Home PointNet-based modeling of systematic distance deviations for improved TLS accuracy
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

PointNet-based modeling of systematic distance deviations for improved TLS accuracy

  • Jan Hartmann ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Dominik Ernst ORCID logo , Ingo Neumann and Hamza Alkhatib
Published/Copyright: June 19, 2024
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Journal of Applied Geodesy
From the journal Journal of Applied Geodesy Volume 18 Issue 4

Abstract

Terrestrial laser scanners (TLSs) have become indispensable for acquiring highly detailed and accurate 3D representations of the physical world. However, the acquired data is subject to systematic deviations in distance measurements due to external influences, such as distance and incidence angle. This research introduces a calibration approach by applying a deep learning model based on PointNet to predict and correct these systematic distance deviations, incorporating not only the XYZ coordinates but also additional features like intensity, incidence angle, and distances within a local neighbourhood radius of 5 cm. By predicting and subsequently correcting systematic distance deviations, the quality of TLS point clouds can be improved. Hence, our model is designed to complement and build upon the foundation of prior internal TLS calibration. A data set collected under controlled environmental conditions, containing various objects of different materials, served as the basis for training and validation the PointNet based model. In addition our analysis showcase the model’s capability to accurately model systematic distance deviations, outperforming existing methods like gradient boosting trees by capturing the spatial relationships and dependencies within the data more effectively. By defining test data sets, excluded from the training process, we underscore the ongoing effectiveness of our model’s distance measurement calibration, showcasing its ability to improve the accuracy of the TLS point cloud.

Keywords: terrestrial laser scanning; systematic distance deviation; deep learning; PointNet; calibration
Corresponding author: Jan Hartmann, Geodetic Institute, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany, E-mail: 

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the LUH compute cluster, which is funded by the Leibniz Universität Hannover, the Lower Saxony Ministry of Science and Culture (MWK) and the German Research Association (DFG).

  1. Research ethics: Not applicable.

  2. Author contributions: Conceptualization: JH, HA; Coding, Processing, Writing: JH; Experiments: JH, HA; Proof-Reading: DE, HA, IN; Supervision: HA. The author have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: The author state no conflict of interest.

  4. Research funding: None declared.

  5. Data availability: The raw data can be obtained on request from the corresponding author.

References

1. Holst, C, Nothnagel, A, Blome, M, Becker, P, Eichborn, M, Kuhlmann, H. Improved area-based deformation analysis of a radio telescope’s main reflector based on terrestrial laser scanning. J Appl Geodesy 2015;9:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1515/jag-2014-0018.Search in Google Scholar

2. Paffenholz, JA, Huge, J, Stenz, U. Integration von Lasertracking und Laserscanning zur optimalen Bestimmung von lastinduzierten Gewölbeverformungen. AVN 2018;125:75–89.Search in Google Scholar

3. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. Evaluation of measurement data – guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement; 2008. https://www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/GUM-JCGM100.htm [Accessed 27 Oct 2023].Search in Google Scholar

4. Koch, KR. Uncertainty of results of laser scanning data with correlated systematic effects by Monte Carlo methods. ZFV – Z Geodasie Geoinf Landmanagement 2010;135:376–85.Search in Google Scholar

5. Koch, KR, Brockmann, JM. Systematic effects in laser scanning and visualization by confidence regions. J Appl Geodesy 2016;10:247–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/jag-2016-0012.Search in Google Scholar

6. Soudarissanane, S, Lindenbergh, R, Menenti, M, Teunissen, P. Scanning geometry: influencing factor on the quality of terrestrial laser scanning points. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 2011;66:389–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2011.01.005.Search in Google Scholar

7. Muralikrishnan, B, Ferrucci, M, Sawyer, D, Gerner, G, Lee, V, Blackburn, C, et al.. Volumetric performance evaluation of a laser scanner based on geometric error model. Precis Eng J Int Soc Precis Eng Nanotechnol 2015;40:139–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2014.11.002.Search in Google Scholar

8. Lichti, DD. Terrestrial laser scanner self-calibration: correlation sources and their mitigation. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 2010;65:93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.09.002.Search in Google Scholar

9. Chow, JCK, Lichti, DD, Glennie, C. Point-based versus plane-based self-calibration of static terrestrial laser scanners. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Inf Sci 2011;38:121–6. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-xxxviii-5-w12-121-2011.Search in Google Scholar

10. Holst, C, Neuner, H, Wieser, A, Wunderlich, T. Calibration of terrestrial laser scanners. Allgemeine Vermessungs-Nachrichten 2016;123:147–57.Search in Google Scholar

