds. A commer-
cially available Nikon D-800E (36.3-megapixel resolution) (Nikon
Corporation, Tokyo) digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera was
used to obtain images with a Nikon AF-S 50-mm lens and a Nikon
AF-S 105-mm Micro-NIKKOR lens. All images were taken with a
sensitivity (ISO) of 200 and an aperture of f=8, and a resolution of
7,360 horizontal and 4,912 vertical pixels.
Fig. 2. I-profile specimen: (a) undamaged 3D point cloud; and (b)
damaged 3D point cloud.
© ASCE 04018068-5
J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068
The undamaged and damaged point clouds for the I-profile were
generated using 165 and 293 images that resulted in dense 3D point
clouds with 27,120,412 and 35,610,062 points, respectively. For
the plate specimen test, 62 images were used to generate a model
of 104,476,688 points. The average local density of points for the
specimen point clouds was approximately 600 and 265,708 points
per bounding box volume (cm3 ) for the I-profile and plate speci-
men, respectively.
I-Profile Specimen
In total, nine defects of different shapes and sizes (DPSi ) were ma-
chined in the I-profile specimen’s web. These defects are listed in
Table 1 and are shown in Fig. 3. The initial solid model was created
in Autodesk Inventor based on the actual dimensions of the speci-
men. Each defect was modeled separately following the method-
ology described in the previous section and the initial model
was updated with one defect at a time.
According to Table 1, the damage identification step of the pre-
sented method (i.e., the point cloud density analysis) in tandem
with the defect quantification step (i.e., the cloud-to-cloud distance
analysis) were able to successfully locate and provide a quantifi-
cation estimate of all nine defects.
Generally, better damage extent estimations were achieved with
an increase in the defect dimensions and volume. This was mainly
due to the inaccuracy in the nearest-neighbor search, where desig-
nated closest points do not correspond to the same physical part of
the component since the damage is relatively small. For the defects
with a minimum dimension of less than 5 mm, it was observed that
the captured volumes were systematically lower than the measured
values. For instance, the captured defect volume for DPS6 (3-mm-
deep square groove) was significantly lower than the actual
volume.
To further study the correlation between the captured and actual
volume of the defects, the point cloud–based measurements are
plotted versus the actual measurements in Fig. 4. According to this
figure, the correlation between the measurements improves for
100 mm3 and larger defects; however, the point cloud–based mea-
surements were systematically lower than the direct measurements.
This underprediction of flaw size was observed in all defects. The
reason for this underprediction is that, during density analysis,
points on the boundaries of a defect may not have been sufficiently
distinguishable from the component itself due to the nature of
nearest-neighbor density estimation. This would result in a misca-
tegorization of points and a smaller segmented defect region. This
is particularly true for smaller defects, particularly those less than
5 mm in minimum dimension, where such miscategorization would
have a disproportionate effect.
Plate Specimen
A total of four defects were machined in the plate specimen, with
varying sizes and shapes (Fig. 5). Similar to the I-profile specimen,
the damaged regions on the specimen were detected using the den-
sity analysis described in the previous sections. As shown in Fig. 5,
the C2C distance pattern for the detected circular and transverse
grooves in the plate illustrates the robust performance of the
presented algorithm in quantifying automatically located dam-
aged regions. Table 2 summarizes the comparison between the
quantification of four detected defects using the presented algo-
rithm with respect to the actual (ground-truth) dimensions of these
regions.
With regards to measurement accuracy, several key observations
can be made. Good agreement was observed between the point
cloud–based and direct measurements when all of the dimensions
for the defect were about 3 mm or larger. The results generally im-
proved as the scale of the measured dimensions increased.
J. Aerosp. Eng.
 Table 1. Flaw measurements (DPSi ) on I-profile web
i Defect Depth (mm) Area (mm2 )
1 Circular hole 19
2 Circular groove 4.1
3 Circular groove 3.1
4 Circular groove 5 449
5 Circular groove 10
6 Square groove 3.2
7 Connected circles 3, 5, 7, 10, 19
8 Edge defect 19
9 Transverse groove 5.1 7,437
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The employed cloud-to-cloud distance definition again caused a
systematic underestimation of defect size and volume. A distinct
distance deviation pattern was observed for DSP4, where the esti-
mated damage volume was less than half of the ground-truth meas-
urement. Furthermore, the inherent inaccuracy in the rigid ICP
registration process can be a source of error in detection and
quantification of relatively small damages.
Finite-Element Model Updating Analysis
After evaluating the quantification capabilities of the presented ap-
proach, the complete FE model updating process was evaluated
through a series of uniaxial tensile tests. Tensile coupons with con-
trolled geometric damage were fabricated, each with a distinctly
different damage geometry. Point clouds of the damaged specimens
were generated and an associated finite-element model of each
specimen was updated. The specimens were tested in uniaxial ten-
sion and the strain fields in the specimens were measured through
digital image correlation (DIC). These measured strains were then
compared with the strains predicted by the updated finite-element
models.
Experimental Setup
The tensile coupons were fabricated out of structural steel
(Grade 36) with dimensions of 300 × 40 × 3.2 mm, based on ASTM
(2016) testing standards. Circular holes and triangular V-notch
openings (flaws) were then machined on these coupons. These flaw
shapes were selected in order to study the behavior of the updating
process on both rounded and sharp-edged features. The diameter of
the hole and length of the V-notch opening were both 15 mm.
The specimens were tested in uniaxial tension on a Tinius Olsen
KT50 universal testing machine (UTM) (Tinius Olsen Testing
Machine, Horsham, Pennsylvania). A Correlated Solutions DIC
system (Correlated Solutions, Inc., Irmo, South Carolina) was used
for capturing the experimental strain fields during the tensile tests,
with a reported error of less than 1 pixel (Hild and Roux 2006).
Loads were increasingly applied to the specimen up to component
failure in order to capture both the elastic and postyielding behavior
of specimens.
Solid Model Generation
To build the solid model of test specimens, images were taken using
the same camera discussed in the previous section with a sensitivity
(ISO) of 60 and an aperture of f=5. Overall, 108 and 134 images
were generated for the specimens with the V-notch and hole,
respectively. The corresponding 3D dense point clouds were built
in Agisoft PhotoScan software, and consisted of 594,566 and
796,719 points. A point cloud of a specimen representing an
undamaged component was synthetically produced in CloudCom-
pare with the same point cloud density as for the other two point
clouds. The geometries of the hole and V-notch defects were
© ASCE 04018068-6
J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068
Actual volume (mm3 ) Captured volume (mm3 )
30.66 583 196
30.66 126 114
30.66 95 20
2,242 2,048
433 4,335 2,057
351 1,124 619
— 98,318 88,982
288 5,472 3,047
37,929 28,268
detected and isolated, and the aforementioned 2.5D and screened
Poisson meshing algorithms were used to reconstruct the surfaces
of the detected defects. Isolated damaged sections were meshed and
imported into Autodesk Inventor to update the solid models. The
damaged specimens along with their resulting 3D solid models are
shown in Fig. 6. Then the updated 3D solid models were imported
into the finite-element analysis program ANSYS, which was used
to both mesh and analyze all FE models.
FE Simulation
After importing the updated solid models to ANSYS, structural
steel (Grade 36) material properties were assigned to the models,
with bilinear isotropic hardening to simulate nonlinear behavior.
The yield strength and tangent modulus properties of the material
were determined from coupon testing.
Imported solid models were meshed with 20-node hexahedral
brick elements, with three translational degrees of freedom at each
node. This type of element was chosen for its intrinsic ability to
handle material plasticity and its resistance to locking issues
(Puso and Solberg 2006). The meshes were specified to have a
global average side length of 2 mm, with a mesh three times finer
around the defects. The element size was then evaluated through a
mesh convergence analysis (Macneal and Harder 1985), with con-
vergence at less than 0.1% error. The results from the convergence
study are shown in Table 3, as well as the number of elements in the
final mesh for both models.
