Measurement 153 (2020) 107386

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Applying unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry for measuring

dimension of structural elements in traditional timber building
Gi Young Jeong ⇑, Tan No Nguyen, Dang Khai Tran, Thi Bich Huyen Hoang
Department of Wood Science and Engineering, Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbongro Bukgu, Gwangju 500-757, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The goal of this study is to evaluate the application of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry to
Received 7 May 2019 reconstruct a 3D model for dimensional measurements of traditional timber buildings. To evaluate the
Received in revised form 25 November 2019 reliability of UAV photogrammetry, the dimensional measurements of a sample timber building from
Accepted 11 December 2019
electronic distance measurement and measuring tape methods are compared to the results from UAV
Available online 17 December 2019
photogrammetry. To calibrate UAV photogrammetry parameters such as image shooting rate, camera
angle, flight speed, and flight height, different variations of these parameters are applied. The best recon-
Keywords:
struction for a timber structure is found at an image shooting rate of 2 s, flight speed of 1 m/s, and a cam-
Unmanned aerial vehicle
3D modeling
era angle of 45 degrees. Using these parameters, the structural elements of a traditional timber building
Aerial photogrammetry are measured. Differences in the dimensional measurements of the columns and beams between the con-
Point cloud ventional methods and UAV photogrammetry ranges from 0.21% to 0.91%.
Traditional timber building Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Traditional timber buildings are part of the cultural heritage
and have been preserved to retain the history of the country and
the ancestors in South Korea. Due to their unique structural and
architectural features, traditional timber buildings make priceless
contributions to the current and future generations. These features
reflect the cultural diversity of the past generations. However, the
cultural value of traditional timber buildings have been threatened
by unexpected loads and damage, such as earthquakes, wind [1–3]
and wood deterioration due to insect and/or fungi attack [4,5]. To
preserve traditional timber buildings, hands-on measurements of
structural elements using a measuring tape (MT) and electronic
distance measurements (EDM) are commonly used. From the
geometric information provided by the conventional approaches,
2-dimensional (2D) have been constructed for traditional timber
buildings to help maintain the buildings.
Obtaining geometric information from traditional timber build-
ings using hands-on measurements with MTs requires a significant
amount of time and may put the inspector in danger when higher
locations in the building are measured. EDMs needs reference
target points attached to the surface of the building, which influ-
ences the aesthetic features of the building. The stages used for
EDM are on the ground level, so it is difficult to measure the roof
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gjeong1@jnu.ac.kr (G.Y. Jeong).
area and sometimes the targeted structural elements are blocked
by other structural elements. Surface conditions of the structural
elements, such as cracks or gaps, and undulated surfaces, may
influence the EDMs. Sometimes, structures around the target
building prevent the application of EDM.
To overcome the limitations of conventional approaches,
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry approaches were
considered in this study. UAV, equipped with a high-resolution
camera, allows for the rapid inspection of the entire structure, an
advantage over the conventional approaches that are restricted
to higher parts of the structures and are time-consuming for
large-scale sites. Over the past years, UAV has been used to survey
various structures [6–13]. Agera-Vega et al. [6] investigated
extreme topography near roads using UAV photogrammetry.
Erenoglu et al. [7] studied a cultural heritage site using different
camera systems including digital, thermal, and multi-spectral
cameras. Deterioration of the structure was found using the ther-
mal camera and inappropriate preservation of the structure was
observed by the multi-spectral cameras. Metni and Hamel [8]
investigated the cracks in a bridge using UAV. D’Oleire-Oltmanns
et al. [9] investigated soil erosion using UAV photogrammetry
and satellite image photogrammetry. From the results, they pro-
posed that multi-scale mapping for soil erosion can be achieved
using UAV photogrammetry. Li et al. [10] reported using UAV pho-
togrammetry on large-scale urban buildings. Buffi et al. [11]
applied UAV photogrammetry to survey the Ridracoli dam. Zhang
et al. [12] investigated power lines along power towers using