11. Medić, T. Efficient calibration strategies for panoramic terrestrial laser scanners [dissertation]. Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn; 2021. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/8894.Search in Google Scholar

12. Qiao, J, Butt, JA. Self-calibration of terrestrial laser scanner using a M3C2-based planar patch algorithm. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 2023;197:335–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2023.02.008.Search in Google Scholar

13. Brunner, FK. Geodetic refraction: effects of electromagnetic wave propagation through the atmosphere. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1984.Search in Google Scholar

14. Wieser, A, Paffenholz, JA, Neumann, I. Sensoren, Features und Physik – Zum aktuellen Stand der Entwicklung bei Laserscannern. In: Terrestrisches Laserscanning 2019; 2019:9–22 pp.Search in Google Scholar

15. Roca-Pardiñas, J, Argüelles-Fraga, R, de Asís López, F, Ordóñez, C. Analysis of the influence of range and angle of incidence of terrestrial laser scanning measurements on tunnel inspection. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2014;43:133–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.04.011.Search in Google Scholar

16. Winiwarter, L, Anders, K, Wujanz, D, Höfle, B. Influence of ranging uncertainty of terrestrial laser scanning on change detection in topographic 3D point clouds. ISPRS Ann Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Inf Sci 2020;5:789–96. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-v-2-2020-789-2020.Search in Google Scholar

17. Zámečníková, M, Neuner, H. Towards the influence of the angle of incidence and the surface roughness on distances in terrestrial laser scanning. In: FIG working week 2017; 2017.Search in Google Scholar

18. Zámečníková, M, Neuner, H. Methods for quantification of systematic distance deviations under incidence angle with scanning total stations. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 2018;144:268–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.07.008.Search in Google Scholar

19. Linzer, F, Papčová, M, Neuner, H. Quantification of systematic distance deviations for scanning total stations using robotic applications. In: Contributions to international conferences on engineering surveying. Springer proceedings in earth and environmental sciences. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2021:98–108 pp.10.1007/978-3-030-51953-7_8Search in Google Scholar

20. Chaudhry, S, Salido-Monzú, D, Wieser, A. Simulation of 3D laser scanning with phase-based EDM for the prediction of systematic deviations. In: Bodermann, B, Frenner, K, Silver, RM, editors. Modeling aspects in optical metrology VII. International Society for Optics and Photonics. SPIE; 2019, vol 11057:110570H p.10.1117/12.2526043Search in Google Scholar

21. Bolkas, D, Martinez, A. Effect of target color and scanning geometry on terrestrial LiDAR point-cloud noise and plane fitting. J Appl Geodesy 2018;12:109–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/jag-2017-0034.Search in Google Scholar

22. Wujanz, D, Burger, M, Mettenleiter, M, Neitzel, F. An intensity-based stochastic model for terrestrial laser scanners. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 2017;125:146–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.12.006.Search in Google Scholar

23. Schmitz, B, Holst, C, Medic, T, Lichti, DD, Kuhlmann, H. How to efficiently determine the range precision of 3D terrestrial laser scanners. Sensors 2019;19:1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19061466.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

24. Schäfer, T. Berührungslose und flächenhafte Deformationsmessungen an Betonoberflächen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Interaktion zwischen Laserstrahl und Oberfläche [dissertation]. München: Technischen Universität München; 2017.Search in Google Scholar

25. Kauker, S, Schwieger, V. A synthetic covariance matrix for monitoring by terrestrial laser scanning. J Appl Geodesy 2017;11:77–87. https://doi.org/10.1515/jag-2016-0026.Search in Google Scholar

26. Zhao, X, Kermarrec, G, Kargoll, B, Alkhatib, H, Neumann, I. Influence of the simplified stochastic model of TLS measurements on geometry-based deformation analysis. J Appl Geodesy 2019;13:199–214. https://doi.org/10.1515/jag-2019-0002.Search in Google Scholar

27. Kermarrec, G, Alkhatib, H, Neumann, I. On the sensitivity of the parameters of the intensity-based stochastic model for terrestrial laser scanner. Case study: B-spline approximation. Sensors 2018;18:2964. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18092964.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

28. Schmitz, B, Kuhlmann, H, Holst, C. Investigating the resolution capability of terrestrial laser scanners and its impact on the effective number of measurements. ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 2020;159:41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.11.002.Search in Google Scholar

29. Kerekes, G. An elementary error model for terrestrial laser scanning [dissertation]. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart; 2023.Search in Google Scholar

30. Stenz, U, Hartmann, J, Paffenholz, JA, Neumann, I. A framework based on reference data with superordinate accuracy for the quality analysis of terrestrial laser scanning-based multi-sensor-systems. Sensors 2017;17:1886. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17081886.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