After meshing the geometry, boundary conditions and loads
were defined. One side of the model was fixed for support, repre-
senting the static grip of the tensile machine, and the other side was
subjected to tensile load. For the linear elastic analysis, the model
was subjected to an 8-kN load in the linear elastic region for the
specimen. For the nonlinear analysis, a 16-kN load was applied to
capture the postyield behavior of the material.
Two-dimensional strain fields corresponding to the 8- and
16-kN loads were extracted from the DIC system. The equivalent
von Mises strains along the width of specimens at the center of the
flaw were computed in order to capture the effect of stress concen-
trations. The stress concentration factor of the specimen with the
hole was also measured and compared with the theoretical value.
Results and Discussion
Figs. 7 and 8 show the comparison of equivalent von Mises strain
along the width of specimens with a hole and V-notch opening,
respectively. The updated FE models through Delaunay (2.5D)
and screened Poisson surface reconstruction algorithms are shown
here to compare their performance against each other. For compar-
ative purposes, the solid models generated through computer-aided
design (CAD) and used to fabricate the machined tensile specimens
were also meshed and analyzed in ANSYS. These ground truth re-
sults are reported as well.
J. Aerosp. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Updated I-section solid model: (a) Pr ; (b) Pc ; (c) Pc local point
density; (d) subsampled Pr ; (e) Pm ; (f) detected DPSi s; (g) calculated e
for DPS7 ; (h) O-DSP7 ; (i) damaged solid model; (j) alignment of the
initial and damaged solid models; (k) first solid model update; (l and m)
updated solid model; and (n) DPSi s.
© ASCE 04018068-7
J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068
Fig. 4. Captured versus actual defect volumes.
In comparing the size of the detected and extracted defects
against the values from the CAD models, a systematic underesti-
mation of flaw size was observed, similar to the prior analyses. The
volume of the measured hole was 11% less than the CAD volume,
and the volume of the V-notch defect was 16% less than the CAD
volume. This discrepancy was again due to the detection process
and ambiguities at the borders of a detected defect measurement.
This underestimation of flaw size is the major source of error in the
overall updating methodology.
Fig. 7(a) indicates that the strain predicted by the FE models
followed the same trend as the measured DIC results for the speci-
men with the hole defect, though with overall lower predicted
strains. Comparisons against the CAD model also help to illustrate
this underprediction effect in the model updating approach. It could
be observed that the Delaunay meshed model had the higher maxi-
mum strain, although there was not much measurable difference
between the two FE models. There was also not much discrepancy
between the predicated maximum strains from FE modeling and the
actual strain, with the Poisson meshed model indicating 3% lower
strain and the 2.5D model predicting 6% higher strain, compared
with the DIC test results. In Fig. 7(b), results from nonlinear analy-
sis are shown. From nonlinear analysis, it could again be seen that
the 2.5D model predicted higher maximum strains, though the
Poisson model yielded better overall agreement with experiment
data.
A comparison of results for the V-notch specimen is shown in
Fig. 8. While the overall trends of strain curves in the linear analysis
are similar, the 2.5D meshed model predicted higher peak strains
than the Poisson model. This is likely due to the nature of the mesh-
ing algorithms themselves. The Poisson algorithm tends to smooth
sharp features during meshing, which had the effect of rounding off
the edge of the V-notch and consequently reducing the peak stress
at the notch. As shown in Fig. 8(b), the three finite-element models
all followed a similar trend, but discrepancies from the DIC
measurements are apparent. The reason for this is likely due to
localized plasticity around the notch tip that was not captured in
FE simulation.
The stress concentration factors of the specimen with the hole
defect were also calculated and compared with the theoretical value
(Table 4) for the Poisson meshed model. The predicted stress con-
centration was calculated by dividing the maximum stress at the
edge of the defect by the average stress away from the defect.
