Documentation through digital methods and seismic soil classification for preserving built heritage

Introduction. The Indian subcontinent is renowned for its numerous structural heritage wonders, which reflect the region’s rich cultural history. To preserve the historical significance of these marvels, systematic documentation through digitization is essential. Utilizing advanced techniques like photogrammetry and 3D modeling, surpassing traditional methods, ensures precise and accurate data capture, processing, and representation of heritage information. Combining digital documentation with seismic surface wave techniques to characterize subsoil seismic velocities is vital for sustainable heritage conservation, particularly against natural hazards such as earthquakes. This study focuses on the digital documentation of the Post Master General (PMG) Office in Trivandrum, an iconic structure celebrated for its cultural and architectural significance.

Materials and methods. Close-range photogrammetry was employed to capture and analyze images and Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) tests were conducted at the PMG office site to estimate soil shear wave velocities.

Results. From the photogrammetric images, 3D models, 3D rendered walkthroughs, and 2D line drawings were created resulting in the as-built documentation of the built heritage. These outputs serve as digital records, enhancing visual perception and aiding in the extraction of semantic information for heritage conservation and management. Additionally, the study attempts to characterize subsoil properties by developing a shear wave velocity (Vs) profile from the MASW test results which is crucial for seismic response analysis. The paper also suggests optimal parameters for data collection to effectively characterize the study area.

Conclusions. Thus, this paper presents a comprehensive approach for documenting the built heritage along with assessing and managing their seismic risk combining advanced digital documentation techniques with surface wave methods.

1. Haala N., Alshawabkeh Y. Combining LaserScanning and Photogrammetry — A Hybrid Approach for Heritage Documentation. 2006; 163-170. DOI: 10.2312/VAST/VAST06/163-170

2. Michael W.A.A.S., David Z.E.L.L. Practical 3D Photogrammetry for the Conservation and Documentation of Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies. 2013.

3. Cheng L., Wang Y., Chen Y., Li M. Using LiDAR for digital documentation of ancient city walls. Journal of Cultural Heritage. 2016; 17:188-193.

4. Balsa-Barreiro J., Fritsch D. Generation of visually aesthetic and detailed 3D models of historical cities by using laser scanning and digital photogrammetry. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. 2018; 8:57-64.

5. Karagianni A. Terrestrial laser scanning and satellite data in cultural heritage building documentation. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 2021; XLVI-M-1–2021:361-366. DOI: 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVI-M-1-2021-361-2021

6. Pavelka jr. K., Kuzmanov P., Pavelka K., Rapuca A. Different data joining as a basic model for HBIM — a case project st. Pataleimon in skopje. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 2023; XLVIII-5/W2-2023:85-91. DOI: 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-5-W2-2023-85-2023

7. Salagean-Mohora I., Anghel A.A., Frigura-Iliasa F.M. Photogrammetry as a Digital Tool for Joining Heritage Documentation in Architectural Education and Professional Practice. Buildings. 2023; 3(2):319. DOI: 10.3390/buildings13020319

8. Liu J., Azhar S., Willkens D., Li B. Static Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) for Heritage Building Information Modeling (HBIM) : a Systematic Review. Virtual Worlds. 2023; 2(2):90-114. DOI: 10.3390/virtualworlds2020006

9. Park C.B., Miller R.D., Xia J. Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics. 1999; 64(3):800-808.

10. Xia J., Miller R.D., Park C.B. Estimation of near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of rayleigh waves. Geophysics. 1999; 64(3):691-700.

11. Miller R.D., Xia J., Park C.B., Ivanov J.M. Multichannel analysis of surface waves to map bedrock. The Leading Edge. 1999; 18(12):1392-1396.

12. Kanli A.I., Tildy P., Prónay Z., PÄ´snar A., Hermann L. VS30 mapping and soil classification for seismic site effect evaluation in Dinar region, SW Turkey. Geophysical Journal International. 2006; 165(1):223-235.

13. Park C. MASW for geotechnical site investigation. The Leading Edge. 2013; 32(6):656-662.

14. Al-Heety A.J.R., Hassouneh M., Abdullah F.M. Application of MASW and ERT methods for geotechnical site characterization: A case study for roads construction and infrastructure assessment in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Journal of Applied Geophysics. 2021; 193:104408.

15. Addl. Director General (Arch.) and CPWD. Conservation of Heritage Buildings — A Guide. 2013.

16. Attenni M. Informative models for architectural heritage. Heritage. 2019.

17. Naci Yastikli. Documentation of cultural heritage using digital photogrammetry and laser scanning. Journal of Cultural Heritage. 2007; 8(4)423-427.

18. IS (1893–2016). Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Sixth Revision, Part-I, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.

19. Park C.B., Miller R.D., Miura H. Optimum field parameters of an MASW survey. Japan Society of Exploration Geophysicists. 2002.

20. Taipodia J., Dey A., Baglari D. Influence of data acquisition and signal preprocessing parameters on the resolution of dispersion image from active MASW survey. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering. 2018; 15(4):1310-1326. DOI: 10.1088/1742-2140/aaaf4c

21. Baglari D., Dey A., Taipodia J. A critical insight into the influence of data acquisition parameters on the dispersion imaging in passive roadside MASW survey. Journal of Applied Geophysics. 2020; 183:104223.

22. BSSC (Building Seismic Safety Council). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Part 1: Provisions, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Report FEMA 450). Washington DC, 2003; 356.