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.107386
0263-2241/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386
UAV photogrammetry. Chiabrando et al. [13] applied UAV
photogrammetry for an archeological site survey.
With the feasibility of UAV photogrammetry demonstrated for
various survey applications, many researchers have applied UAV
photogrammetry to historic buildings [14–19]. Püschel et al. [14]
applied UAV photogrammetry to reconstruct the Landenberg
Castle. To reconstruct a 3D model, appropriate images that
completely cover the building must be acquired. A 3D reconstruc-
tion for a building was conducted using the camera calibration
parameters of focal length, principle point coordinates, and radial
distortion values.
Murtiyoso et al. [15] surveyed two different historical buildings
a part of the Rohan Palace and St-Pierre-le-Jeune Catholic Church
using UAV photogrammetry. Calibration for the photogrammetry
application was conducted using two different UAVs, four different
software, and flight planning. The DJI Phantom 3 professional and
Albris UAVs were used. The DJI Phantom 3 was equipped with a
6.5 x5 mm camera sensor. The Albris was equipped with a
10
7.5 mm camera sensor. Due to the small size of the sensor,
internal geometry and feature matching were altered by move-
ments and image quality. Four different software, including Agisoft
Photoscan (PS), Pix4D (P4D), Photomodeler (PM), and Micmac
(MM) were investigated for image matching. The results from PS
and P4D showed less noisy point clouds compared to the other
two. With different distances for the Albris (8 m) and for the Phan-
tom 3 (10–15 m) between the façade and the camera, the errors
from aerotrianglulation were 7 mm for the Albris and 14 mm for
the Phantom 3.
Nony et al. [16] discussed an effective way to apply photogram-
metry to cultural heritage structures. They suggested that the
camera and lenses parameters should be known to obtain image
orientation. To avoid holes in the 3D model, each image should
overlap by about 20%. They also pointed out that reference images
should be used to match with multi-image correlation procedures
to avoid possible mismatched areas.
Fritsch et al. [17] explained the detail procedures for the use of
an image-based 3D model for a structure in Rotebühlbau, Stuttgart.
To reconstruct the façade of the building, images were taken every
1.5 m at a distance of 14.5 m from the camera to obtain 87% over-
lapping. After the lens distortion and orientation were calibrated,
image-matching was conducted. Grammar-based façade modeling
was conducted from the integrated point clouds from the pho-
togrammetry and laser scanning after post-processing the point
clouds for windows, doors, and protrusions.
Barsanti et al. [18] described surveying procedures for different
cultural heritage sites, including an archeological site, a historic
building, inside of a tomb, cultural statues. They compared two
survey techniques, photogrammetry and laser scanning, to
measure these cultural heritage sites. The two different method-
ologies displayed similar accuracies. In a comparison of the time
required for data acquisition and modeling, photogrammetry had
the advantage over laser scanning. While the application of pho-
togrammetry to the survey of cultural heritage sites is independent
of the distance between the object and the camera, the dimension
of the object, and the surface of the material, the laser scanning
method are not.
Alidoost and Arefi [19] applied UAV photogrammetry to
reconstructed two historic buildings in Germany and the specific
workflow for UAV photogrammetry was reported. The first step
was the measurement of the camera position, the second step
was to generate point cloud generation, and the third step was aer-
ial triangulation to construct a 3D model. The measured spatial
error ranged from 0.46 cm to 0.5 cm in the 3D reconstructed
model.
Although aerial photogrammetric methods from the previous
studies for various applications showed a high potential, the
application of reliable and accurate aerial photogrammetric
methods for the inspection of structures is still under development
[20–27].
The goal of this study was to establish a procedure to apply UAV
photogrammetry to investigate traditional timber structure. The
first part of this study involved calibrating UAV photogrammetry
parameters. Different arrangements of the parameters including
the image shooting rate, camera angle, flight speed, and flight
height were applied for the 3D reconstruction of a sample timber
building. The second part of this study was to measure the
dimensions of structural members in a traditional timber building
using the calibrated UAV photogrammetry. The 3D point cloud
data obtained from the photogrammetric technique were then
applied to a 3D computer-aided design (CAD) program for the
dimensional measurement of the structure.
2. Experimental
2.1. Construction a sample building to calibrate UAV photogrammetry
parameters
To calibrate the UAV parameters for the dimensional measure-
ment of a timber building, a timber frame building was
constructed (Fig. 1). The timber building was composed of four col-
umns in the front and back and two columns on the left and right.
The size of the building was 4843 mm in length, 2542 mm in
depth, and 3065 mm in height. The sizes of the column, beams,
and rafters were 38 mm in width and 89 mm in depth. Fig. 1b
shows the floor plan for the sample timber building to calibrate
the UAV photogrammetry parameters, where C indicates columns
and the subscript indicates the column number. Fig. 1c, 1d, 1e, and
1f show the front, back, left, and right elevations showing columns
and beams. Bi was used to indicate the beams and subscript
indicates the beam number.
2.1.1. Measurement of structural elements using conventional
methods
To validate the measurement of structural elements of a timber
building using UAV photogrammetry, two additional approaches,
EDM and MT, were conducted. Fig. 2 shows the EDM and MT
approaches to measuring the dimensions of the structural
elements in a sample timber building used to validate the UAV
photogrammetry calibration. For EDM, ‘‘total station M3 DR 2’’
was applied with a distance precision of ± (3 + 2 ppm
D) mm,
where D was the distance between the instrument station and
the measured point. The instrument station was set up with an
artificial target on each side (Fig. 2a). To measure the target points,
EDM was calibrated with the initial reference orientation of the
azimuth angle set to zero (Fig. 2b). A cross-line laser level was
applied to guide the same level for the target points. For target
points, paper prisms were used. The first and second target points
for each column were marked using paper prisms in the lower and
upper part of the columns. To measure the distance between the
two target points, the reflectorless mode was used.
EDM and MT methods were used to measure the distance
between the bottom of a column and the first target point (H1)
and the length of two target points marked on each column (H2).
The length of a beam (LB) was considered as the distance of the
two first target points of two columns.
The distance between two target points using EDM was
obtained from Eq. (1).
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Di ¼ ðX i  X i1 Þ2 þ ðY i  Y i1 Þ2 þ ðZ i  Z i1 Þ2 ð1Þ
where Di = distance between two points, and Xi, Yi, Zi = coordinates
of point i.
 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386 3

