Applied Geomatics

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 501–514 | Cite as

Parameter optimization for creating reliable photogrammetric models in emergency scenarios

  • S. GaglioloEmail author
  • R. Fagandini
  • D. Passoni
  • B. Federici
  • I. Ferrando
  • D. Pagliari
  • L. Pinto
  • D. Sguerso
Original Paper


An optimized planning and realization of the survey, coupled with well thought-out processing, allows obtaining good quality results, while guaranteeing a reasonable use of resources and time. It represents a benefit for both operators and end-users. The former can save time and acquire smaller datasets to process, while the latter can invest their resources better. These goals are even more important in case of an emergency, because the circumstances can quickly change, causing risk to both people and goods. The paper examines the possibility of using unmanned aerial systems (UAS) photogrammetry for 3D modeling in such scenario, focusing on finding a compromise between the final accuracy and the requested processing time. An experimental test has been conducted over the Castle of Casalbagliano, a damaged structure located near Alessandria (Piedmont, Italy), simulating a post-emergency scenario. Several processing strategies have been tested to define a workflow useful in this kind of situations. The quality of the different processing has been evaluated in terms of both residuals of the bundle block adjustment and quality of the generated dense point cloud, compared with a reference terrestrial laser scanner acquisition. Finally, the possibility of publishing the obtained 3D models on the web has been exploited too.


UAS Photogrammetry Emergency Survey strategy Cultural heritage Safety Optimization 



This work comes from the master thesis of one of the authors. The authors would like to thank for the provided support of the following:

• Comune di Alessandria, in particular Arch. Marco Genovese and Geom. Gianfranco Ferraris, for their availability;

• Soprintendenza belle arti e paesaggio della Provincia di Alessandria, in particular Arch. Luigi Pedrini and Dott. Valentina Uras;

• the co-supervisors of the thesis: Eng. Serena Cattari and Arch. Rita Vecchiattini, respectively, at DICCA and DAD departments at the Genoa University.


  1. 3DHOP (2018) (access on 15th January 2018), see for instance
  2. Achille C, Adami A, Chiarini S, Cremonesi S, Fassi F, Fregonese L, Taffurelli L (2015) UAV-based photogrammetry and integrated technologies for architectural applications—methodological strategies for the after-quake survey of vertical structures in Mantua (Italy). Sensors 15(7):15520–15539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agisoft PhotoScan© (2018) (access on 15th January 2018)
  4. Ballarin M, Buttolo V, Guerra F, Vernier P (2013) Integrated surveying techniques for sensitive areas: San Felice sul Panaro. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci 5:W1Google Scholar
  5. Ballarin M, Balletti C, Faccio P, Guerra F, Saetta A, Vernier P (2017) Survey methods for seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry buildings. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-5/W1:55–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barone Z, Nuccio G (2017) For a conscious fruition of the cultural heritage of ancient Noto (Sicily). EFIAN project as opportunity for valorisation. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-5/W1:89–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruno F, Bruno S, De Sensi G, Luchi ML, Mancuso S, Muzzupappa M (2010) From 3D reconstruction to virtual reality: a complete methodology for digital archaeological exhibition. J Cult Herit 11(1):42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiabrando F, Di Lolli A, Patrucco G, Spanò A, Sammartano G, Teppati Losè L (2017) Multitemporal 3D modelling for cultural heritage emergency during seismic events: damage assessment of S. Agostino church in Amatrice (RI). Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-5/W1:69–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CloudCompare (2018) (access on 15th January 2018)
  10. Fagandini R, Federici B, Ferrando I, Gagliolo S, Pagliari D, Passoni D, Pinto L, Rossi L, Sguerso D (2017) Evaluation of the laser response of Leica Nova multistation MS60 for 3D modelling and structural monitoring. In: International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, pp 93–104Google Scholar
  11. Fregonese L, Campera A, Scala B, Adami A (2017) The 2012 earthquake: an abacus of surveys and interventions in Mantua churches. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-5/W1:31–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gagliolo S, Fagandini R, Federici B, Ferrando I, Passoni D, Pagliari D, Pinto L, Sguerso D (2017) Use of UAS for the conservation of historical buildings in case of emergencies. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-5/W1:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grün A, Remondino F, Zhang L (2004) Photogrammetric reconstruction of the great Buddha of Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Photogramm Rec 19(107):177–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lague D, Brodu N, Leroux J (2013) Accurate 3D comparison of complex topography with terrestrial laser scanner: application to the Rangitikei canyon (N-Z). ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 82:10–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lo Brutto M, Garraffa A, Meli P (2014) UAV platforms for cultural heritage survey: first results. ISPRS Ann Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci II-5:227–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meyer D, Hess M, Lo E, Wittich CE, Hutchinson TC, Kuester F (2015) UAV-based post disaster assessment of cultural heritage sites following the 2014 South Napa earthquake. Digital Heritage 2:421–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oreni D, Brumana R, Della Torre S, Banfi F (2017) Survey, HBIM and conservation plan of a monumental building damaged by earthquake. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-5/W1:337–342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Potenziani M, Callieri M, Dellepiane M, Corsini M, Ponchio F, Scopigno R (2015) 3DHOP: 3D Heritage Online Presenter. Comput Graph 52:129–141 ISSN 0097-8493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Potree (2018) (access on 15th January 2018), see for instance
  20. Radicioni F, Matracchi P, Brigante R, Brozzi A, Cecconi M, Stoppini A, Tosi G (2017) The Tempio della Consolazione in Todi: integrated geomatic techniques for a monument description including structural damage evolution in time. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XLII-5/W1:433–440. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Remondino F (2011) Heritage recording and 3D modeling with photogrammetry and 3D scanning. Remote Sens 3(6):1104–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sauerbier M, Eisenbeiss H (2010) UAVs for the documentation of archaeological excavations. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 38(Part 5):526–531Google Scholar
  23. Schuetz, M., 2016. Potree: rendering large point clouds in Web browserGoogle Scholar
  24. Themistocleous K, Ioannides M, Agapiou A, Hadjimitsis DG (2015) The methodology of documenting cultural heritage sites using photogrammetry, UAV, and 3D printing techniques: the case study of Asinou Church in Cyprus. In: Third International Conference on Remote Sensing and Geoinformation of the Environment, pp 953510–953510Google Scholar
  25. Wojciechowski R, Walczak K, White M, Cellary W (2004) Building virtual and augmented reality museum exhibitions. Proceedings of the ninth international conference on 3D Web technology, ACMGoogle Scholar
  26. Xu Z, Yang J, Peng C, Wu Y, Jiang X, Li R, Zeng Y, Gao Y, Liu S, Tian B (2014) Development of an UAS for post-earthquake disaster surveying and its application in Ms7. 0 Lushan earthquake, Sichuan, China. Comput Geosci 68:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yastikli N (2007) Documentation of cultural heritage using digital photogrammetry and laser scanning. J Cult Herit 8(4):423–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yilmaz HM, Yakar M, Gulec SA, Dulgerler ON (2007) Importance of digital close-range photogrammetry in documentation of cultural heritage. J Cult Herit 8(4):428–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Fotogrammetria e Topografia (SIFET) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DICCA – Laboratory of Geodesy, Geomatics and GISUniversità degli Studi di GenovaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.DICA – Geodesy and Geomatics SectionPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations