English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Collecting precise as-built data is essential for tracking construction progress. Three-dimensional models generated from such data capture the as-is conditions of the structures, providing valuable information for monitoring existing infrastructure over time. As-built data can be acquired using a wide range of remote sensing technologies, among which mobile LiDAR is gaining increasing attention due to its ability to collect high-resolution data over a relatively large area in a short time. The quality of mobile LiDAR data depends not only on the grade of onboard LiDAR scanners but also on the accuracy of direct georeferencing information and system calibration. Consequently, millimeter-level accuracy is difficult to achieve. In this study, the performance of mapping-grade and surveying-grade mobile LiDAR systems for bridge monitoring is evaluated against static laser scanners. Field surveys were conducted over a concrete bridge where grinding was required to achieve desired smoothness. A semi-automated, feature-based fine registration strategy is proposed to compensate for the impact of georeferencing and system calibration errors on mobile LiDAR data. Bridge deck thickness is evaluated using surface segments to minimize the impact of inherent noise in the point cloud. The results show that the two grades of mobile LiDAR delivered thickness estimates that are in agreement with those derived from static laser scanning in the 1 cm range. The mobile LiDAR data acquisition took roughly five minutes without having a significant impact on traffic, while the static laser scanning required more than three hours.

Processing Strategy and Comparative Performance of Different Mobile LiDAR System Grades for Bridge Monitoring: A Case Study