a) A timber building for calibration of the UAV method b) Floor plan

c) Front elevation d) Back elevation

e) left elevation f) right elevation

Fig. 1. A sample timber building showing different sides for UAV photogrammetry calibration.

2.1.2. Calibrating UAV photogrammetry for the accurate measurement
of structural elements of a sample building
To calibrate UAV photogrammetry for measuring the dimen-
sions of the sample building, an Inspire 1 professional drone
equipped with a 16-megapixel Zenmuse X5R camera and 15 mm
focal length was used. Different image shooting rates, camera
angles, flight speeds, and flight heights were used for the UAV pho-
togrammetry calibration (Table 1). To calibrate the image shooting
rate, image shooting rates of 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 s were applied at a
camera angle of 45-degrees, flight speed of 1 m/s, and flight heights
of 6 m. For camera angle calibration, camera angles of 30, 45, 60
degrees were applied at an image shooting rate of 2 s, a flight speed
of 1 m/s, and flight height of 6 m. For flight speed calibration, flight
speeds of 1.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.8 were applied at an image shooting
rate of 2 s, a camera angle of 45 degrees, and a flight height of
6 m. For flight height calibration, flight heights of 6, 8, 10, and
12 m were applied at an image shooting rate of 2 s, a camera angle
of 45-degrees, and flight speed of 1 m/s.
After acquiring images of the sample building with different
image shooting rate, camera angle, flight speed, and flight height
parameters. 3D models for the sample building were constructed
using Pix4Dmapper v4.3.31 (Pix4D S.A., Lausanne, Switzerland).
4 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386

a) The location of four different instrument stations on the site

b) EDM approach for measuring the column and beam dimensions

Fig. 2. EDM and MT approaches for measuring the column and beam dimensions in a sample building for the calibration.

Fig. 3 shows the process for the 3D virtual reconstruction of the processing was conducted. Image processing included creating
sample building. To reconstruct a 3D model, 2D aerial images were key points in the initial processing based on thousands of common
uploaded using an image acquisition setting that included image points between the 2D images. 3D points were then generated by
geolocation, camera calibration was performed, and image matching the key points. The next steps were to generate the point
 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386 5

Table 1
Different calibration parameters for UAV photogrammetry used to measure the structural elements of the sample building.

Test ID Image shooting rate (second) Camera angle (degree) Flight speed (m/s) Flight height (m)
a) Image shooting rates vs. other parameters to measure the dimensions of structural elements
R2-A45-S1-H6 2 45 1 6
R3-A45-S1-H6 3 45 1 6
R5-A45-S1-H6 5 45 1 6
R7-A45-S1-H6 7 45 1 6
R10-A45-S1-H6 10 45 1 6
b) Camera angle vs. other parameters to measure the dimensions of structural elements
R2-A30-S1-H6 2 30 1 6
R2-A45-S1-H6 2 45 1 6
R2-A60-S1-H6 2 60 1 6
c) Flight speed vs. other parameters to measure the dimensions of structural elements
R2-A45-S1.0-H6 2 45 1.0 6
R2-A45-S2.5-H6 2 45 2.5 6
R2-A45-S3.0-H6 2 45 3.0 6
R2-A45-S3.8-H6 2 45 3.8 6
d) Flight height vs. other parameters to measure the dimensions of structural elements
R2-A45-S1-H6 2 45 1 6
R2-A45-S1-H8 2 45 1 8
R2-A45-S1-H10 2 45 1 10
R2-A45-S1-H12 2 45 1 12

R = image shooting rate.