As shown in Table 1, an error of 3.9% between the theoretical
and measured stress concentration factor was observed, indicating
good agreement. The error can be attributed to the defect geometry
detected through the quantification approach because the measured
J. Aerosp. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Plate specimen: (a) 3D point cloud model; and (b) located and quantified damages.

Table 2. Flaw measurements (DPSi ) on plate specimen these increases were less than 4% per refinement and suggest that
mesh refinement does not play a significant role in the behavior of
Depth Area Actual Captured
i Defect (mm) (mm2 ) volume (mm3 ) volume (mm3 ) the updating approach.
The second sensitivity study considered how reductions in point
1 Transverse groove 3.7 1,016 3,739 3,189 cloud density impacted results (Tables 5 and 6). Halving the num-
2 Circular groove 3.3 2,023 6,693 6,352
ber of points in the clouds increased strain prediction errors by 5%
3 Transverse groove 3.3 1,734 2,806 2,284
4 Transverse groove 1.1 1,028 1,120 457 for the hole specimen and 10% for the V-notch specimen relative to
DIC measurements, and increased volume measurement errors by 9
and 10% for the hole and V-notch specimens, respectively, when
compared with the CAD models. A 75% reduction increased strain
hole diameter was approximately 89% of the actual diameter. This errors by an additional 9% for the hole and 15% for the V-notch.
also caused the lower strains predicted by FE model, as discussed. Volume errors increased by another 7% for the hole and 10% for the
No closed-form value of the theoretical stress concentration factor V-notch. These results indicate that maximizing point cloud density
exists for the triangular flaw due to the nature of the machined flaw, is essential for the modeling and assessment of small defects,
so these results are not reported. and should be a critical decision when selecting a 3D imaging
Sensitivity Analysis approach.
In order to better understand the behavior of the model updating
process, two sensitivity analyses were performed. The first was Sources of Error and Methodological Limitations
a mesh refinement and convergence analysis. The mesh refinement
in ANSYS was sequentially increased until the difference in maxi- There are several potential sources of error in this FE model up-
mum strain between subsequent models was less than 0.1%. The dating methodology. Some errors stem from the damage detection
higher levels of mesh refinement did result in higher peak strains and quantification process itself, which tended to underpredict
that more closely matched the experimental results (Table 3), but flaw size and resulted in systematic underprediction of strains

© ASCE 04018068-8 J. Aerosp. Eng.

J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Tensile specimens and updated solid models: (a) V-notch defect and updated solid model using (b) 2.5D mesh and (c) Poisson mesh; (d) hole
defect and updated solid model using; (e) 2.5D mesh; and (f) Poisson mesh.

Table 3. Convergence analysis for V-notch and hole defect models performance observed for the two surface reconstruction algo-
Number of Maximum strain Change in maximum
rithms suggest that a more in-depth study on the impacts of mesh
Models elements (mm=mm) strain (%) generation is warranted. In particular, there is a need to develop an
approach for selecting the optimal meshing algorithm for a given
V-notch defect 2,864 0.00125 —
14,048 0.00130 3.95 flaw type.
26,123 0.00136 3.92 The most important limitation of this methodology stems from
39,488 0.00136 −8.0 × 10−3 the comparative nature of the approach, which necessitates that the
point clouds be consistent between scans. If occlusions or obstruc-
Hole defect 4,425 0.00136 —
tions are present in one scan, but not the other, the result will be
28,888 0.00142 4.53
41,743 0.00142 −2 × 10−4 false positive or negative determinations of damage. However, the
localized nature of the approach does mitigate this problem to some
extent because a comprehensive point cloud of a component is not
necessary for performing finite-element updating. This approach
in the FE models as a result. Second, the bilinear isotropic hard- does present a potential difficulty in a scenario where both global
ening curve used to model plasticity is an approximation that may and local deformations are present. In those cases, it would be
have resulted in inaccurate strain measurements near the flaws, as necessary to isolate and calibrate extracted point cloud data to ad-
was observed for the V-notch specimen. Finally, the differences in just for quantified global deformations. Such a process has not

© ASCE 04018068-9 J. Aerosp. Eng.

