Geomatics Techniques for Structural Surveying

Jon Mills1 and David Barber2

Abstract: Structural engineers may utilize geomatics techniques for precise and accurate measurements of discrete points, detailed
façade recording, and the production of engineering drawings and plans. Techniques commonly used include direct measurement using a
tape or gauge or, more recently, observations made from a reflectorless total station. Photogrammetric methods are also suitable for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universiti Teknologi Mara on 09/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

structural surveying. Terrestrial laser scanners have recently taken large steps in development and have the potential to become a useful
survey tool. An overview of current recording techniques along with an introduction to laser scanning is given, followed by details of a
test involving terrestrial survey, photogrammetry, and laser scanning at a site in the United Kingdom. Analysis of the results showed that
measurement to targeted points using the laser scanner was comparable to measurement using traditional stereo photogrammetric meth-
ods, although care needs to be taken to reduce the impact of mixed pixels and multipath occurring within the scanned scene.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9453共2004兲130:2共56兲
CE Database subject headings: Photogrammetry; United Kingdom; Surveys; Structures; Measurement.

Introduction
Geomatics incorporates many disparate methods and technologies
that offer surveying engineering and architects flexibility in the
design and implementation of structural surveys and recording
schemes. The safety of a structure and that of its occupants and
users can be assessed using data collected by these methodolo-
gies; they also provide the basis for decisions concerning the
maintenance and care of the building fabric, which may include
repairs, renovation, or redevelopment. Historic structures require
detailed records to be maintained, which allows academic study
to improve the understanding of a structure’s purpose and value.
Additionally, survey data is vital in the event of fire or other
destructive event 共Dallas et al. 1995兲.
Techniques commonly used for structural measurement in-
clude tape measurements combined with hand recording, and op-
tical methods, such as theodolite intersection 共Banister et al.
1998兲. In Europe especially, image-based methods such as recti-
fied photography and stereo-photogrammetry are well utilized.
High precision applications may use converging multistation pho-
togrammetric networks that allow precise point measurement and
rapid three-dimensional modeling on a standard desktop or laptop
PC. More recently active methods, including reflectorless elec-
tronic distance measurements 共EDM兲 and time-of-flight laser
scanning systems, have been developed. In particular, laser scan-
ning systems have potential to be used for structural recording,
because they rapidly produce large amounts of three-dimensional
1
PhD, Senior Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences,
Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
2
PhD, Post Doctoral Research Associate, School of Civil Engineering
and Geosciences, Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne,
UK.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2004. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on March 25, 2002; approved on August 30, 2002. This
paper is part of the Journal of Surveying Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 2,
May 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9453/2004/2-56 – 64/$18.00.
data without 共as is required in photogrammetry兲 the need for in-
termediate processing.
This paper outlines the use of photogrammetric and laser scan-
ning techniques in a real-world application: the survey of a his-
toric building façade. It gives both quantitative and qualitative
assessment of the instrumentation, methodologies, and collected
data. An introduction to the techniques will be given in the fol-
lowing sections with particular attention to the relatively new
technique of laser scanning. Results from the survey will then be
presented and discussed.
Overview of Terrestrial Photogrammetry
Three-dimensional measurements using photogrammetry are pos-
sible in two principle network configurations, stereo and multista-
tion 共Fig. 1兲. Stereo photogrammetry has been traditionally ap-
plied to topographic mapping using imagery from airborne
platforms 共Wolf and DeWitt 2000兲; however, it may also be used
in terrestrial applications when the viewing of stereopairs as
three-dimensional models may be useful for the interpretation of
data in addition to three-dimensional measurement. Commonly, a
film-based metric survey camera is used that incorporates a fixed-
focus low-distortion lens, film flattening, and other features to
improve the quality of measurement. Nowadays, measurement
can be performed using analytical plotting instruments or digital
photogrammetric workstations, the latter requiring the scanning
of the film negative, or the capture of imagery directly using a
digital camera. Digital systems allow semiautomated measure-
ment and the production of orthorectified photography, previously
difficult using analytical methods alone 共Bryan et al. 1999兲.
Multistation convergent networks 共Fig. 1兲 use more than two
images 共typically many more兲, allowing the use of superior net-
work design with a larger observation redundancy, thus improv-
ing accuracy, precision, and reliability 共Fraser 1996兲. The increase
in observation redundancy often permits this method to use non-
metric cameras, because self-calibration can be performed within
the adjustment procedure 共Fryer 1992兲. Commercial software
such as Photomodeler, 3D Builder, and Kodak Dimension 共Mills
et al. 2000兲 are just three low cost software packages that may be

