3.8 Proceedings Paper

GENERATION AND COMPARISON OF TLS AND SFM BASED 3D MODELS OF SOLID SHAPES IN HYDROMECHANIC RESEARCH

Journal

XXIII ISPRS CONGRESS, COMMISSION V
Volume 41, Issue B5, Pages 925-929

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/isprsarchives-XLI-B5-925-2016

Keywords

Terrestrial Laser Scanning; Structure-from-Motion; 3D Model; Volume Calculation; Hydromechanics

Funding

  1. Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
  2. Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Technical Hydromechanics, Technische Universitat Dresden, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of a current study at the Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Technical Hydromechanics at TU Dresden is to develop a new injection method for quick and economic sealing of dikes or dike bodies, based on a new synthetic material. To validate the technique, an artificial part of a sand dike was built in an experimental hall. The synthetic material was injected, which afterwards spreads in the inside of the dike. After the material was fully solidified, the surrounding sand was removed with an excavator. In this paper, two methods, which applied terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) and structure from motion (SfM) respectively, for the acquisition of a 3D point cloud of the remaining shapes are described and compared. Combining with advanced software packages, a triangulated 3D model was generated and subsequently the volume of vertical sections of the shape were calculated. As the calculation of the volume revealed differences between the TLS and the SfM 3D model, a thorough qualitative comparison of the two models will be presented as well as a detailed accuracy assessment. The main influence of the accuracy is caused by generalisation in case of gaps due to occlusions in the 3D point cloud. Therefore, improvements for the data acquisition with TLS and SfM for such kind of objects are suggested in the paper.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available