Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, vol. 18, no. 3

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 3 (2024): Geomatics and Environmental Engineering

Date Log

Submitted
Feb 24, 2022
Accepted
Feb 22, 2024
Published
Apr 18, 2024
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Error Analysis of Stonex X300 Laser Scanner Close-range Measurements

https://doi.org/10.7494/geom.2024.18.3.5
Fanar M. Abed
University of Baghdad, College of Engineering, Department of Surveying Engineering, Baghdad, Iraq
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0919-5161
Luma K. Jasim
University of Baghdad, College of Engineering, Department of Surveying Engineering, Baghdad, Iraq
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2813-8856
Marwa M. Bori
University of Baghdad, College of Engineering, Department of Surveying Engineering, Baghdad, Iraq
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2813-8856

Corresponding Author(s) : Fanar M. Abed

fanar.mansour@coeng.uobaghdad.edu.iq

Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 3 (2024): Geomatics and Environmental Engineering

Abstract

This research reports an error analysis of close-range measurements from a Stonex X300 laser scanner in order to address range uncertainty behavior based on indoor experiments under fixed environmental conditions. The analysis includes procedures for estimating the precision and accuracy of the observational errors estimated from the Stonex X300 observations and conducted at intervals of 5 m within a range of 5 to 30 m. The laser 3D point cloud data of the individual scans is analyzed following a roughness analysis prior to the implementation of a Levenberg–Marquardt iterative closest points (LM-ICP) registration. This leads to identifying the level of roughness that was encountered due to the range-finder’s limitations in close-ranging as well as measurements that were obtained from extreme incident angle signals. The measurements were processed using a statistical outlier removal (SOR) filter to reduce the noise impact toward a smoother data set. The geometric differences and the RMSE values in the 3D coordinate directions were computed and analyzed, which showed the potential of the Stonex X300 measurements in close-ranging following a careful statistical analysis. It was found that the error differences in the vertical direction had a consistent behavior when the range increased, whereas the errors in the horizontal direction varied. However, it is more common to produce errors in the vertical direction as compared to the horizontal one.