A = camera angle.
S = flight speed.
H = flight height.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram for constructing a 3D model for the sample building using Pix4Dmapper.

cloud, 3D textured mesh, a digital surface model (DSM), an ortho- measured using the UAV, MT or EDM methods were obtained using
mosaic, and index for the optimized 3D model of the traditional Eq. (2).
timber building.
Fig. 4 shows the polyline function in Raycloud of Pix4Dmapper ðUAV value - EDM valueÞ
to obtain the target point coordinates based on a manual tie point Diff:ð%Þ ¼
100% ð2Þ
EDM value
marked by the user. The lengths of two target points on each
column and the length of the beams were obtained using Eq. (1).
The dimensional differences between the structural elements
2.2. Applying UAV photogrammetry for measuring dimension
of a traditional timber building

For the preservation of cultural heritage in traditional timber

Fig. 4. Measuring the length of two target points using polyline in Raycloud of
Pix4Dmapper.
building, Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon, treasure no.1310 in Naju pro-
vince, South Korea (Fig. 5) was employed in this study. This timber
structure was reconstructed in 1808. Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon
highlighted the popular style of traditional timber building in the
late Jeongjo dynasty. Natural stones were used to build the founda-
tion of this building. It was constructed with three ‘‘kan” on each
side. A ‘‘kan” is defined as a unit of measure related to the space
between two columns. All columns were supported by large-
sized natural stones. There were two transverse beams mounted
on the top of columns. In addition, a carved dragon head in wood -
was installed on the two central columns in the front elevation and
the corner of the building. Fig. 5 shows the floor plan, front, back,
right, and left side drawings for Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon and a list
of the columns and beams. The letter C and subscript numbers
6 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386

a) Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon b) Floor plane

c) Front elevation d) Back elevation

e) Right elevation f) Left elevation

Fig. 5. UAV photogrammetry was applied to the structural elements in a target timber building (Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon). a) The Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon building, b) floor
plan, c) front, d) back, e) right, and f) left side drawings.

indicate columns and column numbers, respectively. B and sub-
script numbers indicate beams and beam numbers, respectively.
Fig. 6 shows the conversion of 3D point cloud data in the
photogrammetry into Autodesk products for measuring the
dimensions of the structure. Based on the quality report of the pho-
togrammetric method, the data demonstrated high image quality
with sufficient visual content of the structure. The 3D model of
Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon was constructed from 121 calibrated
images (100%) for four hours of data processing. With 39,205 key
points (more than 10,000 key points) extracted per image, a high
number of 18608.5 matched computed points per calibrated image
were obtained. The camera calibration process was assessed at
2.86% (less than 5%) relative difference between the initial and
optimized internal camera parameters. Large amounts of 3D point
cloud data in .las file format from the UAV photogrammetry were
converted into an .rcp file format using Autodesk Recap 2016. The
cloud file was used for drawing the reconstruction and measuring
the structure.
With the assumption of symmetric structures in the columns
and beams, the geometric dimensions of the structure were
 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386
Fig. 6. Conversion of 3D point cloud data in photogrammetry into Autodesk products for the dimensional measurements of the structure.
obtained from the point clouds. Due to the irregular geometric
structure, section planes were inspected to reconstruct the 3D
shape of the columns in increments of 0.5 m in elevation. These
section planes were utilized for the beams based on the position
of the point clouds in the plan and elevation views.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Calibration of UAV photogrammetry for 3D reconstruction
of a sample building.
Fig. 7 shows 3D models of the sample timber frame building
for the calibration UAV photogrammetry. The 3D model of the
structure was constructed using different parameters for image
shooting rate of 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 s; camera angles of 30, 45, and
60 degrees; flight speeds of 1.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.8 m/s; and flight
heights of 6, 8, 10, and 12 m.
While the best results for the reconstruction were obtained at
an image shooting rate of 2 s, part of the building was constructed
using image shooting rates of 3 and 5 s. While the best result for
the reconstruction occurred at a camera angle of 45 degrees, part
of the building was constructed at camera angles of 30 degrees
and 60 degrees. When the flight speed was evaluated, the best
result for the reconstruction occurred at flight speed of 1 m/s.
The 3D reconstruction was calibrated with different flight heights
of 6 m, 8 m, 10 m, and 12 m and, the best result was obtained at
a flight height of 6 m.
Some 3D models are not shown in Fig. 7a or Fig. 7c because
insufficient visual content was extracted from the images, there
was insufficient overlap between the 2D aerial images or low
numbers of 2D key point matches.
7
For the calibration, the best 3D reconstruction for the timber
building occurred at an image shooting rate of 2 s, a camera angle
of 45 degrees, a flight speed of 1 m/s, and a flight height of 6 m.
Measurement of the length of two target points marked on col-
umn C4 and the length of beam B3 were used to calibrate the
equipment (Fig. 7).
The dimensions of the structural elements were used to
determine the influence of the image shooting rate on the UAV
method, as shown in Fig. 8. With an image shooting rate of 2 s
(Fig. 8a), dimensional measurements of column C4 and beam B3
using aerial photogrammetry were similar to those obtained from
the MT and EDM methods. The differences between the UAV and
MT method were 0.05% in the length of two target points marked
on the column and 0.17% in the beam length. The difference
between the UAV and EDM method were 0.17% in the length of
two target points marked on the column and 0.17% in the beam
length. The dimensional difference obtained from an image
shooting rate of 3 s was higher than that of 2 s, ranging from
2.18% to 3.55%.
Fig. 8b shows the influence of camera angles of 30, 45, and 60
degrees on the accuracy of 3dimensional measurements in the
3D model. A camera angle of 45 degrees demonstrated higher
accuracy in UAV photogrammetry compared to the MT and EDM
methods, whereas camera angles of 30 and 60 degrees were less
accurate in UAV photogrammetry. The dimensional differences in
the length of two target points marked on the columns from cam-
era angles of 30, 45, and 60 degrees between the UAV and MT
methods were 1.12%, 0.05%, and 0.21%, respectively. The dimen-
sional differences in the beam length from camera angles of 30,
45, and 60 degrees between the UAV and MT methods were
3.42%, 0.17%, and 0.22%, respectively.
8 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386