31. Hartmann, J, Alkhatib, H. Uncertainty modelling of laser scanning point clouds using machine-learning methods. Rem Sens 2023;15:2349. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15092349.Search in Google Scholar

32. Bello, SA, Yu, S, Wang, C, Adam, JM, Li, J. Review: deep learning on 3D point clouds. Rem Sens 2020;12:1729. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111729.Search in Google Scholar

33. Rakotosaona, MJ, La Barbera, V, Guerrero, P, Mitra, NJ, Ovsjanikov, M. PointCleanNet: learning to denoise and remove outliers from dense point clouds. Comput Graph Forum 2020;39:185–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13753.Search in Google Scholar

34. Ge, L, Cai, Y, Weng, J, Yuan, J. Hand PointNet: 3D hand pose estimation using point sets. In: 2018 IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition; 2018:8417–26 pp.10.1109/CVPR.2018.00878Search in Google Scholar

35. Zhou, Y, Tuzel, O. VoxelNet: end-to-end learning for point cloud based 3D object detection. CoRR 2017;abs/1711.06396. http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06396 [Accessed 27 Oct 2023].Search in Google Scholar

36. Qi, CR, Su, H, Mo, K, Guibas, LJ. PointNet: deep learning on point sets for 3D classification and segmentation. CoRR 2016;abs/1612.00593. http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.00593 [Accessed 13 Oct 2023].Search in Google Scholar

37. Qi, CR, Yi, L, Su, H, Guibas, LJ. PointNet++: deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. CoRR 2017;abs/1706.02413. http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02413 [Accessed 13 Oct 2023].Search in Google Scholar

38. Zhou, Y, Tuzel, O. VoxelNet: end-to-end learning for point cloud based 3D object detection. In: 2018 IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society; 2018:4490–9 pp. Available from: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/CVPR.2018.00472.10.1109/CVPR.2018.00472Search in Google Scholar

39. Qi, CR, Liu, W, Wu, C, Su, H, Guibas, LJ. Frustum PointNets for 3D object detection from RGB-D data. 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.08488 [Accessed 27 Oct 2023].10.1109/CVPR.2018.00102Search in Google Scholar

40. Engelmann, F, Kontogianni, T, Hermans, A, Leibe, B. Exploring spatial context for 3D semantic segmentation of point clouds. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision workshops (ICCVW); 2017:716–24 pp. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:3609891.10.1109/ICCVW.2017.90Search in Google Scholar

41. Oehmcke, S, Li, L, Revenga, JC, Nord-Larsen, T, Trepekli, K, Gieseke, F, et al.. Deep learning based 3D point cloud regression for estimating forest biomass. CoRR 2021;abs/2112.11335. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.11335 [Accessed 27 Oct 2023].10.1145/3557915.3561471Search in Google Scholar

42. Yan, X. Pointnet/Pointnet++ Pytorch; 2019. https://githubcom/yanx27/Pointnet_Pointnet2_pytorch [Accessed 7 Mar 2024].Search in Google Scholar

43. Hsu, PH, Zhuang, ZY. Incorporating handcrafted features into deep learning for point cloud classification. Rem Sens 2020;12:3713. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223713.Search in Google Scholar

44. Zhao, J, Zhang, X, Wang, Y. Indoor 3d point clouds semantic segmentation bases on modified pointnet network. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Inf Sci 2020;43:369–73. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-xliii-b2-2020-369-2020.Search in Google Scholar

45. Zheng, S, Castellani, M. Primitive shape recognition from real-life scenes using the PointNet deep neural network. Int J Adv Des Manuf Technol 2022;124:3067–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-09791-z.Search in Google Scholar

46. Zhao, C, Yang, J, Xiong, X, Zhu, A, Cao, Z, Li, X. Rotation invariant point cloud analysis: where local geometry meets global topology. Pattern Recogn 2022;127:108626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2022.108626.Search in Google Scholar

47. Strang, G. The fundamental theorem of linear algebra. Am Math Mon 1993;100:848. https://doi.org/10.2307/2324660.Search in Google Scholar

48. Hartmann, J, Heiken, M, Alkhatib, H. Z+F imager 5016 distance uncertainty. LUIS; 2023. Available from: https://data.uni-hannover.de/dataset/z-f-imager-5016-distance-uncertainty.Search in Google Scholar

49. Hexagon, AB. Absolute Tracker-Lösungen- Das komplette Portfolio an Laser-Tracker-Systemen (Product Brochure); 2022. Available from: https://hexagon.com/de/products/leica-absolute-tracker-at960.Search in Google Scholar