Keywords

terrestrial laser scanning Stonex X300 close-range measurements error analysis accuracy assessment range uncertainty
Abed, F. M., Jasim, L. K., & Bori, M. M. (2024). Error Analysis of Stonex X300 Laser Scanner Close-range Measurements. Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, 18(3), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.7494/geom.2024.18.3.5
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Santana Quintero M., Van Genechten B., De Bruyne M., Poelman R., Hankar M., Barnes S., Caner H., Budei L., Heine E., Reiner H., Lerma García J.L., Biosca Taronger J.M.: Theory and Practice on Terrestrial Laser Scanning: Training Material Based on Practical Applications. Universidad Politecnica de Valencia Editorial, Valencia, 2008.
  2. Karkush M., Choudhury D., Han J. (eds.): Current Trends in Geotechnical Engineering and Construction: Proceedings of 3ICGE-Iraq 2022. Springer, Singapore 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7358-1.
  3. Vosselman G., Maas H.-G. (eds.): Airborne and Terrestrial Laser Scanning. Whittles Publishing, Dunbeath 2010.
  4. Shan J., Toth Ch.K. (eds.): Topographic Laser Ranging and Scanning: Principals and Processing. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton 2017. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315154381.
  5. Manferdini A.M., Remondino F.: A review of reality-based 3D model generation, segmentation and web-based visualization. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era, vol. 1(1), 2012, pp. 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1260/2047-4970.1.1.103.
  6. Abed F.M., Mills J.P., Miller P.E.: Calibrated full-waveform airborne laser scanning for 3D object segmentation. Remote Sensing, vol. 6(5), 2014, pp. 4109–4132. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6054109.
  7. Medić T., Kuhlmann H., Holst C.: Empirical evaluation of terrestrial laser scanner calibration strategies: Manufacturer-based, target-based and keypoint-based. [in:] Kopáčik A., Kyrinovič P., Erdélyi J., Paar R., Marendić A. (eds.), Contributions to International Conferences on Engineering Surveying: 8th INGEO International Conference on Engineering Surveying and 4th SIG Symposium on Engineering Geodesy, Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences, Springer, Cham 2021, pp. 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51953-7_4.
  8. Cheng L., Chen S., Liu X., Xu H., Wu Y., Li M., Chen Y.: Registration of laser scanning point clouds: A review. Sensors, vol. 18(5), 2018, 1641. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18051641.
  9. Schmitz B., Holst C., Medic T., Lichti D.D., Kuhlmann H.: How to efficiently determine the range precision of 3D terrestrial laser scanners. Sensors, vol. 19(6), 2019, 1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19061466.
  10. Muralikrishnan B.: Performance evaluation of terrestrial laser scanners – A review. Measurement Science and Technology, vol. 32(7), 2021, 072001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/abdae3.
  11. Fowler A., Kadatskiy V.: Accuracy and error assessment of terrestrial, mobile, and airborne lidar. [in:] American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Annual Conference 2011, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, 1–5 May 2011, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS), 2011, pp. 135–143. http://www.asprs.org/a/publications/proceedings/Milwaukee2011/files/Fowler_1.pdf.
  12. Alkan R.M., Karsidag G.: Analysis of the accuracy of terrestrial laser scanning measurements. [in:] FIG Working Week 2012: Knowing to manage the territory, protect the environment, evaluate the cultural heritage, Rome, Italy, 6–10 May 2012, pp. 1–16. https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2012/papers/ts07a/TS07A_alkan_6097.pdf.
  13. Shi S., Muralikrishnan B., Sawyer D.: Terrestrial laser scanner calibration and performance evaluation using the network method. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, vol. 134, 2020, 106298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2020.106298.
  14. Gordon S., Lichti D.D., Stewart M.P., Tsakiri M.: Metric performance of a high-resolution laser scanner. [in:] El-Hakim S.F., Gruen A. (eds.), Videometrics and Optical Methods for 3D Shape Measurement, SPIE Proceedings, vol. 4309, SPIE, 2000, pp. 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.410872.
  15. Lichti D.D., Stewart M.P., Tsakiri M.: Benchmark tests on a three-dimensional laser scanning system. Geomatics Research Australasia, vol. 72, 2000, pp. 1–23.
  16. Lichti D.D., Stewart M.P., Tsakiri M., Snow A.J.: Calibration and testing of a terrestrial laser scanner. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. XXXIII-B5, 2000, pp. 485–492. https://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXIII/congress/part5/485_XXXIII-part5.pdf.
  17. Kersten Th., Sternberg H., Mechelke K., Pardo Acevedo C.: Terrestrial laserscanning system Mensi GS100 – Accuracy tests, experiences and projects at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. XXXIV-5/W16, 2004, pp. 1–8. https://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXIV/5-W16/papers/PanoWS_Dresden2004_Kersten.pdf.
  18. Zhang Y., Wu H., Cheng X., Liu C.: Accuracy evaluation of three dimensional laser range scanner based on field calibration. [in:] Li D., Ge Y., Foody G.M. (eds.), Accuracy in Geomatics: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences: Shanghai, China, June 25–27, 2008. Volume 2, World Academic Union (World Academic Press), Liverpool 2008, pp. 119–126.
  19. Stonex X300. https://www.stonex.it/ [access: 5.10.2020].
  20. Ding H., Lin H., Wang X.: Ranging precision analysis of Stonex X300 3D laser scannerd. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 423, 2018, 012146. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/423/1/012146.
  21. Abed F.M., Jasim L.K., Bori M.M.: User oriented calibration method for Stonex X300 terrestrial laser scanner. Iraqi Journal of Science, vol. 64(4), 2023, pp. 2095–2106. https://doi.org/10.24996/ijs.2023.64.4.43.
  22. Abed F.M., Ibrahim O.A., Jasim L.K., Hussein Z.E.: Terrestrial laser scanning to preserve cultural heritage in Iraq using monitoring techniques [conference paper ]. BCEE 2015: The Second International Conference on Buildings, Construction and Environmental Engineering, October 17–October 18, 2015, Beirut, Lebanon. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1306.1600.
  23. Shanoer M.M., Abed F.M.: Evaluate 3D laser point clouds registration for cultural heritage documentation. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences, vol. 21(3), 2018, pp. 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2017.11.007.
  24. Jaber A.S., Abed F.M.: Revealing the potentials of 3D modelling techniques; a comparison study towards data fusion from hybrid sensors. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 737, 2020, 012230. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/737/1/012230.
  25. Jaber A.S: The Fusion of Laser Scans and Digital Images for Effective Cultural Heritage Conservation [MSc thesis]. Department of Surveying Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, 2020. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29736.39683.
  26. Thamir Z.S., Abed F.M.: How geometric reverse engineering techniques can conserve our heritage; a case study in Iraq using 3D laser scanning. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 737, 2020, 012231. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/737/1/012231.
  27. Abed F.M., Mills J.P., Miller P.E.: Calibration of full-waveform ALS data based on robust incidence angle estimation. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. XXXVIII-5/W12, 2011, pp. 25–30. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXVIII-5-W12-25-2011.
  28. Kadhim I., Abed F.M., Vilbig J.M., Sagan V., DeSilvey C.: Combining remote sensing approaches for detecting marks of archaeological and demolished constructions in Cahokia’ s Grand Plaza, Southwestern Illinois. Remote Sensing, vol. 15(4), 2023, 1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15041057.
  29. Holst C., Neuner H., Wieser A., Wunderlich T., Kuhlmann H.: Calibration of terrestrial laser scanners. Allgemeine Vermessungs-Nachrichten (AVN), vol. 123(6), 2016, pp. 147–157. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/8764.
  30. Kadhim I., Abed F.M.: The potential of LiDAR and UAV-photogrammetric data analysis to interpret archaeological sites: A case study of Chun Castle in South-West England. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, vol. 10(1), 2021, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10010041.
  31. Al-Manasir K., Fraser C.S.: Registration of terrestrial laser scanner data using imagery. The Photogrammetric Record, vol. 21(115), 2006, pp. 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9730.2006.00379.x.
  32. Theiler P.W., Schindler K.: Automated registration of terrestrial laser scanner point clouds. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. I-3, 2012, pp. 173–178. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsannals-I-3-173-2012.
  33. Alsadik B., Gerke M., Vosselman G.: Automated camera network design for 3D modeling of cultural heritage objects. Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 14(6), 2013, pp. 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.11.007.
  34. Tonietto L., Gonzaga L. Jr., Veronez M.R., de Souza Kazmierczak C., Arnold D.C.M., da Costa C.A.: New method for evaluating surface roughness parameters acquired by laser scanning. Scientific Reports, vol. 9(1), 2019, 15038. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51545-7.
  35. Wyjadłowski M., Muszyński Z., Kujawa P.: Application of laser scanning to assess the roughness of the diaphragm wall for the estimation of earth pressure. Sensors, vol. 21(21), 2021, 7275. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21217275.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download this PDF file
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 384 Download : 168

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.