56 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004

J. Surv. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 56-64


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universiti Teknologi Mara on 09/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Principle photogrammetric network configurations
used to perform this method of measurement. The development of
the internet now means that photogrammetric measurement may
even be made online 共Drap and Grussenmeyer 2000兲. Advances
in high-resolution digital cameras, which eliminate the need for
film processing and provide inherent image stability, complement
the use of multistation convergent networks by allowing an en-
tirely digital measurement workflow. Digital cameras also allow
greater flexibility in network planning, because there are fewer
restrictions on the number of images that can be captured as com-
pared to their film-based counterparts 共metric film cameras have a
reputation for being difficult to use, while digital cameras tend to
be based on simpler, more familiar, 35 mm SLR camera design兲.
Such developments have improved the efficiency of photogram-
metric measurement and made photogrammetry accessible to
nonspecialists.
Overview of Laser Scanning
Although laser scanning in a survey environment may be associ-
ated more with airborne applications such as terrain modeling for
flood risk assessments 共Wehr and Lohr 1999兲, terrestrial laser
scanners are also available. Terrestrial laser scanners operate on
one of three principles: triangulation, time-of-flight, or phase
comparison. Triangulation scanners record an object’s shape
using trigonometry. They generally use a Class 1 laser 共IEC 2001兲
to emit a point or stripe of laser light, and a charged coupled
device 共CCD兲, mounted at an offset to the laser source, to detect
the returning laser energy. In order to perform a measurement, a
triangle between the laser source, the point on the object where
the laser strikes the surface 共the object point兲, and the CCD de-
Fig. 2. Triangulation laser scanning
J. Surv. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 56-64
Fig. 3. Beam divergence 共O’Shea et al. 1977兲
tector is formed as illustrated in Fig. 2. A known baseline between
the laser source and detector and measurement of the interior
angles of the triangle allows the XY Z coordinate of the object
point to be calculated. Using a mirror, the laser can be deflected
over the object and multiple XY Z coordinates can be obtained.
Scanners of this type afford precise high-resolution measurement;
however, as the distance from the scanner to the object increases,
the angles become smaller and harder to measure and, conse-
quently, the measurement becomes less precise. In addition, as
range increases the visibility of the laser source decreases, further
limiting measurement precision. For these reasons, triangulation
systems are generally limited to short ranges, commonly less than
2 m, and are therefore inefficient for use on the large objects and
structures typically found in structural applications such as façade
measurement. It is, however, interesting to note that triangulation
scanners can provide measurement, in optimum configurations, to
better than 10 microns.
Scanners more relevant to large scale applications are time-of-
flight systems that measure range to an object point using timed
pulse or phase comparison methods. Timed pulse systems utilize
a pulsed diode laser, enabling them to operate at longer ranges
than triangulation systems. By measuring the time between the
emission of a pulse of laser energy and the detection of the re-
flected signal, the sensor to object distance can be calculated. This
technique of range measurement is similar to the method em-
ployed by the Distomat DI-3000 EDM instrument. Timed pulse
scanners can typically measure upwards of 1,000 points per sec-
ond with an accuracy from 6 to 100 mm, depending on the range
and system in question. There is an increasing number of models
available, with systems developed by Cyra Technogies Inc. 共Gor-
don et al. 2001兲, Callidus Precsion Systems GmbH 共Niebuhr
2001兲, and Riegl Laser Measurement Systems GmbH 共Ullrich
et al. 2001兲 operating on this principle.
Through the use of continuous wave 共CW兲 lasers, scanners
based on phase comparison allow increased rates of data capture
as compared to pulsed systems. For example, Zoller and Froehli-
ch’s LARA 25200 produces up to 625,000 points per second 共Zol-
ler and Fröhlich 2002兲. The principle uses the phase shift between
the transmitted and received wave to calculate the range to the
object point 共Heinz et al. 2001兲. This concept is analogous to
contemporary EDM equipment that also uses phase comparison
to determine range.
As laser energy is emitted from the laser it diverges, causing
the instantaneous field of view 共IFOV兲 of the laser to grow in size
in proportion to the range traveled. The angle of divergence for a
particular laser allows the size of beam to be calculated 共from
edge to edge兲 for a particular range. The edge of the beam is
normally taken to be the level where the intensity of the beam
drops below 37% 共Fig. 3兲. Divergence is normally quoted in mil-
liradians, allowing a simple estimation of the IFOV, or footprint,
of a particular beam; a beam with a divergence of 1 mrad grows
in diameter by 100 mm for every 100 m traveled.
JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 57
 In both timed pulse and CW-based systems, the laser is
scanned over the subject using either a rotating mirror, mechani-
cal movement of the laser source, or through a combination of the
two. The resolution, or horizontal and vertical spacing between
data points, is determined by the amount of movement of the
mirrors or the scanner assembly and the range at which the scan-
ner is operating. It is normal to use the same resolution in both the
horizontal and vertical axis in order to prevent bias in the descrip-
tion of horizontal or vertical features. For example, if a brick wall
is scanned with a higher resolution in the vertical axis, the hori-
zontal mortar joints are more likely to be recorded than the ver-
tical joints; without knowledge of the differing horizontal and
vertical resolutions, a user may believe this is a true representa-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universiti Teknologi Mara on 09/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion of the wall. However, in practice, especially with subjects
with large depth variations, it is difficult to get a homogeneous
resolution over an entire scan scene. This must be noted when
using and presenting scanner data.
Cartesian coordinates are calculated using the angle of deflec-
tion 共horizontal and vertical兲 and range to a single point observed
to by the scanner 共Wunderlich 2001兲. These coordinates are based
on an arbitrary reference frame with its origin at the scanner
location. One scan results in many points being measured and a
point or data ‘‘cloud’’ is the outcome. Scanning from different
positions may be required in order to overcome occlusions within
a scene; however, as each scan is referenced to an arbitrary coor-
dinate system, it is necessary to transform scan clouds into a
common reference frame before use. This process is known as
registration.
The registration of scan clouds involves determining the pa-
rameters of a three-dimensional transformation to rotate and
translate the scans to a single reference frame. A common method
used in the processing of data from triangulation scanners, but
equally applicable to data from time-of-flight systems, is the
matching of shapes using techniques such as the iterative closest
point algorithm 共Besl and Mckay 1992; Pulli 1999兲 where two or
more sets of scan data with overlapping coverage are mathemati-
cally compared to obtain the transformation parameters. How-
ever, in order to transform the data to a known reference system,
for example, a site coordinate system, a traditional transformation
is required involving the identification of control points and itera-
tive least squares estimation of the transformation parameters.
This is the method of registration often used by time-of-flight
systems, rather than shape matching, and normally involves the
use of targets to identify conjugate points. As error in the mea-
surement of a targeted point will affect the accuracy of the trans-
formation parameters, it also affects the absolute accuracy of the
transformed scan cloud; therefore, the accuracy of individual tar-
geted points are important even when only surface measurement,
rather than discrete point measurement, is of interest.
The ideal choice of target varies from scanner to scanner, but
methods of measurement are based on either intensity or shape.
Where systems allow the intensity of the reflected pulse to be
measured, highly reflective targets may be used. When control
points are scanned at a sufficiently high resolution, returning sig-
nals with high intensity can be identified as returns from the tar-
get. However, as reflective targets work poorly at acute angles,
such targets may restrict the geometry of the scanning network.
Where more flexibility is required, or when using systems that are
unable to record intensity, three-dimensional shape targets may be
used. These targets can be reduced to a single common point from
a scan of the target from any direction. For example, the data
