2015
DOI: 10.3390/rs71013029
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A 4D Filtering and Calibration Technique for Small-Scale Point Cloud Change Detection with a Terrestrial Laser Scanner

Abstract: This study presents a point cloud de-noising and calibration approach that takes advantage of point redundancy in both space and time (4D). The purpose is to detect displacements using terrestrial laser scanner data at the sub-mm scale or smaller, similar to radar systems, for the study of very small natural changes, i.e., pre-failure deformation in rock slopes, small-scale failures or talus flux. The algorithm calculates distances using a multi-scale normal distance approach and uses a set of calibration poin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
74
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 81 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
74
0
Order By: Relevance
“…By point cloud interpolation alone (point-to-mesh), this issue is not solvable because there are still problems at very rough surfaces (Lague et al, 2013). Different solutions have been proposed: on the one hand, Abellán et al (2009) proposed averaging the point cloud difference along the spatial dimension, which can also be extended to 4-D (x, y, z, time; Kromer et al, 2015). On the other hand, Lague et al (2013) proposed the M3C2 algorithm for point cloud comparison that considers the local roughness and further computes the statistical significance of detected changes.…”
Section: Type Of Deviation Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By point cloud interpolation alone (point-to-mesh), this issue is not solvable because there are still problems at very rough surfaces (Lague et al, 2013). Different solutions have been proposed: on the one hand, Abellán et al (2009) proposed averaging the point cloud difference along the spatial dimension, which can also be extended to 4-D (x, y, z, time; Kromer et al, 2015). On the other hand, Lague et al (2013) proposed the M3C2 algorithm for point cloud comparison that considers the local roughness and further computes the statistical significance of detected changes.…”
Section: Type Of Deviation Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The collection of a high-frequency time series of scan data presents the opportunity to reduce uncertainty by averaging point positions through both time and space, as points are independent in neither space nor in time. This averaging can take the form of averaging the 3-D position of each point, as utilised here and in M3C2 (Lague et al, 2013), or the averaging of differences between points (Abellán et al, 2009;Kromer et al, 2015b).…”
Section: Future Developments In Processing Near-continuous Tls Collecmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our second aim, therefore, is to minimise the errors that arise from near-continuous monitoring in order to reduce the minimum detectable movement. Kromer et al (2015b) presented a 4-D smoothing technique to reduce the offset between successive point clouds, such as those from near-continuous monitoring. Similarly, the method presented here is optimised for handling large (10 2 -10 4 ) numbers of high-resolution 3-D scans, critically without user intervention, but can also be applied to point clouds from non-continuous monitoring.…”
Section: Scanning From a Fixed Positionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…and its evolution over time by comparing 3-D point clouds acquired at different time steps. For example, 3-D remote sensing techniques are helping to better quantify key aspects of rock slope evolution, including the accurate quantification of rockfall rates and the deformation of rock slopes before failure using both lidar (Rosser et al, 2005;Oppikofer et al, 2009;Royan et al, 2014;Kromer et al, 2015;Fey and Wichmann., 2017) and photogrammetrically derived point clouds (Walstra et al, 2007;Lucieer et al, 2013, Stumpf et al, 2015Fernandes et al, 2016;Guerin et al, 2017;Ruggles et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%