Reliability of crack detection methods for baseline condition assessments

Debra Laefer, Jane Gannon, Elaine Deely

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Despite billions of dollars of annual exposure from claims and litigation related to construction-induced damage, there are no quantitatively based, agreed upon standards or procedures as to what constitutes due diligence with respect to a preconstruction, condition assessment. Similarly, the relative accuracy, reliability, and costs for various inspection approaches are not well established. This paper compares the relative performance capabilities of crack detection by sidewalk-based manual inspection with digital photography, terrestrial Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and elevated manual inspections based on two brick and two concrete buildings (8.2-14.3 m high) in Dublin, Ireland. Results showed that nonmanual methods tended to overpredict crack widths by at least 5 mm and underestimate crack lengths by one-half. Digital photography, however, detected the shortest cracks (as short as 17 mm) and had no significant decline in accuracy beyond 12 m high, which has the added benefit of generating a permanent objective record. The terrestrial LiDAR proved neither particularly accurate nor cost-effective at the selected point density of less than 2mm×2mm. Finally, operator-based reliability problems emerged with all methods with discrepancies of at least 11%. Overall, digital photography taken and archived, but not analyzed, was the most cost-effective, accurate, and reliable approach.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number007002QIS
Pages (from-to)129-137
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2010

Fingerprint

Crack detection
Photography
Inspection
Cracks
Costs
Concrete buildings
Brick

Keywords

  • Bricks
  • Cracking
  • Defects
  • Digital techniques
  • Field investigations
  • Imaging techniques
  • Masonry
  • Nondestructive tests
  • Site evaluation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Civil and Structural Engineering

Cite this

Reliability of crack detection methods for baseline condition assessments. / Laefer, Debra; Gannon, Jane; Deely, Elaine.

In: Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 16, No. 2, 007002QIS, 06.2010, p. 129-137.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{168febab75ba4a3ba429e694c82744b2,
title = "Reliability of crack detection methods for baseline condition assessments",
abstract = "Despite billions of dollars of annual exposure from claims and litigation related to construction-induced damage, there are no quantitatively based, agreed upon standards or procedures as to what constitutes due diligence with respect to a preconstruction, condition assessment. Similarly, the relative accuracy, reliability, and costs for various inspection approaches are not well established. This paper compares the relative performance capabilities of crack detection by sidewalk-based manual inspection with digital photography, terrestrial Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and elevated manual inspections based on two brick and two concrete buildings (8.2-14.3 m high) in Dublin, Ireland. Results showed that nonmanual methods tended to overpredict crack widths by at least 5 mm and underestimate crack lengths by one-half. Digital photography, however, detected the shortest cracks (as short as 17 mm) and had no significant decline in accuracy beyond 12 m high, which has the added benefit of generating a permanent objective record. The terrestrial LiDAR proved neither particularly accurate nor cost-effective at the selected point density of less than 2mm×2mm. Finally, operator-based reliability problems emerged with all methods with discrepancies of at least 11{\%}. Overall, digital photography taken and archived, but not analyzed, was the most cost-effective, accurate, and reliable approach.",
keywords = "Bricks, Cracking, Defects, Digital techniques, Field investigations, Imaging techniques, Masonry, Nondestructive tests, Site evaluation",
author = "Debra Laefer and Jane Gannon and Elaine Deely",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2010)16:2(129)",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "129--137",
journal = "Journal of Infrastructure Systems",
issn = "1076-0342",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability of crack detection methods for baseline condition assessments

AU - Laefer, Debra

AU - Gannon, Jane

AU - Deely, Elaine

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - Despite billions of dollars of annual exposure from claims and litigation related to construction-induced damage, there are no quantitatively based, agreed upon standards or procedures as to what constitutes due diligence with respect to a preconstruction, condition assessment. Similarly, the relative accuracy, reliability, and costs for various inspection approaches are not well established. This paper compares the relative performance capabilities of crack detection by sidewalk-based manual inspection with digital photography, terrestrial Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and elevated manual inspections based on two brick and two concrete buildings (8.2-14.3 m high) in Dublin, Ireland. Results showed that nonmanual methods tended to overpredict crack widths by at least 5 mm and underestimate crack lengths by one-half. Digital photography, however, detected the shortest cracks (as short as 17 mm) and had no significant decline in accuracy beyond 12 m high, which has the added benefit of generating a permanent objective record. The terrestrial LiDAR proved neither particularly accurate nor cost-effective at the selected point density of less than 2mm×2mm. Finally, operator-based reliability problems emerged with all methods with discrepancies of at least 11%. Overall, digital photography taken and archived, but not analyzed, was the most cost-effective, accurate, and reliable approach.

AB - Despite billions of dollars of annual exposure from claims and litigation related to construction-induced damage, there are no quantitatively based, agreed upon standards or procedures as to what constitutes due diligence with respect to a preconstruction, condition assessment. Similarly, the relative accuracy, reliability, and costs for various inspection approaches are not well established. This paper compares the relative performance capabilities of crack detection by sidewalk-based manual inspection with digital photography, terrestrial Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and elevated manual inspections based on two brick and two concrete buildings (8.2-14.3 m high) in Dublin, Ireland. Results showed that nonmanual methods tended to overpredict crack widths by at least 5 mm and underestimate crack lengths by one-half. Digital photography, however, detected the shortest cracks (as short as 17 mm) and had no significant decline in accuracy beyond 12 m high, which has the added benefit of generating a permanent objective record. The terrestrial LiDAR proved neither particularly accurate nor cost-effective at the selected point density of less than 2mm×2mm. Finally, operator-based reliability problems emerged with all methods with discrepancies of at least 11%. Overall, digital photography taken and archived, but not analyzed, was the most cost-effective, accurate, and reliable approach.

KW - Bricks

KW - Cracking

KW - Defects

KW - Digital techniques

KW - Field investigations

KW - Imaging techniques

KW - Masonry

KW - Nondestructive tests

KW - Site evaluation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953990519&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953990519&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2010)16:2(129)

DO - 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2010)16:2(129)

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 129

EP - 137

JO - Journal of Infrastructure Systems

JF - Journal of Infrastructure Systems

SN - 1076-0342

IS - 2

M1 - 007002QIS

ER -