Cited by 19Structural Health Monitoring TechniquesStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring

Bridge vibration measurements using different camera placements and techniques of computer vision and deep learning

Open access
Bai, Yongsheng, Sezen, Halil, Yilmaz, Alper, Qin, Rongjun·2023·Advances in Bridge Engineering

Abstract

In this paper, a new framework is proposed for monitoring the dynamic performance of bridges using three different camera placements and a few visual data processing techniques at low cost and high efficiency. A deep learning method validated by an optical flow approach for motion tracking is included in the framework. To verify it, videos taken by stationary cameras of two shaking table tests were processed at first. Then, the vibrations of six pedestrian bridges were measured using structure-mounted, remote, and drone-mounted cameras, respectively. Two techniques, displacement and frequency subtractions, are applied to remove systematic motions of cameras and to capture the natural frequencies of the tested structures. Measurements on these bridges were compared with the data from wireless accelerometers and structural analysis. Influences of critical parameters for camera setting and data processing, such as video frame rates, data window size, and data sampling rates, were also studied carefully. The research results show that the vibrations and frequencies of structures on the shaking tables and existing bridges can be captured accurately with the proposed framework. These camera placements and data processing techniques can be successfully used for monitoring their dynamic performance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s43251-023-00105-1

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The frequency less than 1.0 Hz was cut off when the vibration measurements by remote cameras were filtered and denoised.

    “But it should be noticed that the frequency less than 1.0 Hz was cut off when the vibration measurements by remote cameras were filtered and denoised [ 9 ].”

    From Field monitoring and assessment of reinforced concrete building collapse using remote sensing and digital twins (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    Section 3.4 says the camera-measured vibration signals were filtered with a Butterworth band-pass filter to suppress very low and high frequencies. It does not specify a 1.0 Hz cutoff, so the precise threshold attributed to the paper is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Mask R-CNN + SIFT and LK tracker methods successfully captured displacements of concrete beams in the laboratory and vibrations of in-service bridges.

    “The Mask R-CNN + SIFT and LK tracker methods successfully captured the displacements of concrete beams in the laboratory and the vibrations of in-service bridges [8 -10].”

    From Field monitoring and assessment of reinforced concrete building collapse using remote sensing and digital twins (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    Section 4.2.1 reports that both Mask R-CNN + SIFT and the LK tracker were used to measure vibrations on an in-service bridge. Sections 3.2 and 6 report successful laboratory measurements of concrete-beam deflection with Mask R-CNN + SIFT, citing an earlier study, but do not clearly establish that the LK tracker also captured the concrete-beam displacements. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bai Y (2022) Deep learning with vision-based technologies for structural damage detection and health monitoring. PhD dissertation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bai, Y., Sezen, H., Yilmaz, A., & Qin, R.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Sezen, Halil
Venue
Advances in Bridge Engineering
Published
2023-11-01
Volume
4
Issue
1
ISSN
2662-5407 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388036548
Cited by
19
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Advances in Bridge Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Directorate for Engineering (2036193)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Structural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Keywords
bridge vibration monitoring, camera placement, drone-mounted cameras, deep learning, shaking table test, pedestrian bridge, natural frequency measurement, video frame rate, sampling frequency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review