2 seconds 3 seconds 5 seconds

Not available Not available

7 seconds 10 seconds
a) Effect of different image shooting rates on 3D model at a camera angle of 45 degrees, flight speed of 1 m/s,
and a flight height of 6 m.

30 degrees 45 degrees 60 degrees

b) Effect of different camera angles on the 3D model at an image shooting rate of 2 seconds, flight speed of 1 m/s,
and a flight height of 6 m.

Not available Not available

1 m/s 2.5 m/s 3 m/s 3.8 m/s

c) Effect of different flight speeds on the 3D model at an image shooting rate of 2 seconds, camera angle of 45
degrees, and a flight height of 6 m.

6m 8m 10 m 12 m
d) Effect of different flight heights on the 3D model at an image shooting rate of 2 seconds, a camera angle of 45
degrees, and a flight speed of 1 m/s.
Fig. 7. Influence of different image shooting rates, camera angles, flight speeds, and flight heights on 3D modeling of the sample timber building.

Fig. 8c shows dimensions of the structural elements affected by a Fig. 8d shows the effects of flight height on the dimensional
UAV speed of 1 m/s. The optimized 3D model was obtained at flight measurements of structural elements applying UAV, EDM, and
speed of 1 m/s. As shown in Figs. 7 and 8, 3D-reconstruction was not MT methods. The lowest difference of 0.11% in the length of two
successful at flight speed faster than 2.5 m/s. target points marked on the column was achieved from a flight
 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386 9

10 75
9

Image shooting rate (s)

8 N/A 60

Camera angle (o)

7
6 45
5
4 30
3
2 15
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Difference (%) Difference (%)
UAV/MT in Column UAV/EDM in Column
UAV/MT in Column UAV/EDM in Column
UAV/MT in Beam UAV/EDM in Beam
UAV/MT in Beam UAV/EDM in Beam

3.84 14
3.5 12
N/A
3 10
Flight speed (m/s)

Flight height (m)

2.5
8
2
6
1.5
4
1
0.5 2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Difference (%) Difference (%)
UAV/MT in Column UAV/EDM in Column UAV/MT in Column UAV/EDM in Column
UAV/MT in Beam UAV/EDM in Beam UAV/MT in Beam UAV/EDM in Beam

Fig. 8. Dimensional measurements of the structural elements of the sample timber building using different methods. Note: Difference (%) = (Dimensional measurement
between two target points from UAV approach  dimensional measurement between two target points from EDM or MT)/dimensional measurement between two target
points from EDM or MT.

height of 6 m, whereas the highest difference of 4.10% in the length
of two target points marked on the column was achieved from a
flight height of 12 m. The accuracy of the 3D model did not demon-
strate a consistent trend with flight altitude.
3.2. Applying photogrammetry to the measurement of structural
elements of a traditional timber building, Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon, in
Naju, South Korea
3.2.1. Assessment of the accuracy of the 3D model
Table 2 shows pictures of the different sides of Bulhoesa
Daewoongjeon and the corresponding 3D reconstructed models.
From the comparison between the pictures and 3D models, not
only geometric information for the timber building in the different
sides but also the texture and the color of structural elements
could be distinguished. To assess the accuracy of the 3D model of
the structure, the length of two target points marked on each col-
umn and the length of the beams in Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon were
obtained from Eq. (1) using different methods. Although various
heights of target points marked on the structural elements were
used, the dimensional differences between these methods were
only slightly different (Fig. 9). Differences between the lengths of
two target points obtained from UAV and MT methods ranged from
0.21% to 0.43% in the columns and from 0.44% to 0.76% in the
beams. Different lengths of the two target points between the
UAV and EDM measurements ranged from 0.25% to 0.34% in the
columns and from 0.82% to 0.91% in the beams.
3.2.2. 3D model for dimensional measurement
Fig. 10 shows the geometric dimensions of structural elements
of Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon based on point clouds obtained from
Pix4Dmapper. Fig. 10a shows the 3D-reconstructed column and
beam positions in the building. The total plan area was about
87.848 m2. The external dimensions of the building in the front,
left, back, and right sides were 11.227 m, 7.514 m, 11.261 m,
7.489 m, respectively. From the 3D model, Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon
has a column and beam system composed of four columns and two
beams on each side. The dimension of each column and beam in
the different sides was found to be different. The diameter of the
columns was reduced with increments in elevation.
Fig. 10b shows the floor plan for Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon with
column numbers, the distance between the columns, the dimen-
sions of the four sides, and sectional cuts. Fig. 10c shows section
A-A, which is the front side, with four columns and two beams
and geometrical information. In section A-A, the heights of the
C1, C2, C3, and C4 columns were 3369 mm, 3368 mm, 3429 mm,
and 3399 mm, respectively. The largest diameter was 614 mm at
an elevation of ±0.000 m in the C4 column, whereas the smallest
diameter was 398 mm at an elevation of +3.349 m in the C2 col-
umn. Fig. 10d shows section B-B, which is the left side, with four
columns C4, C5, C6, and C7 and two beams. In section B-B, the
10 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386