cloud of a spherically shaped target can be used to recover the
parameters of the sphere 共i.e., location and size兲. The location of
58 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004
J. Surv. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 56-64
the sphere can then be used as a targeted point despite no direct
observation to that point. As the same point will be derived from
scanning any side of the spherical target, the scanning network is
more versatile as a result. In practice, a combination of intensity
and shape targets are often used.
Once registered, the preparation of measurements, drawings,
and models from the scan cloud can begin. Such information
extraction may involve algorithms to fit computer-aided design
共CAD兲 primitives, such as planes and cylinders, to the point data.
It may also involve using a meshed surface to produce contours,
sections, or rendered models. Such processing is generally carried
out using a manufacturer’s proprietary software and may then be
transferred to a commercial CAD package. Direct use of point
data in standard CAD packages or within standard survey soft-
ware is generally impractical due to the large amount of data in
question, although some software and CAD plugins do allow the
manipulation of scan clouds within CAD software.
Case Study: Survey of Hastings Tower, Ashby
Castle
The advantages of laser scanning as compared to existing tech-
niques stems from the high rate-of-capture and density of three-
dimensional data 共Boehler et al. 2001兲. Structural applications
previously unsuited to traditional taped measurements or photo-
grammetry, such as the recording of large statues and monuments,
may now be possible with laser scanning. Therefore, the compari-
son of scanning, especially with image-based survey is of great
interest to engineers who require structural survey information or
who perform structural monitoring. Quantitative assessment of
accuracy and precision is required to provide confidence in scan-
ner data, while qualitative judgments are useful for practitioners
wishing to make effective use of this new technique. Previous
tests to provide benchmark information performed by Lichti et al.
共2000兲 used reflective targets on a first-order EDM baseline and at
a high-precision dam-monitoring network. The project described
in this paper selected a complex architectural subject and col-
lected photogrammetric and laser scanner data in order to allow a
comparison of the two techniques.
The south façade of Hastings Tower, a partially ruined 15th
century structure, part of Ashby Castle located to the northeast of
Birmingham, U.K., was selected as a suitable site 共Fig. 4兲. This
provided a suitably stable and complex subject with various sur-
face textures 共including areas of smooth masonry and areas of
deteriorated stonework兲 and allowed testing of the scanner at
ranges up to 80 m.
Operating the scanner over longer distances has obvious ad-
vantages in terms of time 共and therefore cost兲. The test provided a
real-world application of the survey techniques, a fact that was
emphasized by the variety of weather conditions encountered at
the time of the survey 共heavy rain and winds, accompanied by
periods of bright sunshine兲. This was not a laboratory-controlled
experiment, a deliberate decision so as to provide a good descrip-
tion of the problems encountered in the normal survey environ-
ment.
Eighty retroreflective targets 共Beyer 1992兲 were attached to the
main façade of the tower. These were distributed mainly on the
lower portion of the façade, although some targets were placed at
higher levels where possible. The targets were designed to be
compatible with all the methodologies in the test 共this included
theodolite intersection and polar observations using a total sta-
tion兲, allowing the comparative analysis of techniques. The tar-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universiti Teknologi Mara on 09/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. South façade of Hastings Tower, Ashby Castle
gets were attached a day prior to measurement to allow the adhe-
sive to become firm, ensuring stability for the duration of the
survey.
A local site system was established for the test site with the
X-axis running from left to right along the façade, the Y-axis
perpendicular to the main face of the façade, and the Z-axis ver-
tical. Control observations were made using a total station, and
two photogrammetric networks, one stereo and one multistation,
were observed. These two networks used a film-based metric
camera and a nonmetric digital camera, respectively. Hastings
Tower was then scanned from four different scanner positions
共from three different ranges兲, with multiple scans made at each
location.
Terrestrial Survey
Horizontal and vertical angles were observed from two survey
stations that were positioned to allow favorable intersecting
angles, while simultaneously allowing line of sight to the majority
of the targets. A Leica TCRA1003 total station was used for all
observations; this instrument has 3 seconds of arc angular preci-
sion with a range measurement precision of ⫾2 mm⫹2 ppm to
reflective tape 共Leica 1998兲. Three rounds of angles were ob-
served from each station, and distance observations were also
made to each point allowing the target coordinates to be calcu-
lated using four methods, intersection from both stations, polar
observation from station 1, polar observation from station 2, and
Table 1. Average Standard Deviation 共1 Sigma兲 Taken from
STAR*NET Adjustment of Terrestrial Survey
Standard deviation 共mm兲
Method X Y Z
Intersection 0.5 2.0 1.0
Polar from station 1 1.1 3.0 1.1
Polar from station 2 1.1 2.0 2.0
Combination 0.2 1.0 1.0
J. Surv. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 56-64
Table 2. Average Standard Deviation 共1 Sigma兲 and Root-Mean-
Square 共RMS兲 Error of Analytical Photogrammetry Measurement
Standard deviation 共mm兲 RMS error 共mm兲
X Y Z X Y Z
2.4 11.9 2.7 2.3 9.9 2.2
a combination of the intersection and range observations. All pro-
cessing was performed using the STAR*NET least squares adjust-
ment package.
Network preanalysis using STAR*NET estimated a precision
of ⫾1 mm at the 1 sigma level for intersection observations, and
⫾2 mm for polar methods. Table 1 shows the average precision of
the targets for the four methods calculated using the STAR*NET
adjustment package. The average standard deviation of the coor-
dinates achieved using the intersection observations is better than
1 mm in X and equals 1 mm in Z. In Y, however, it is twice the
value estimated by the network preanalysis. As predicted by the
preanalysis, the polar measurements are of lower precision than
the intersection measurements, but are mostly below 2 mm. The
combination approach produces the best result, with all axes
achieving a standard deviation of 1 mm or better. Although the
precision of measurement did not quite meet the estimated preci-
sion due to errors in observation, these values indicate that the
data are suitable for use as control data.
Multistation Convergent Photogrammetry
A Kodak DCS660 camera was used to observe a 10-image mul-
tistation convergent photographic network. The DCS660 is part of
the Kodak DCS series of digital cameras 共Fraser and Shortis
1995; Shortis et al. 1998兲. It is a professional ‘‘off-the-shelf’’
camera incorporating a 3,040 by 2,008 CCD sensor, producing an
image containing over 6 million pixels. The retro-reflective tar-
gets were illuminated using a flashgun to produce highly signal-
ized points in the imagery and thereby permitting automated mea-
surement using centroiding algorithms 共Clarke et al. 1993兲. The
network was processed using a self-calibrating bundle adjustment
with internal constraints. 1,113 observations were used in the ad-
justment with a redundancy of over 800 observations; scale and
connection to the local site system was provided using measure-
ments from the terrestrial survey. All image measurement and
adjustment computations were performed using the Vision Me-
trology System 共VMS兲 共Robson and Shortis 1998兲. The average
standard deviation of the target coordinates estimated from the
covariance matrix of the least squares adjustment was 0.2, 0.4,
and 0.2 mm in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, respectively. In this case, as
with the terrestrial survey, the network was restricted to camera
stations in front of the façade. The precision of the measurement
in the Y-axis is therefore of slightly lower precision than the X-
and Z-axes; however, the relatively high precision of this method
共as compared with the terrestrial survey兲 allows it be used with
confidence as a comparative dataset for the assessment of the
stereo photogrammetry and laser scanning methodologies.
Stereo Photogrammetry
Stereo photography was captured using a Wild P32 metric cam-
era, with a camera to object distance of approximately 22 m,
providing an average photo scale of 1:350. Sixty-six targets were
visible in the stereopair, of which seven were used to orientate the
stereomodel using the coordinate values obtained from the bundle
JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 59
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universiti Teknologi Mara on 09/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Scan of Hastings Tower, shaded by intensity

