ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Empirical Analysis of the Accuracy of Pulsed Laser Scanners Under Different Measurement Conditions
More details
Hide details
1
Faculty of Geoengineering, Mining and Geology, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Poland
Submission date: 2024-12-16
Final revision date: 2025-02-24
Acceptance date: 2025-03-06
Online publication date: 2025-04-02
Publication date: 2025-04-02
Corresponding author
Kinga Wawrzyniak
Faculty of Geoengineering, Mining and Geology, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wyspiańskiego 27, 50-370, Wrocław, Poland
Civil and Environmental Engineering Reports 2025;35(2):185-204
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Terrestrial laser scanning is becoming increasingly widely used in engineering surveying, especially in the area of displacement monitoring and performing diagnostic measurements. Empirical assessment of laser scanner accuracy in real measurement conditions is of great importance when it comes to assessing the suitability of scanners for specific engineering applications. This paper describes an empirical analysis of the accuracy of two pulsed laser scanners: Leica ScanStation C10 and Riegl VZ-400i. The tests were conducted in two measurement environments: inside and outside a building, where test bases were designed and made in the form of a set of several reference points, i.e. reflective targets. During the tests, the deviations of spatial distances, spatial angles and coordinates were analysed on the basis of the results of scanner measurements in relation to precise total station measurements treated as reference. Additionally, the accuracy of the reference sphere approximation was tested. The results obtained indicate that the values of spatial distance deviations between pairs of targets for measurements performed inside the building are comparable for both scanners. The mean absolute error (MAE) was 1.6 mm for the Leica scanner and 1.9 mm for the Riegl scanner. For measurements outside the building, the Leica scanner proved to be more accurate. The MAE of spatial angle deviations between targets for measurements inside the building was 54cc for the Leica scanner and 96cc for the Riegl scanner, while outside the building, it was 29cc for the Leica scanner and 73cc for the Riegl scanner. The average error in matching the local scanner system with the reference coordinates inside the building was 0.9 mm for the Leica scanner and 1.3 mm for the Riegl scanner, and outside, it was 0.8 mm for the Leica scanner and 2.5 mm for the Riegl scanner. Additionally, the accuracy of the reference sphere approximation was tested. The analyses carried out prove that even an older scanner model (ScanStation C10) has high measurement accuracy useful in engineering surveying despite the significantly slower measurement compared to modern scanner models.
REFERENCES (17)
1.
ISO 17123-9; Optics and Optical Instruments—Field Procedures for Testing Geodetic and Surveying Instruments—Part 9: Terrestrial laser scanners. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
2.
ASTM E2938-15. Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Relative-Range Measurement Performance of 3D Imaging Systems in the Medium Range. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.
3.
ASTM E3125–17. Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Point-to-Point Distance Measurement Performance of Spherical Coordinate 3D Imaging Systems in the Medium Range. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
4.
Miri, M and Varshosaz, M 2012. Evaluating parameters affecting the georeferencing accuracy of terrestrial laser scanners. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XXXVIII-5/, March, 387–390. doi: 10.5194/isprsarchives-xxxviii-5-w16-387-2011.
5.
Kersten, T P and Lindstaedt, M 2022. Geometric accuracy investigations of terrestrial laser scanner systems in the laboratory and in the field. Applied Geomatics 14(2), 421–434. doi: 10.1007/s12518-022-00442-2.
6.
Kersten, T, Sternberg, H, Mechelke, K and Pardo, C A 2004. Terrestrial laser scanning system Mensi GS100/GS200 – accuracy tests, experiences and projects at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences. Proceedings of the ISPRS Working Group V/1 Panoramic Photogrammetry Workshop.
7.
Abbas, MA, Setan, H, Majid, Z, Chong, AK, Idris, KM and Aspuri, A 2013. Calibration and accuracy assessment of Leica ScanStation C10 terrestrial laser scanner. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography 0, November, 33–47. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36379-5_3.
8.
Pejić, M, Ogrizović, V, Božić, B, Milovanović, B and Marošan, S 2014. A simplified procedure of metrological testing of terrestrial laser scanners. Measurement 53, 260–269. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2014.03.024.
9.
Tan, K, Zhang, W, Shen, F and Cheng, X 2018. Investigation of TLS intensity data and distance measurement errors from target specular reflections. Remote Sensing 10(7). doi: 10.3390/rs10071077.
10.
Hartmann, J, Heiken, M, Alkhatib, H and Neumann, I 2023. Automatic quality assessment of terrestrial laser scans. Journal of Applied Geodesy 17, 333–353.
11.
Shi, S, Muralikrishnan, B and Sawyer, D 2020. Terrestrial laser scanner calibration and performance evaluation using the network method. Optics and Lasers in Engineering 134, 106298.
12.
Gordon, S, Davies, N, Keighley, D, Lichti, D and Franke, J 2005. A rigorous rangefinder calibration method for terrestrial laser scanners. Journal of Spatial Science 50, 91–96. doi: 10.1080/14498596.2005.9635052.
13.
Muralikrishnan, B 2021. Performance evaluation of terrestrial laser scanners – a review. Measurement Science and Technology 32(7). doi: 10.1088/1361-6501/abdae3.
14.
Böhler, W and Marbs, A 2005. Investigating laser scanner accuracy. A Technical Report, Institute of Spatial Information and Surveying Technology.
15.
Tan, K and Cheng, X 2016. Correction of incidence angle and distance effects on TLS intensity data based on reference targets. Remote Sensing 8(3), 15–18. doi: 10.3390/rs8030251.
16.
Muralikrishnan, B, Lu, X, Gregg, M, Shilling, M and Czapla, B 2025. A method to evaluate orientation-dependent errors in the center of contrast targets used with terrestrial laser scanners. Sensors 25. doi: 10.3390/s25020505.
17.
Muralikrishnan, B, Rachakonda, P, Lee, V and Shiling, M 2017. Relative range error evaluation of terrestrial laser scanners using a plate, a sphere, and a novel dual-sphere-plate target. Measurement 111. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2017.07.027.