Table 2
Comparison of photos of different sides of Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon and 3D models from UAV photogrammetry.

Pictures of Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon 3D reconstructed models using UAV photogrammetry

Front elevation

Right elevation

Back elevation

Left elevation

4.5
MT EDM UAV
1.4 4.0
MT EDM UAV
3.5
1.2
Length of two target points (m)

3.0
1.0
Length of two target points (m)

2.5
0.8
2.0
0.6
1.5
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.5
0.0 0.0
C1
C2
C3
C4
C4
C5
C6
C7
C7
C8
C9
C10
C10
C11
C12
C1

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10B11B12
Front Right Back Left Front Right Back Left
elevation elevation elevation elevation elevation elevation elevation elevation

a) Columns b) Beams
Fig. 9. Comparison of dimensional measurements of target points marked on the structural elements of Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon using different methods.
 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386
a) 3D reconstructed model from point cloud data
c) Section A-A
e) Section C-C
Fig. 10. Geometric information for the structural elements of Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon based on point clouds from Pix4Dmapper.
heights of C4, C5, C6, and C7 columns were 3399 mm, 3409 mm,
3409 mm, and 3214 mm, respectively. At the bottom of the
columns, the diameters of C4, C5, C6, and C7 were 586 mm,
460 mm, 464 mm, and 551 mm, respectively. In the middle eleva-
tion, the diameters of C4, C5, C6, and C7 columns were 497 mm,
422 mm, 420 mm, and 516 mm, respectively. At the top of the
column, the diameters of C4, C5, C6, and C7 were 541 mm,
402 mm, 393 mm, and 472 mm, respectively. Fig. 10e shows
section C–C, which is the back side, with four columns C7, C8,
C9, and C10 and two beams. In section C–C, the column heights
ranged from 3214 mm to 3309 mm. The diameters of C7, C8, and
C10 columns decreased with increments of elevation, whereas
the diameter of the C9 column was decreased from the bottom
to the middle but increased from the middle to the top. Fig. 10d
shows section D-D, which is the right side, with four columns
11
b) Floor plan
d) Section B-B
f) Section D-D
C10, C11, C12, and C1 and two beams. In section D-D, the heights
of C10, C11, C12, and C1 were 3274 mm, 3254 mm, 3379 mm,
and 3369 mm, respectively. The diameters of C10 and C1 at the
corner were larger than those of C11 and C12 columns in the
middle. For example, at the top elevation, the diameters of C10
and C1 were 476 mm and 455 mm, respectively, compared to
the diameters of 425 mm in C11 and 424 mm in C12.
Two transverse beams of the traditional timber building were
constructed on the top of columns with a high density point cloud.
The mean dimension under the beams connected directly to the
columns by a wood-to-wood connection was 275 mm in width
and 280 mm in depth. The mean dimension of the upper beams
was 465 mm in width and 260 mm in depth. The span of the beam
was defined as the center-to-center distance between two columns
at the top. The structure plan illustrates the asymmetry of the
12 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386
structure. In Fig. 10c, the spans of B1, B2, and B3 were 3735 mm,
3723 mm, and 3721 mm, respectively. In Fig. 10d, the spans of
B4, B5, and B6 were 2480 mm, 2480 mm, and 2523 mm, respec-
tively. The spans of the B7, B8, and B9 beams in Fig. 10e were
3722 mm, 3740 mm, 3724 mm, respectively. In Fig. 10f, the spans
of the B10, B11, and B12 beams were 2465 mm, 2500 mm, and
2502 mm, respectively.
These results indicated that UAV photogrammetry could be
used for the dimensional measurement of different locations of
columns and beams in a timber structure. The 3D model for
Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon was reconstructed based on point clouds
obtained from Pix4Dmapper. From the obtained geometric
information of the structural elements, the size of the columns
and beams, and the distance between the columns and beams were
calculated. From these data, a 3D reconstructed model for a timber
structure was obtained to investigate the structural status of a
traditional timber building for preservation. The experimental
findings showed that UAV photogrammetry is an effective solution
for the maintenance and preservation of traditional timber
buildings.
4. Conclusions
The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of UAV
photogrammetry for the dimensional measurements of structural
elements in a traditional timber building. Using a sample timber
building, the UAV photogrammetry measurements were calibrated
by comparing the dimensional measurements to those obtained