Fig. 5. Riegl LMS Z210 scanner on site at Ashby Castle
adjustment. A trained photogrammetric operator then used a Zeiss
P3 first-order analytical plotter to measure the coordinates of the
remaining 59 targets. Measurement was repeated 10 times for
each point; Table 2 shows the average standard deviation of the
measurements and the root-mean-square 共RMS兲 error as com-
pared with the coordinate values from the bundle adjustment 共not
including the seven control points兲.
As with both the total station and bundle adjustment coordi-
nates, the Y-axis has the lowest precision. The parallax Eq. 共1兲 can
be used to evaluate the precision of measurement theoretically
possible in the Y-axis;
Laser Scanning
Laser scanning of Hastings Tower was performed using a Riegl
LMS Z210 scanner manufactured by Riegl Laser Measurement
Systems GmbH, Austria 共Riegl 2001兲. The system uses a timed
pulse method of range measurement, rotates mechanically in the
horizontal plane, and uses a rotating polygonal mirror to deflect
the beam in the vertical 共giving a system field of view of 333° by
80°兲. The quoted precision of angular measurement is ⫾0.018°
for the rotating mirror and ⫾0.036° for the mechanical move-
ment. Range precision is quoted as ⫾25 mm⫹20 ppm. With a
mean divergence of 3 mrad, the footprint of the laser energy is
150 mm at 50 m. A standard 12-volt car battery is used to power
the system and a laptop computer acts as a control and data stor-
age unit with the scanner itself normally mounted on a survey
tripod 共Fig. 5兲.

dh⫽dp 冉冊
d
b
sf (1)
Laser scanning was performed at 30 m 共Positions 1 and 4兲, 50
m 共Position 2兲, and 80 m 共Position 3兲 from the main face of the
facade. 共The two scans at 30 m were used to investigate how a
where dh⫽standard deviation of height measurement; slight change in the aspect of the scanner affects the results.兲 At
dp⫽precision of parallax measurement; d/b⫽base to distance each position, multiple scans were collected to allow an assess-
ratio; and s f ⫽scale factor of the photography. Rearranging Eq. ment of precision. The resolution of the scan varied depending on
共1兲 results in range, with a resolution of approximately 50 mm at 30 m, 100
dh mm at 50 m, and 150 mm at 80 m. Although the targets were only