50. Zoller + Fröhlich GmbH. Z+F IMAGER® Z+F IMAGER 5016: data sheet. Zoller + Fröhlich GmbH; 2016. Available from: https://scandric.de/wp-content/uploads/ZF-IMAGER-5016_Datenblatt-D_kompr.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

51. Kazhdan, M, Chuang, M, Rusinkiewicz, S, Hoppe, H. Poisson surface reconstruction with envelope constraints. Comput Graph Forum 2020;39:173–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14077.Search in Google Scholar

52. Bentley, JL. Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching. Commun ACM 1975;18:509–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/361002.361007.Search in Google Scholar

53. Chen, T, Guestrin, C. XGBoost. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2016:785–94 pp.10.1145/2939672.2939785Search in Google Scholar

54. Bergstra, J, Yamins, D, Cox, D. Making a science of model search: hyperparameter optimization in hundreds of dimensions for vision architectures. In: Dasgupta, S, McAllester, D, editors. Proceedings of the 30th international conference on machine learning. Vol. 28 of proceedings of machine learning research. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: PMLR; 2013:115–23 pp. Available from: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v28/bergstra13.html.Search in Google Scholar

55. Lague, D, Brodu, N, Leroux, J. Accurate 3D comparison of complex topography with terrestrial laser scanner: application to the Rangitikei canyon (N-Z). ISPRS J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 2013;82:10–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.04.009.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2023-10-30
Accepted: 2024-05-31
Published Online: 2024-06-19
Published in Print: 2024-10-28

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Special Issue on Uncertainty and Quality of Multi-Sensor Systems; Guest Editor: Volker Schwieger
  3. Improving the approximation quality of tensor product B-spline surfaces by local parameterization
  4. Development of GPS time-based reference trajectories for quality assessment of multi-sensor systems
  5. PointNet-based modeling of systematic distance deviations for improved TLS accuracy
  6. Empirical uncertainty evaluation for the pose of a kinematic LiDAR-based multi-sensor system
  7. Guest Editorial
  8. Uncertainty and quality of multi-sensor systems
  9. Original Research Articles
  10. Coseismic slip model of the 14 January 2021 Mw 6.2 Mamuju-Majene earthquake based on static and kinematic GNSS solution
  11. Simulation of range code tracking loop for multipath mitigation in NavIC receiver
  12. Exploring ionospheric dynamics: a comprehensive analysis of GNSS TEC estimations during the solar phases using linear function model
  13. A new approach of multi-dimensional correlation as a separability measure of multiple outliers in GNSS applications
  14. Preliminary results of scintillation monitoring at KLEF-Guntur low latitude station using GNSS software defined radio
  15. Evaluating the single-frequency static precise point positioning accuracies from multi-constellation GNSS observations at an Indian low-latitude station
  16. Analysis of ionospheric anomalies before the Fukushima Mw 7.3 earthquake of March 16, 2022
  17. Geomagnetic storm effect on equatorial ionosphere over Sri Lanka through total electron content observations from continuously operating reference stations network during Mar–Apr 2022
https://doi.org/10.1515/jag-2023-0097
Keywords for this article
terrestrial laser scanning; systematic distance deviation; deep learning; PointNet; calibration

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Special Issue on Uncertainty and Quality of Multi-Sensor Systems; Guest Editor: Volker Schwieger
  3. Improving the approximation quality of tensor product B-spline surfaces by local parameterization
  4. Development of GPS time-based reference trajectories for quality assessment of multi-sensor systems
  5. PointNet-based modeling of systematic distance deviations for improved TLS accuracy
  6. Empirical uncertainty evaluation for the pose of a kinematic LiDAR-based multi-sensor system
  7. Guest Editorial
  8. Uncertainty and quality of multi-sensor systems
  9. Original Research Articles
  10. Coseismic slip model of the 14 January 2021 Mw 6.2 Mamuju-Majene earthquake based on static and kinematic GNSS solution
  11. Simulation of range code tracking loop for multipath mitigation in NavIC receiver
  12. Exploring ionospheric dynamics: a comprehensive analysis of GNSS TEC estimations during the solar phases using linear function model
  13. A new approach of multi-dimensional correlation as a separability measure of multiple outliers in GNSS applications
  14. Preliminary results of scintillation monitoring at KLEF-Guntur low latitude station using GNSS software defined radio
  15. Evaluating the single-frequency static precise point positioning accuracies from multi-constellation GNSS observations at an Indian low-latitude station
  16. Analysis of ionospheric anomalies before the Fukushima Mw 7.3 earthquake of March 16, 2022
  17. Geomagnetic storm effect on equatorial ionosphere over Sri Lanka through total electron content observations from continuously operating reference stations network during Mar–Apr 2022
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 18.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jag-2023-0097/html
Scroll to top button