from MT and EDM. The accuracy of the 3D model was found to
be highly affected by the image shooting rate, flight speed, and
camera angle. The use of UAV photogrammetry for constructing a
3D model of a timber building showed the best results with an
image shooting rate of 2 s, flight speed of 1 m/s, and a camera angle
of 45 degrees. With an accuracy of 0.17% in dimensional differ-
ences between the UAV photogrammetry and the conventional
methods, a 3D reconstructed model using the UAV method was
accurate enough to assess a traditional timber building.
The calibrated UAV photogrammetric method was used to
investigate the structural elements of Bulhoesa Daewoongjeon.
Based on point cloud data obtained from UAV photogrammetry,
the shape, location, and size of the structure were analyzed with
CAD systems. The differences in the column and beam length
measurements between UAV photogrammetry and the conven-
tional methods ranged from 0.21% to 0.34%, and 0.44% to 0.91%,
respectively. By applying UAV photogrammetry, the dimension of
structural elements can be measured and used to determine the
stability of structures.
This technique allows us to conduct experimental test without
destructing cultural heritage sites or structures by constructing a
3D building model and identifying the shape, location, and size
of the structural members. This photogrammetric technique can
be converted into CAD systems for dimensional measurements in
buildings. These findings could play an important role in the main-
tenance of traditional timber buildings.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Gi Young Jeong: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing - review
& editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Resources,
Investigation. Tan No Nguyen: Data curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Visualization. Dang Khai Tran: Investigation,
Methodology. Thi Bich Huyen Hoang: Visualization, Formal
analysis.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research supported by Basic Science Research Program
through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded
by the Ministry of Education [No. 2017R1D1A1B04033518].
References
[1] R. Langenbach, From ‘Opus Craticium’ to the ‘Chicago Frame’: earthquake-
resistant traditional construction, Int. J. Archit. Herit. 1 (1) (2007) 29–59,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583050601125998.
[2] A. Doğangün, Ö.I. _ Tuluk, R. Livaoğlu, R. Acar, Traditional wooden buildings and
their damages during earthquakes in Turkey, Eng. Fail. Anal. 13 (6) (2006)
981–996, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2005.04.011.
[3] T. Pazlar, M. Kramar, Traditional timber structures in extreme weather
conditions, Int. J. Archit. Herit. 9 (6) (2015) 689–695, https://doi.org/
10.1080/15583058.2015.1041195.
[4] J. Singh, N. White, Timber decay in buildings: pathology and control, J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 11 (1) (1997) 3–12, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828
(1997) 11:1(3).
[5] I. Nor Haniza, M.A. Zuraini, O. Yacob, A.H. Helena, Case, studies on timber
defects of selected traditional houses in Malacca, J. Des Built Environ. 3 (1)
(2007) 81–90, http://repository.um.edu.my/id/eprint/111939 (last assessed 07
May 2019).
[6] F. Agüera-Vega, F. Carvajal-Ramíreza, P. Martínez-Carricondoa, J. Sánchez-
Hermosilla Lópeza, F.J. Mesas-Carrascosab, A. García-Ferrerb, F.J. Pérez-
Porrasb, Reconstruction of extreme topography from UAV structure from
motion photogrammetry, Measurement 121 (2018) 127–138, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.measurement.2018.02.062.
[7] R.C. Erenoglu, O. Akcay, O. Erenoglu, An UAS-assisted multi-sensor approach
for 3D modeling and reconstruction of cultural heritage site, J. Cult. Herit. 26
(2017) 79–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.02.007.
[8] N. Metni, T. Hamel, A UAV for bridge inspection: visual servoing control law
with orientation limits, Autom. Constr. 17 (1) (2007) 3–10, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2006.12.010.
[9] S. d’Oleire-Oltmanns, I. Marzolff, K. Peter, J. Ries, Unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) for monitoring soil erosion in Morocco, Remote Sens. 4 (11) (2012)
3390–3416, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4113390.
[10] M. Li, L. Nan, N. Smith, P. Wonka, Reconstructing building mass models from
UAV images, Comput. Graph. 54 (2016) 84–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cag.2015.07.004.
[11] G. Buffi, P. Manciola, S. Grassi, M. Barberini, A. Gambi, Survey of the Ridracoli
Dam: UAV–based photogrammetry and traditional topographic techniques in