冉冊
dp⫽ (2) 50 mm in diameter, the divergence of the laser beam meant that
d
sf returns from the targets were received at all three ranges. Targets
b were extracted from the scan data using the manufactures soft-
In this case, using the standard deviation of the depth 共Y-axis兲 ware, LPM-Scan, which uses a centroiding technique, similar to
measurement, the parallax value can be calculated as 8 ␮m. The target measurement in VMS, to extract features of high intensity
P3 should be capable of eliminating parallax up to 1 ␮m 共Zeiss 共Pfeifer and Rottensteiner 2001兲. Fig. 6 shows an image formed
1987兲, which would result in a theoretical precision of 1.4 mm for from the intensity of returns received from the tower at Position 1
measurements in the Y-axis. Use of Eq. 共2兲, therefore, indicates
that optimum precision has not been achieved. Although measure-
ment precision, in part, relies on the stereoscopic acuity of the
operator, it also depends upon target visibility and size. Targets
that are too large make it difficult to return to the same point each
time. Although the target design was considered a good compro-
mise for this test, the targets were required to be used with three
different methodologies and therefore the targets may have been
too large for optimal stereoscopic measurement. The RMS error
of all three axes is within the standard deviation of measurement
and shows that no systematic error was present in the measure-
Fig. 7. Standard deviation of range for targets extracted at Position 1
ments. The mean error in all these axes was less than 1 mm.

60 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004

J. Surv. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 56-64

 Fig. 8. Standard deviation of range for accepted targets extracted at
Position 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universiti Teknologi Mara on 09/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

共note the targets of high intensity on the lower area of the tower.兲
Fig. 7 shows the standard deviation of range measurement for all
targets at Position 1.
After data collection, outlier detection using the t-test was per-
formed in order to assess the quality of the data. However, despite
this process, it is clear from Fig. 7 that some targets show a low
precision of range measurement 共for example, target 174 has a
range standard deviation of over 0.5 m兲. In order to make an
effective assessment of the scanner, all targets with a standard
deviation outside the 99% probable error limit 共based on the
manufacturer’s standard deviation兲 were considered to be in error
and rejected. Five targets were removed from Position 1, with
three, four, and two targets removed from Positions 2, 3, and 4,
respectively. This procedure was applied to all four positions; Fig.
8 shows the standard deviation of range measurement for the
accepted targets at Position 1.
For all four positions, targets close to ground level and near
stonework edges with large relief changes were most likely to be
gross errors. It is noticeable that Position 4, the second at a range
of 30 m, had fewer gross errors than Position 1, also at 30 m. Fig.
9 details the location of targets in error at Positions 1 and 4.
Fig. 10 is an image formed from the repeated scans performed
at Position 1. The standard deviation of range measurement across
the scanned area is shown by the intensity of the pixel at that
location. Predictably, the trees located to the sides of the image
have a high standard deviation 共as the wind would move the trees
during scanning and they are at long range and relatively thin兲;
however, other areas of low precision occur at the edges of the
tower. The high standard deviation only occurs at edges where
large depth displacements occur, for example, between the tower
and the sky.
Fig. 10. Standard deviation of range for different areas of scan from
Position 1
Having rejected the outliers, the average precision of range
measurement was 7.2, 10.0, 10.5, and 8.7 mm for Positions 1– 4,
respectively. At each position, the target coordinates used to ori-
entate the stereo-photogrammetry were used to transform the re-
maining targets onto the local site coordinate system. The stan-
dard deviation and RMS error 共as compared to the
photogrammetric bundle adjustment兲 for each target is given in
Table 3.
At Position 1, the standard deviation of the X-axis is 9.4 mm,
and at Position 3 it is 14.4 mm. At Position 2, however, it is
approximately 60% larger than Position 3, despite the lower range
from 80 to 50 m. The Z-axis also has a higher standard deviation
at Position 2 than at Position 3. The Y-axis is the axis of lowest
precision for all four locations and becomes less precise as range
increases. Both Positions 1 and 4, both at 30 m, show a similar
precision of approximately 6.0, 16.0, and 7.5 mm in X, Y, and Z,
respectively. The RMS error of Positions 1 and 4 in the X and Y
axes is within the precision of the measurements; however, at
both positions the RMS error value for the Z-axis exceeds the
standard deviation. The RMS error exceeds the precision of mea-
surement in the Z-axis at all four positions. All RMS error values
for the Y-axis are within the standard deviation of measurement.
Discussion
Terrestrial Survey
Traditionally, discrete point measurement has involved the tech-
nique of intersection, particularly for provision of photogrammet-
ric control and monitoring applications. Polar positioning to one
reflective target has been possible for a number of years, and
recently reflectorless total stations have allowed measurement to
nonsignalized points. The results of the terrestrial measurements
demonstrate the precision of both intersection and polar measure-

Table 3. Average Standard Deviation 共1 Sigma兲 and Root-Mean-

Square 共RMS兲 Error of Laser Scanning
Standard deviation 共mm兲 RMS error 共mm兲
Range
Position 共m兲 X Y Z X Y Z
1 30 9.4 15.6 6.9 6.1 11.7 7.4
2 50 22.6 28.3 19.4 16.9 13.2 21.9
3 80 14.4 36.0 17.5 30.8 23.0 21.7
Fig. 9. Location of removed points at Positions 1 and 4 4 30 8.4 15.6 8.3 5.5 7.7 14.5

JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 61

J. Surv. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 56-64

 Fig. 11. Multipath effect in laser scanning
ments; the best result was achieved by a combined approach
using angles and distances from both survey stations. Although
the choice of intersection or polar measurement depends on the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universiti Teknologi Mara on 09/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
required measurement precision, the results achieved in this test
argue for the use of polar measurement with its obvious advan-
tage of speed and comparable precision to intersection methods.
However, it should be stressed that the lack of observation redun-
dancy in this method requires care in the planning and execution
of measurement to avoid data integrity problems, such as having
insufficient observations to position a particular point.
Photogrammetry
The bundle adjustment results obtained in this test demonstrate
the ability of photogrammetry to determine high-precision object
coordinates of discrete points. The high precision of the solution
has allowed this method to be adopted as a standard with which
the laser scanning and stereo-photogrammetry could be com-
pared. The more conventional method of stereoscopic measure-
ment highlighted the lower precision of stereo-photogrammetry in
the depth axis; this must be properly considered when planning a
photogrammetric survey that is to meet project tolerances.
Laser Scanning: Target Precision
By applying the special law of the propagation of variances 共Wolf
and Gillihani 1997兲 to the laser scanning instrument variances
quoted by the manufacturer, a value of 18 mm in each axis of
measurement can be calculated for scans performed at Position 1.
The observed results for the X-axis show a standard deviation of
half that value, approximately 9 mm in each axis. The Y-axis also
has a precision of less than 18 mm. This may be attributed to the
method used to reduce the scan data to a single targeted point; a
weighted average used to extract the high intensity targets from
the scan data may have improved the measurement precision of
an individual point. More surprisingly, given the angular resolu-
tion of the vertical mirror as compared to the horizontal, the stan-
dard deviation for the Z-axis is much better than expected. Con-
sultation with the manufacturer suggested this effect is due to the
variation of energy over the IFOV of the laser; in general, the
variation of energy in a beam of laser energy is not an even
distribution 共Hecht 1998; Riegl, personal communication, 2001兲.
In the case of the Riegl LMS Z210, the variation of energy is less
significant in the vertical axis than the horizontal; this has resulted
in a higher precision in the Z-axis despite the instrument having a
lower angular resolution in this direction.
Laser Scanning: Target Errors
Two effects may explain the cause and location of the targets
removed from the assessment due to their low range precision.
The first is a multipath effect 共Runne et al. 2001兲, more com-
monly associated with global positioning system applications,
62 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004
J. Surv. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 56-64
Fig. 12. Mixed-pixels effect in laser scanning
where the apparent range to the target has been increased due to
reflections on the surrounding stonework 共Fig. 11兲. A second ef-
fect is that of mixed pixels, where the reflected energy from a
single pulse is received from two surfaces separated by a large
distance 共Fig. 12兲. Mixed pixels 共Hancock et al. 1998兲 are more
likely to occur in scanners with a large IFOV 共lasers with a large
angle of divergence兲 and with points located close to edges with
large depth separations. The points removed from the assessment
could be attributed to either multipath or mixed pixels; additional
work would be required to investigate this further. It is interesting
to note that the second 30 m position, which was located 4 m to
the left of the first 30 m position, had only two targets removed.
This suggests that errors in target measurement can be reduced
via proper positioning of both the targets and scanner. Fig. 10
shows the standard, for the whole scanned scene, at Position 1,
and highlights the repeatability of range measurements to nontar-
geted points. Edges with a large depth displacement show the
highest standard deviations; possibly indicating that the mixed-
pixel effect is the cause.
Methodology for Recording
Although measurement accuracy is an important part in the selec-
tion and adoption of a particular survey method, its ability to
supply an appropriate result quickly and efficiently must also be
considered.
Image capture for photogrammetry can be difficult for the in-
experienced, as use of metric cameras requires careful planning of
camera stations and targeting networks. Although high resolution
digital sensors are currently available, they are expensive and
generally nonmetric in design; therefore, the majority of photo-
grammetric survey in architectural recording is performed using
film. Suitable lighting conditions are required for good quality
photography, and not all locations will easily allow stereo-
coverage to be achieved; for example, its use in small restricted
areas may not be suitable. In addition to a development process,
scanning of the film may be required to allow the use of digital
photogrammetric workstations. These stages must be completed
before measurement can begin and further expand the photogram-
metric work flow. Furthermore, the use of stereo models from
which to plot detail is a specialist skill requiring training and
experience to ensure high quality products are delivered.
Despite limitations, the use of photogrammetry for the produc-
tion of vector drawings is an established technique, particularly in
Europe, and is capable of producing three-dimensional line draw-
ings with a very high level of detail. Good quality metric photog-
