International conference on construction engineering and project management (국제학술발표논문집)

  • 2024.07a
  • /
  • Pages.277-284
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2508-9048(eISSN)
Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management (한국건설관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparative Analysis of Point Clouds Acquired from Terrestrial Laser Scanning, UAV Photogrammetry, UAV-based LiDAR, and 3D Virtual Tours in the Built Environment

  • Shadi ALATHAMNEH (McWhorter School of Building Science, Auburn University) ;
  • Busra YUCEL (McWhorter School of Building Science, Auburn University) ;
  • Junshan LIU (McWhorter School of Building Science, Auburn University) ;
  • Scott KRAMER (McWhorter School of Building Science, Auburn University)
  • Published : 2024.07.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The improvement of the reality capture concept has made 3D datasets an important resource for visualization and documentation in the Architectural, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) field. Despite laser scanning providing the most accurate 3D models, it also entails some disadvantages, such as high equipment costs. Therefore, this study aims to compare the accuracy of four reality capture equipment types (LiDAR, UAV-based LiDAR, UAV-based photogrammetry, and 3D virtual tours), each offering different advantages and disadvantages. The findings suggest that aerial LiDAR, 3D virtual tour, and aerial photogrammetry offer increasingly less accurate alternatives to TLS, respectively. The results of the study may help construction companies when deciding on reality capture investment.

Keywords

References

  1. Hardin B, McCool D. BIM and Construction Management: Proven Tools, Methods, and Workflows. John Wiley & Sons; 2015. 421
  2. Almukhtar A, Saeed ZO, Abanda H, Tah JHM. Reality Capture of Buildings Using 3D Laser Scanners. CivilEng. 2021 Mar;2(1):214-35. 
  3. Liu J, Willkens D, Lopez C, Cortes-Meseguer L, Garcia-Valldecabres JL, Escudero PA, et al. Comparative Analysis of Point Clouds Acquired From A TLS Survey and a 3D Virtual Tour for HBIM Development. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 2023 Jun 24;XLVIII-M-2-2023:959-68. 
  4. Fobiri G, Musonda I, Muleya F. Reality Capture in Construction Project Management: A Review of Opportunities and Challenges. Buildings. 2022 Sep;12(9):1381. 
  5. Wu C, Yuan Y, Tang Y, Tian B. Application of Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) Industry. Sensors. 2022 Jan;22(1):265. 
  6. Waqar A, Othman I, Saad N, Qureshi AH, Azab M, Khan AM. Complexities for adopting 3D laser scanners in the AEC industry: Structural equation modeling. Applications in Engineering Science. 2023 Dec 1;16:100160. 
  7. Xie HS, Brilakis I, Loscos E. Reality Capture: Photography, Videos, Laser Scanning and Drones. In: Bolpagni M, Gavina R, Ribeiro D, editors. Industry 40 for the Built Environment: Methodologies, Technologies and Skills [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022 [cited 2023 Oct 9]. p. 443-69. (Structural Integrity). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82430-3_19 
  8. Alizadehsalehi S, Yitmen I. Digital twin-based progress monitoring management model through reality capture to extended reality technologies (DRX). Smart and Sustainable Built Environment [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 9];200(236). Available from: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SASBE-01-2021-0016/full/html 
  9. Hamledari H, Fischer M. Construction payment automation using blockchain-enabled smart contracts and robotic reality capture technologies. Automation in Construction. 2021 Dec 1;132:103926. 
  10. McHugh K, Koskela L, Tezel A. Reality Capture Connecting Project Stakeholders. In: Alarcon LF, Gonzalez VA, editors. PER: The International Group for Lean Construction; 2021 [cited 2023 Oct 11]. p. 737-46. Available from: https://www.iglc.net/Home/ActiveConference 
  11. Aryan A, Bosche F, Tang P. Planning for terrestrial laser scanning in construction: A review. Automation in Construction. 2021 May 1;125:103551. 
  12. Palcak M, Kudela P, Fandakova M, Kordek J. Utilization of 3D Digital Technologies in the Documentation of Cultural Heritage: A Case Study of the Kunerad Mansion (Slovakia). Applied Sciences. 2022 Jan;12(9):4376. 
  13. QingWang L, ShiMing L, ZengYuan L, LiYong F, KaiLong H. Review on the applications of UAV-based LiDAR and photogrammetry in forestry. Scientia Silvae Sinicae. 2017;53(7):134-48. 
  14. Apollonio FI, Fantini F, Garagnani S, Gaiani M. A Photogrammetry-Based Workflow for the Accurate 3D Construction and Visualization of Museums Assets. Remote Sensing. 2021 Jan;13(3):486. 
  15. Shults R, Levin E, Habibi R, Shenoy S, Honcheruk O, Hart T, et al. Capability of Matterport 3D Camera for Industrial Archaelogy Sites Inventory. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 2019 May 5;XLII-2-W11:1059-64. 
  16. Pulcrano M, Scandurra S, Minin G, di Luggo A. 3D Cameras Acquisitions for the Documentations of Cultural Heritage. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 2019 Jan 31;XLII-2-W9:639-46. 
  17. Becker S, Einizinab S, Radanovic S, Khoshelham K, Mirzaei K, Fang Y. Reality Capture Methods for Remote Inspection of Building Work. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 2023 Dec 13;XLVIII-1-W2-2023:275-81. 
  18. Masiero A, Fissore F, Guarnieri A, Piragnolo M, Vettore A. Comparison of Low Cost Photogrammetry Survey with TLS and Leica Pegasus Backpack 3D Models. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 2017 Nov 13;XLII-2-W8:147-53. 
  19. Dewez TJB, Girardeau-Montaut D, Allanic C, Rohmer J. Facets : A Cloudcompare Plugin to Extract Geological Planes from Unstructured 3D Point Clouds. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 2016 Jun 16;XLI-B5:799-804. 
  20. Zhang W, Qi J, Wan P, Wang H, Xie D, Wang X, et al. An Easy-to-Use Airborne LiDAR Data Filtering Method Based on Cloth Simulation. Remote Sensing. 2016;8(6):501. 
  21. Khanal M, Hasan M, Sterbentz N, Johnson R, Weatherly J. Accuracy Comparison of Aerial Lidar, Mobile-Terrestrial Lidar, and UAV Photogrammetric Capture Data Elevations over Different Terrain Types. Infrastructures. 2020 Aug;5(8):65. 
  22. Rogers SR, Manning I, Livingstone W. Comparing the Spatial Accuracy of Digital Surface Models from Four Unoccupied Aerial Systems: Photogrammetry Versus LiDAR. Remote Sensing. 2020 Jan;12(17):2806.