J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Comparison of equivalent von Mises strains along flaw cross section for hole defect specimen: (a) 8-kN load; and (b) 16-kN load.

Fig. 8. Comparison of equivalent von Mises strains along flaw cross section for V-notch defect specimen: (a) 8-kN load; and (b) 16-kN load.

Table 4. Stress concentration factor analysis representative of the in situ conditions, the results of the updated
Metric Theoretical Numerical (FE) Relative error (%) model may not be sufficiently accurate.
Force (N) 8,000 8,000 —
Average stress (MPa) 106.67 91.95 13.8
Maximum stress (MPa) 237.87 213 10.5 Conclusions and Future Work
K factor 2.23 2.34 3.9
In this work, a computational methodology to update the finite-
element model of a damaged structural component based on com-
parative point cloud analysis was introduced. Using computer
previously been developed and presents one avenue for future vision techniques, the extent of damage to a component was quan-
work. The updating approach is also limited to volumetric changes tified and extracted. The point cloud data corresponding to this
in a component, such as wastage from corrosion, and is not suitable damage were then used to update an existing solid model of the
for quantifying deformations. Jafari et al. (2017) and Mukupa et al. component, followed by meshing and finite-element analysis.
(2017) describe recent efforts in this domain. Finally, the approach The proposed point cloud–based methodology has a number of ad-
relies on the existence of a finite-element model with properly mod- vantages over current practices, primarily due to the localized ap-
eled boundary conditions. If the original finite-element model is not proach to quantification and model updating. These advantages

Table 5. Sensitivity analysis of point cloud resolution for specimen with hole defect
Model Maximum strain Strain error (%) Captured area (mm2 ) Captured volume (mm3 ) Deviation from CAD (%)
DIC 0.00084 — — — —
100% resolution 0.00082 −2.75 157.00 471.00 −11.11
50% resolution 0.00078 −7.66 141.87 425.61 −19.68
25% resolution 0.00070 −16.64 129.01 387.03 −26.96

© ASCE 04018068-10 J. Aerosp. Eng.

J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068

 Table 6. Sensitivity analysis of point cloud resolution for specimen with
V-notch defect
Strain Captured Captured Deviation
Maximum error area volume from CAD
Model strain (%) (mm2 ) (mm3 ) (%)
DIC 0.0016 0.00 112.50 357.75 0.00
100% resolution 0.0015 −6.00 94.10 282.30 −16.36
50% resolution 0.0014 −15.92 83.35 250.05 −25.91
25% resolution 0.0011 −30.82 72.40 217.20 −35.64
include the ability to preserve highly localized details of the origi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
nal point cloud data, quantitative measurements for the extent of
damage, and the capability to further update the model based on
future inspection data and for future referencing. Overall, apart
from the bias caused by strain localization at the V-notch, the
FE models and DIC results showed good agreement and indicate
that the FE process offers the potential for quantitative and accurate
structural assessments from remotely sensed 3D point cloud data,
with applications across a broad range of engineering disciplines.
This study is part of an ongoing research program and several
aspects of the presented methodology are being considered for fur-
ther improvement. More advanced and robust cloud-to-cloud com-
parison techniques such as the multiscale model-to-model cloud
comparison (M3C2) (Lague et al. 2013) are being evaluated, as
is the potential to use a nonuniform rational basis spline (NURBS)
to create a solid model rather than mesh-based watertight surface
reconstruction techniques. There is also a need to assess the com-
putational cost of the presented approach relative to other methods,
and to evaluate how to improve the computational efficiencies of
the individual subroutines, for instance, the computationally expen-
sive k-d trees algorithm used for point correspondence matching.