raphy alone is a valuable product for the assessment of building
condition, or as the basis for historical research and analysis.
Photogrammetry also allows products in addition to traditional
line drawings. The collection of the surface models, collected
through automated or semiautomated photogrammetric methods,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universiti Teknologi Mara on 09/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Orthophoto of wall end section, Hastings Tower, Ashby
Castle 共produced with LH Systems SOCET SET兲
allows the investigation of important details in the topography of
an object such as tool marks or areas of weathering. The collec-
tion of a surface model allows the production of orthophotogra-
phy. Orthophotographs are images that have been transformed
from the perspective projection of a photograph to an ortho-
graphic projection used on a map or plan. The surface model is
used to remove distortions due to changes in relief. Fig. 13 shows
an orthophotograph of part of the wall end section at Hastings
Tower, produced using LH systems SOCET SET photogrammet-
ric workstation. This scaled image could be used as the basis for
additional survey work with observations on key points of con-
struction, or with important details of deterioration added by an
appropriate specialist.
For simple point measurement, for example, in the monitoring
of stonework, the multistation convergent network could be used.
It would also be possible to produce simple vector detail to
supplement reports and presentations. Although this method of
photogrammetry requires network planning, it is less restrictive as
compared to stereo photogrammetry. However, as multistation
convergent networks are generally used with nonmetric or semi-
metric cameras, the image quality can be lower than that pro-
duced by a metric camera. The quality of an image for archive
purposes may be an important issue for some projects.
The products that could be produced from scan data in this
application rely upon modeling the scan cloud as a meshed
model. Fig. 14 shows a meshed model of the scan data, collected
at 30 m, produced using Cyra’s Cyclone software. Large gaps are
visible in areas occluded from the scanning location, and further
scans would obviously be required to fully record this subject.
共This may be difficult in some areas due to restrictions of access,
for example at high levels, although this would also be difficult
for other techniques such as photogrammetry兲. From this model,
sections may be taken to show the building profile at different
levels. The relatively small amount of effort required to produce
this model is in stark comparison to the large amount of work
required in obtaining this type of data by any other means. How-
ever, the use of this data in a traditional sense, for example, in
J. Surv. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 56-64
Fig. 14. Meshed model of Hastings Tower 共produced using Cyra
Technologies Cyclone 3.0 software兲
paper plans and drawings, is difficult, as the scan data loses much
of its value when not viewed in three dimensions. The production
of suitable deliverables is set to become an important part of laser
scanning for structural survey.
Conclusion
The methodologies used to perform structural survey are of great
interest to engineering surveyors where the efficient use of tech-
niques and instrumentation is a main priority, especially in the
specification and planning stages. The tests described here have
compared the established methods of terrestrial survey and pho-
togrammetry with the relatively new technique of laser scanning.
The analytical photogrammetric measurement achieved a pre-
cision of 2.4, 11.9, and 2.7 mm in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, respec-
tively, for the measurement of targeted points, while a multista-
tion convergent solution achieved a precision of 0.2, 0.4, and 0.2
mm in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, respectively, demonstrating the
advantage of this technique in applications where high precision
is required. The laser scan data collected at 30 m by the Riegl
LMS Z210 scanner has shown that a precision of 9.4, 15.6, and
6.9 mm in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, respectively, is achievable for
the measurement of targeted points, and the values are compa-
rable with the analytical photogrammetric measurement. How-
ever, gross errors in the measurement of some targets as com-
pared with the other techniques and analysis on the repeatability
of scans has highlighted the effect of mixed pixels on scanner
data with errors occurring at edges with large depth displace-
ments. Although in this test targets in error could be identified by
their low range precision, it is possible other situations would not
allow this, and the target’s coordinate would be recorded with a
suitable precision but also contain a large systematic error. Care-
ful planning of target and scanner positions can reduce this prob-
lem; however, it would be wise not to overlook other established
techniques. It is recommended that further work should concen-
trate upon improving the ability of scan data to precisely record
edges, possibly by augmenting laser scanning with other survey
JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 63
 observations. New procedures and processes taking advantage of
the strengths of each survey methodology should be developed to
efficiently perform structural surveying and recording in the fu-
ture. Benefits including improved precision through redundant
observations and reduced costs from time saved by efficient use
of methodologies will be seen by practitioners and clients alike.
Acknowledgments
The writers greatly appreciate the support and cooperation of En-
glish Heritage and the staff at Ashby de la Zouch Castle, Birming-
ham, U.K.; 3D Laser Mapping Ltd. of Nottingham, U.K.; Riegl
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universiti Teknologi Mara on 09/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Laser Measurement Systems, Austria; and Cyra Technologies Inc.