the inspection of vertical structures, Geomat. Nat. Haz. Risk. 8 (2) (2017)
1562–1579, https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2017.1362039.
[12] Y. Zhang, X. Yuan, Y. Fang, S. Chen, UAV low altitude photogrammetry for
power line inspection, ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 6 (1) (2017) 14, https://doi.org/
10.3390/ijgi6010014.
[13] F. Chiabrando, F. Nex, D. Piatti, F. Rinaudo, UAV and RPV systems for
photogrammetric surveys in archaelogical areas: two tests in the Piedmont
region (Italy), J. Archaeol. Sci. 38 (3) (2011) 697–710, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jas.2010.10.022.
[14] H. Püschel M. Sauerbier H. Eisenbeiss A 3D model of Castle Landenberg (CH)
from combined photogrammetric processing of terrestrial and UAV-based
images, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XXXVII (B6b)
(2008) 93–98. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-3-D-MODEL-OF-
CASTLE-LANDENBERG-(-CH-)-FROM-OF-AND-P%C3%BCschel-Sauerbier/
1a064e64015a998ad1fa3d5b6691e2e7b7fdbb6f (last accessed 07 May 2019)
[15] A. Murtiyoso, P. Grussenmeyer, M. Koehl, T. Freville, Acquisition and
processing experiences of close range UAV images for the 3D modeling of
heritage buildings, in: M. Ioannides, et al. (Ed.), Digital Heritage. Progress in
Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection. EuroMed
2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10058. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48496-9_34.
[16] A. Murtiyoso, M. Koehl, P. Grussenmeyer, T. Freville, Acquisition and
processing protocols for UAV images: 3D modeling of historical buildings
using photogrammetry, ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci.
IV-2/W2 (2017) 163–170, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-IV-2-W2-
163-2017.
[17] N. Nony, L.D. Luca, A. Godet, M.P. Deseilligny, F. Remondino, Protocols and
assisted tools for effective image-based modeling of architectural elements,
Progress in Cultural Heritage Preservation. EuroMed 2012. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol. 7616. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-642-34234-9_44.
 G.Y. Jeong et al. / Measurement 153 (2020) 107386
[18] D. Fritsch, S. Becker, M. Rothermel, Modeling façade structures using point
clouds from dense image matching, Conference Proceedings on Advances in
Civil Structural and Mechanical Engineering, 2013.
[19] G. Barsanti, F. Remondino, B.J. Palacios, D. Visintini, Critical factors and
guidelines for 3D surveying and modelling in cultural heritage, Int. J. Heritage
Digital Era 3 (2014) 141–158, https://doi.org/10.1260/2047-4970.3.1.141.
[20] F. Alidoost, H. Arefi, An image-based technique for 3D building reconstruction
using multi-view UAV images, ISPRS, XL-1-W5. 43–46. https://doi.org/10.
5194/isprsarchives-xl-1-w5-43-2015.
[21] M. Kedzierski, D. Wierzbicki, Radiometric quality assessment of images
acquired by UAV’s in various lighting and weather conditions, Measurement
76 (2015) 156–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.08.003.
[22] F. Agüera-Vega, F. Carvajal-Ramírez, P. Martínez-Carricondo, Assessment of
photogrammetric mapping accuracy based on variation ground control points
number using unmanned aerial vehicle, Measurement 98 (2017) 221–227,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.12.002.
[23] F. Carvajal-Ramírez, F. Agüera-Vega, P.J. Martínez-Carricondo, Effects of image
orientation and ground control points distribution on unmanned aerial vehicle
13
photogrammetry projects on a road cut slope, J. Appl. Rem. Sens. 10 (3) (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.10.034004 034004.
[24] S. Harwin, A. Lucieer, Assessing the accuracy of georeferenced point clouds
produced via multi-view stereopsis from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
imagery, Remote Sens. 4 (6) (2012) 1573–1599, https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs4061573.
[25] Y. Yang, Z. Lin, F. Liu, Stable imaging and accuracy issues of low-altitude
unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry systems, Remote Sens. 8 (4) (2016)
316, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8040316.
[26] M. Uysal, A.S. Toprak, N. Polat, DEM generation with UAV photogrammetry
and accuracy analysis in Sahitler hill, Measurement 73 (2015) 539–543,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.06.010.
[27] B. Kršák, P. Blišťan, A. Pauliková, P. Puškárová, L’. Kovanič, J. Palková, V.
Zelizňaková, Use of low-cost UAV photogrammetry to analyze the accuracy of
a digital elevation model in a case study, Measurement 91 (2016) 276–287,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.05.028.