In particular, methods to improve detection at defect boundaries, in
order to reduce the error from underprediction of flaw size, are also
being studied. Applications of the approach to fatigue life estima-
tion and dynamic analysis are being considered, as is the potential
for full-scale testing on in-service structures. One notable avenue
for future work is to adapt the approach for more complex and
large-scale structural changes. As presented, the model updating
algorithm only accounts for volumetric changes, without the pres-
ence of accompanying deformations stemming from phenomena
such as bending or torsion. There is the potential to develop a com-
plementary process that quantifies such deformations and then uses
them to parametrically warp point clouds to a common reference
frame, facilitating the process delineated in this work.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the National Science Foundation
(NSF) (Grant No. CMMI-1433765), as well as the Thomas F. and
Kate Miller Jeffress Memorial Trust, for their support of this study.
References
Ali, S., Z. Toony, and D. Laurendeau. 2015. “A 3D vision-based inspection
method for pairwise comparison of locally deformable 3D models.”
Mach. Vision Appl. 26 (7–8): 1061–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s00138-015-0711-0.
ASTM. 2016. Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic
materials. ASTM E8/E8M-16a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Barazzetti, L., F. Banfi, R. Brumana, G. Gusmeroli, M. Previtali, and G.
Schiantarelli. 2015. “Cloud-to-BIM-to-FEM: Structural simulation with
© ASCE 04018068-11
J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068
accurate historic BIM from laser scans.” Simul. Modell. Pract. Theory
57: 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2015.06.004.
Berger, M., A. Tagliasacchi, L. M. Seversky, P. Alliez, G. Guennebaud,
J. A. Levine, A. Sharf, and C. T. Silva. 2017. “A survey of surface
reconstruction from point clouds.” Comput. Graphics Forum 36 (1):
301–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12802.
Besl, P. J., and N. D. McKay. 1992. “Method for registration of 3-D
shapes.” In Vol. 1611 of Proc., Sensor Fusion IV: Control Paradigms
and Data Structures, 586–607. Boston: International Society for Optics
and Photonics.
Conde-Carnero, B., B. Riveiro, P. Arias, and J. Caamaño. 2015.
“Exploitation of geometric data provided by laser scanning to create
FEM structural models of bridges.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 30 (3):
04015053. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000807.
Dai, K., D. Boyajian, W. Liu, S.-E. Chen, J. Scott, and M. Schmieder. 2014.
“Laser-based field measurement for a bridge finite-element model val-
idation.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 28 (5): 04014024. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000484.
Dyn, N., D. Levin, and S. Rippa. 1990. “Data dependent triangulations for
piecewise linear interpolation.” IMA J. Numer. Anal. 10 (1): 137–154.
https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/10.1.137.
Erkal, B. G., and J. F. Hajjar. 2017. “Laser-based surface damage
detection and quantification using predicted surface properties.”
Autom. Constr. 83: 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017
.08.004.
Fathi, H., F. Dai, and M. Lourakis. 2015. “Automated as-built 3D
reconstruction of civil infrastructure using computer vision: Achieve-
ments, opportunities, and challenges.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 29 (2): 149–161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.01.012.
Fernandez, I., J. M. Bairán, and A. R. Marí. 2016. “3D FEM model devel-
opment from 3D optical measurement technique applied to corroded
steel bars.” Constr. Build. Mater. 124: 519–532. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.133.
Friedman, J. H., J. L. Bentley, and R. A. Finkel. 1977. “An algorithm for
finding best matches in logarithmic expected time.” ACM Trans. Math.
Software 3 (3): 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1145/355744.355745.
Girardeau-Montaut, D., M. Roux, R. Marc, and G. Thibault. 2005. “Change
detection on points cloud data acquired with a ground laser scanner.” In
Proc., Int. Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing, and Spatial
Information Series, 30–35. Enschede, Netherlands: ISPRS.
Gong, J., and A. Maher. 2014. “Use of mobile lidar data to assess hurricane
damage and visualize community vulnerability.” Transp. Res. Rec.
2459: 119–126. https://doi.org/10.3141/2459-14.
Hartley, R., and A. Zisserman. 2004. Multiple view geometry in computer
vision. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hild, F., and S. Roux. 2006. “Digital image correlation: From displacement
measurement to identification of elastic properties: A review.” Strain
42 (2): 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1305.2006.00258.x.
Hinks, T., H. Carr, L. Truong-Hong, and D. F. Laefer. 2013. “Point cloud
data conversion into solid models via point-based voxelization.” J. Surv.
Eng. 139 (2): 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428
.0000097.
Hirschmüller, H., M. Buder, and I. Ernst. 2012. “Memory efficient semi-
global matching.” ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf.
Sci. I-3: 371–376. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsannals-I-3-371-2012.
Hoffmann, C. M. 1989. Geometric and solid modeling: An introduction.
Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Huttenlocher, D. P., G. A. Klanderman, and W. J. Rucklidge. 1993.
“Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance.” IEEE Trans. Pattern
Anal. Mach. Intell. 15 (9): 850–863. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.232073.
Jafari, B., A. Khaloo, and D. Lattanzi. 2017. “Deformation tracking in
3D point clouds via statistical sampling of direct cloud-to-cloud dis-
tances.” J. Nondestr. Eval. 36 (4): 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921
-017-0444-2.
Jahanshahi, M. R., J. S. Kelly, S. F. Masri, and G. S. Sukhatme. 2009. “A
survey and evaluation of promising approaches for automatic image-
based defect detection of bridge structures.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.
5 (6): 455–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470801945930.
J. Aerosp. Eng.
 Kazhdan, M., M. Bolitho, and H. Hoppe. 2006. “Poisson surface
reconstruction.” In Proc., 4th Eurographics Symp. on Geometry
Processing, 61–70. Aire-la-Ville: Eurographics Association.
Kazhdan, M., and H. Hoppe. 2013. “Screened Poisson surface
reconstruction.” ACM Trans. Graph. 32 (3): 29. https://doi.org/10
.1145/2487228.2487237.
Khaloo, A., and D. Lattanzi. 2016. “Hierarchical dense structure-from-
motion reconstructions for infrastructure condition assessment.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 31 (3): 04016047. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000616.
Khaloo, A., and D. Lattanzi. 2017. “Integrating 3D computer vision and
robotic infrastructure inspection.” In Structural health monitoring
2017, 3202–3209. Stanford, CA: DEStech Publications.
Khaloo, A., D. Lattanzi, K. Cunningham, R. Dell’Andrea, and M. Riley.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 06/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2018. “Unmanned aerial vehicle inspection of the Placer river trail
bridge through image-based 3D modelling.” Struct. Inf. Eng. 14 (1):
124–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2017.1330891.
Koch, C., K. Georgieva, V. Kasireddy, B. Akinci, and P. Fieguth. 2015.
“A review on computer vision based defect detection and condition
assessment of concrete and asphalt civil infrastructure.” Adv. Eng. Inf.
29 (2): 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.01.008.
Laefer, D., D. Hinks, H. Carr, and L. Truong-Hong. 2011. “New Advances
in Automated Urban Modelling from Airborne Laser Scanning Data.”
Recent Pat. Eng. 5 (3): 196–208.
Laefer, D. F., L. Truong-Hong, H. Carr, and M. Singh. 2014. “Crack de-
tection limits in unit based masonry with terrestrial laser scanning.”
NDT & E Int. 62: 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2013.11.001.
Lague, D., N. Brodu, and J. Leroux. 2013. “Accurate 3D comparison of
complex topography with terrestrial laser scanner: Application to the
Rangitikei canyon (N-Z).” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
82: 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.04.009.
Lubowiecka, I., J. Armesto, P. Arias, and H. Lorenzo. 2009. “Historic
bridge modelling using laser scanning, ground penetrating radar and
finite element methods in the context of structural dynamics.” Eng.
Struct. 31 (11): 2667–2676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009
.06.018.