Thanks also to Stuart Robson and Mark Shortis for the use of the
Vision Measurement System. This research was carried out with
the funding of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council 共EPSRC兲, U.K., studentship award 99802980.
References
Bannister, A., Raymond, S., and Baker, R. 共1998兲. Surveying, Addison-
Wesley, New York.
Besl, P., and McKay, N. D. 共1992兲. ‘‘A method for the registration of 3D
shapes.’’ IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 14共2兲, 239–256.
Beyer, H. 共1992兲. ‘‘Advances in characterization and calibration of digital
imaging systems.’’ International Archives of Photogrammetry and Re-
mote Sensing: Proc., 17th ISPRS Congress, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
545–555.
Boehler, W., Heinz, G., and Marbs, A. 共2001兲. ‘‘The potential of non-
contact close range laser scanners for cultural heritage recording.’’
Proc., CIPA Symposium, Potsdam, Germany, in press.
Bryan, P. G., Corner, I., and Stevens, D. 共1999兲. ‘‘Digital rectification
techniques for architectural and archaeological presentation.’’ Photo-
gramm. Rec., 16共93兲, 399– 415.
Clarke, T. A., Cooper, M. A. R., and Fryer, J. G. 共1993兲. ‘‘An estimator
for the random error in sub pixel target location and its use in the
bundle adjustment.’’ Proc., Optical 3D Measurement Techniques II, A.
Gruen and H. Kahmen, eds., 161–168.
Dallas, R. W. A., Kerr, J. B., Lunnon, S., and Bryan, P. G. 共1995兲. ‘‘Wind-
sor Castle: photogrammetric and archaeological recording after the
fire.’’ Photogramm. Rec., 15共86兲, 225–240.
Drap, P., and Grussenmeyer, P. 共2000兲. ‘‘A digital workstation on the
web.’’ ISPRS J. Photogram. Remote Sensing, 55, 48 –58.
Fraser, C. S. 共1996兲. ‘‘Chapter 9: Network design.’’ Close range photo-
grammetry and machine vision, K. Atkinson, ed., Whittles, Caithness,
U.K., 256 –279.
Fraser, C. S., and Shortis, M. R. 共1995兲. ‘‘Metric exploitation of still
video imagery.’’ Photogramm. Rec., 15共85兲, 107–122.
Fryer, J. G. 共1992兲. ‘‘Recent developments in camera calibration.’’ Int.
Arch. Photogram. Remote Sensing, 29共5兲, 594 –599.
Gordon, S., Lichti, D., and Stewart, M. 共2001兲. ‘‘Application of a high-
resolution, ground-based laser scanner for deformation measure-
ments.’’ Proc., 10th FIG Int. Symp. on Deformation Measurements,
Orange, Calif., 23–32.
Hancock, J., et al. 共1998兲. ‘‘Active laser radar for high performance mea-
surements.’’ Proc., IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, In-
64 / JOURNAL OF SURVEYING ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004
J. Surv. Eng., 2004, 130(2): 56-64
stitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1465–1470.
Hecht, E. 共1998兲. Optics, 3rd Ed., Addison-Wesley, New York.
Heinz, I., Mettenleitter, M., Hartl, T., Froehlich, C., and Langer, D.
共2001兲. ‘‘3D ladar for inspection of real world environments.’’ Proc.,
Optical 3D Measurement Techniques V, A. Gruen and H. Kahmen,
eds., 10–17.
International Electrotechnical Commission 共IEC兲. 共2001兲. ‘‘Radiation
safety of laser products, equipment classification, requirements and
user’s guide.’’ Rep. 60825-1(2001-08) Ed 1.2, 2001, Geneva.
Leica Geosystems AG. 共1998兲. Leica TPS1100—user’s manual 1.0.0en,
Heerbrug, Switzerland.
Lichti, D. D., Stewart, M. P., Tsakiri, M., and Snow, A. J. 共2000兲. ‘‘Cali-
bration and testing of a terrestrial laser scanner.’’ Int. Arch. Photo-
gram. Remote Sensing, 33共B5兲, 485– 492.
Mills, J. P., Peirson, G. C., Newton, I., and Byran, P. G. 共2000兲. ‘‘Photo-
grammetric investigation into the suitability of desktop image mea-
surement software for architectural recording.’’ Int. Arch. Photogram.
Remote Sensing, 33共B5兲, 525–532.
Niebuhr, E. 共2001兲. ‘‘From the point to the surface—the Callidus tech-
nology in theory and practice.’’ Proc., Optical 3D Measurement Tech-
niques V, A. Gruen and H. Kahmen, eds., 26 –32.
O’Shea, D. C., Callen, W. R., and Rhodes, W. T. 共1997兲. Introduction to
lasers and their applications, Addison-Wesley, New York.
Pfeifer, N., and Rottensteiner, G. 共2001兲. ‘‘The Riegl laser scanner for the
survey of the interior of Schoenbrunn Palace.’’ Proc., Optical 3D
Measurement Techniques V, A. Gruen and H. Kahmen, eds., 18 –25.
Pulli, K. 共1999兲. ‘‘Multiview registration for large data sets.’’ Proc., 2nd
Int. Conf. on 3D Digital Imaging and Modeling (3DIM’99), Ottawa,
160–168.
Riegl. 共2001兲. ‘‘Product specification for the Riegl LMS Z210 laser scan-
ner.’’ 具http://www.riegl.com/lms-z210/eគlms-z210.htm#data典 共Jan. 30,
2002兲.
Robson, S., and Shortis, M. R. 共1998兲. ‘‘Practical influences of geometric
and radiometric image quality.’’ Photogramm. Rec., 16共92兲, 225–249.
Runne, H., Niemeier, W., and Kern, F. 共2001兲. ‘‘Application of laser
scanners to determine the geometry of buildings.’’ Proc., Optical 3D
Measurement Techniques V, A. Gruen and H. Kahmen, eds., 41– 48.
Shortis, M. R., Robson, S., and Beyer, H. A. 共1998兲. ‘‘Principal point
behavior and calibration parameter models for Kodak DCS cameras.’’
Photogramm. Rec., 16共92兲, 165–186.
Ullrich, A., Reichert, R., Schwarz, R., and Riegl, J. 共2001兲. ‘‘Time-of-
flight based 3D imaging sensor with true color channel for automated
texturing.’’ Proc., Optical 3D Measurement Techniques V, A. Gruen
and H. Kahmen, eds., 2–9.
Wehr, A., and Lohr, U. 共1999兲. ‘‘Airborne laser scanning—an introduc-
tion and overview.’’ ISPRS J. Photogram. Remote Sensing, 54, 68 –
82.
Wolf, P., and Dewit, B. 共2000兲. Elements of photogrammetry, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Wolf, P. R., and Ghilani, C. D. 共1997兲. Adjustment computations, Wiley,
New York.
Wunderlich, T. A. 共2001兲. ‘‘Operational and economic prospects of ter-
restrial laser scanning.’’ Proc., Optical 3D Measurement Techniques
V, A. Gruen and H. Kahmen, eds., 18 –25.
Zeiss. 共1987兲. Zeiss P3 Planicomp P-Series analytical workstation speci-
fications: Rev. 10/87, Thornwood, N.Y.
Zoller and Fröhlich. 共2002兲. ‘‘Z⫹F: wire harness, automation, laser mea-
surement technology.’’ 具http://www.zofre.de/ehome.htm典 共Jan. 30,
2002兲.