Advertisement

On Using 3D Support Geometries for Measuring Human-Made Corner Structures with a Robotic Total Station

  • Christoph Klug
  • Dieter Schmalstieg
  • Thomas Gloor
  • Clemens ArthEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 983)

Abstract

Performing accurate measurements on non-planar targets using a robotic total station in reflectorless mode is prone to errors. Besides requiring a fully reflected laser beam of the electronic distance meter, a proper orientation of the pan-tilt unit is required for each individual accurate 3D point measurement. Dominant physical 3D structures like corners and edges often don’t fulfill these requirements and are not directly measurable.

In this work, three algorithms and user interfaces are evaluated through simulation and physical measurements for simple and efficient construction-side measurement correction of systematic errors. We incorporate additional measurements close to the non-measurable target, and our approach does not require any post-processing of single-point measurements. Our experimental results prove that the systematic error can be lowered by almost an order of magnitude by using support geometries, i.e. incorporating a 3D point, a 3D line or a 3D plane as additional measurements.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was enabled by the Competence Center VRVis. VRVis is funded by BMVIT, BMWFW, Styria, SFG and Vienna Business Agency under the scope of COMET - Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies (854174) which is managed by FFG.

References

  1. 1.
    Uren, J., Price, B.: Surveying for Engineers. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schulz, T.: Calibration of a terrestrial laser scanner for engineering geodesy. Ph.D. thesis. ETH Zurich, Switzerland (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nichols, J.M., Beavers, J.E.: Development and calibration of an earthquake fatality function. Earthq. Spectra 19, 605–633 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coaker, L.H.: Reflectorless total station measurements and their accuracy, precision and reliability. B.S. thesis. University of Southern Queensland (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reda, A., Bedada, B.: Accuracy analysis and calibration of total station based on the reflectorless distance measurement. Master’s thesis. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Sweden (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin, D., Gatta, G.: Calibration of total stations instruments at the ESRF. In: Proceedings of XXIII FIG Congress, pp. 1–14 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klug, C., Schmalstieg, D., Arth, C.: Measuring human-made corner structures with a robotic total station using support points, lines and planes, pp. 17–27. INSTICC, SciTePress (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juretzko, M.: Reflektorlose Video-Tachymetrie - Ein Integrales Verfahren zur Erfassung Geometrischer und Visueller Informationen. Ph.D. thesis. Ruhr University Bochum, Faculty of Civil Engineering (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Corporation, T.: Imaging station is series, instruction manual (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siu, M.F., Lu, M., AbouRizk, S.: Combining photogrammetry and robotic total stations to obtain dimensional measurements of temporary facilities in construction field. Vis. Eng. 1, 4 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fathi, H., Brilakis, I.: A videogrammetric as-built data collection method for digital fabrication of sheet metal roof panels. Adv. Eng. Inf. 27, 466–476 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ehrhart, M., Lienhart, W.: Image-based dynamic deformation monitoring of civil engineering structures from long ranges. In: Image Processing: Machine Vision Applications VIII, vol. 9405, pp. 94050J–94050J-14 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jadidi, H., Ravanshadnia, M., Hosseinalipour, M., Rahmani, F.: A step-by-step construction site photography procedure to enhance the efficiency of as-built data visualization: a case study. Vis. Eng. 3, 1–12 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scherer, M.: Intelligent scanning with robot-tacheometer and image processing: a low cost alternative to 3D laser scanning? In: FIG Working Week (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischler, M.A., Bolles, R.C.: Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun. ACM 24, 381–395 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iso 17123–3: Optics and optical instruments - field procedures for testing geodetic and surveying instruments. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    JCGM 100:2008 - Evaluation of measurement data - Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. Standard, Int. Organ. Stand. Geneva ISBN (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Box, G.E.P., Muller, M.E.: A note on the generation of random normal deviates. Ann. Math. Stat. 29, 610–611 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Unity Technologies: Unity3D: Game engine. https://unity3d.com. Accessed 28 July 2017
  21. 21.
    Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., Licata, L.: Detecting outliers: do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 764–766 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Klug
    • 1
  • Dieter Schmalstieg
    • 2
  • Thomas Gloor
    • 3
  • Clemens Arth
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.VRVisViennaAustria
  2. 2.Institute for Computer Graphics and Vision (ICG)Graz University of TechnologyGrazAustria
  3. 3.Hilti CorporationSchaanLiechtenstein

Personalised recommendations