Ma, L., R. Sacks, R. Zeibak-Shini, A. Aryal, and S. Filin. 2016. “Prepa-
ration of synthetic as-damaged models for post-earthquake BIM
reconstruction research.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30 (3): 04015032.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000500.
Macneal, R. H., and R. L. Harder. 1985. “A proposed standard set of prob-
lems to test finite element accuracy.” Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 1 (1):
3–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-874X(85)90003-4.
Mukupa, W., G. W. Roberts, C. M. Hancock, and K. Al-Manasir. 2017. “A
review of the use of terrestrial laser scanning application for change
detection and deformation monitoring of structures.” Surv. Rev.
49 (353): 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396265.2015.1133039.
Olsen, M. J., F. Kuester, B. J. Chang, and T. C. Hutchinson. 2009.
“Terrestrial laser scanning-based structural damage assessment.”
© ASCE 04018068-12
J. Aerosp. Eng., 2018, 31(5): 04018068
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 24 (3): 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP
.1943-5487.0000028.
Puso, M. A., and J. Solberg. 2006. “A stabilized nodally integrated tetra-
hedral.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 67 (6): 841–867. https://doi.org/10
.1002/nme.1651.
Qin, R., J. Tian, and P. Reinartz. 2016. “3D change detection: Approaches
and applications.” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 122: 41–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.09.013.
Riveiro, B., J. C. Caamaño, P. Arias, and E. Sanz. 2011. “Photogrammetric
3D modelling and mechanical analysis of masonry arches: An approach
based on a discontinuous model of voussoirs.” Autom. Constr. 20 (4):
380–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.11.008.
Rousseeuw, P. J., and S. Verboven. 2002. “Robust estimation in very small
samples.” Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 40 (4): 741–758. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0167-9473(02)00078-6.
Rusinkiewicz, S., and M. Levoy. 2001. “Efficient variants of the ICP
algorithm.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on 3-D Digital Imaging and
Modeling, 145–152. New York: IEEE.
Rusu, R. B., Z. C. Marton, N. Blodow, M. Dolha, and M. Beetz. 2008.
“Towards 3D point cloud based object maps for household environ-
ments.” Rob. Auton. Syst. 56 (11): 927–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.robot.2008.08.005.
Sánchez-Aparicio, L. J., B. Riveiro, D. Gonzalez-Aguilera, and L. F.
Ramos. 2014. “The combination of geomatic approaches and opera-
tional modal analysis to improve calibration of finite element models:
A case of study in Saint Torcato Church (Guimarães, Portugal).” Constr.
Build. Mater. 70: 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014
.07.106.
Stavroulaki, M. E., B. Riveiro, G. A. Drosopoulos, M. Solla,
P. Koutsianitis, and G. E. Stavroulakis. 2016. “Modelling and strength
evaluation of masonry bridges using terrestrial photogrammetry and
finite elements.” Adv. Eng. Software 101: 136–148. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.12.007.
Truong-Hong, L., D. F. Laefer, T. Hinks, and H. Carr. 2013. “Combining an
angle criterion with voxelization and the flying voxel method in recon-
structing building models from LiDAR data.” Comput. Aided Civ.
Infrastruct. Eng. 28 (2): 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467
-8667.2012.00761.x.
Várady, T., R. R. Martin, and J. Cox. 1997. “Reverse engineering of geo-
metric models: An introduction.” Comput. Aided Des. 29 (4): 255–268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(96)00054-1.
Zeibak-Shini, R., R. Sacks, L. Ma, and S. Filin. 2016. “Towards generation
of as-damaged BIM models using laser-scanning and as-built BIM:
First estimate of as-damaged locations of reinforced concrete frame
members in masonry infill structures.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 30 (3): 312–326.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2016.04.001.
Zhu, Z., S. German, and I. Brilakis. 2010. “Detection of large-scale con-
crete columns for automated bridge inspection.” Autom. Constr. 19 (8):
1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.07.016.
J. Aerosp. Eng.