Comparison of Terrestrial Photogrammetry and Terrestrial Laser Scanning for Earthquake Response Management

  • Christos VasilakosEmail author
  • Stamatis Chatzistamatis
  • Olga Roussou
  • Nikolaos Soulakellis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


Response management is the first and very critical phase of the disaster management cycle on the post-earthquake reconnaissance efforts. After an earthquake, a rapid damage assessment is vital for emergency response actions. Various types of devices and methods were used in a post-earthquake situation to estimate damages such as deformation of structures. However, standardized procedures during emergency surveys often could not be followed due to restrictions of outdoor operations because of debris or decrepit buildings, the high human presence of civil protection agencies, expedited deployment of survey team and cost of operations. Terrestrial photogrammetry and laser scanning are two of the recently emerging technologies, which became even more preferable in hazard areas, due to there is no need for direct contact with the structure to be assessed. This research aims to discuss the challenges and benefits for the use of the technologies above, focusing on the comparison of the processed models derived from data acquired with these technologies. An evaluation is undertaken whether terrestrial photogrammetry and laser scanning provide high precision and spatial resolution data suitable for post-earthquake building damage assessment. Furthermore, the extracted models are valuable components that help engineering to understand the seismic behavior in a more comprehensible way.



This paper is a result of the research project “3D mapping of Vrisa settlement after the 12th of June Lesvos earthquake” funded by the Region of North Aegean, Greece.


  1. Agisoft LLC (2018) Agisoft Photoscan. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  2. Alexander D (1991) Information technology in real-time for monitoring and managing natural disasters. Prog Phys Geogr 15:238–260. Scholar
  3. Alexander D (2005) Towards the development of a standard in emergency planning. Disaster Prev Manag An Int J 14:158–175. Scholar
  4. Altan O (2005) Use of photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information technologies in disaster management, especially earthquakes. In: van Oosterom P, Zlatanova S, Fendel EM (eds) Geo-information for disaster management. Springer, Berlin, p 311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Altan O, Toz G, Kulur S, Seker D, Volz S, Fritsch D, Sester M (2001) Photogrammetry and geographic information systems for quick assessment, documentation and analysis of earthquakes. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 55:359–372. Scholar
  6. Anil EB, Akinci B, Garrett JH, Kurc O (2013) Characterization of laser scanners for detecting cracks for post-earthquake damage inspection. In: 30th ISARC, Montreal, Canada, pp 313–320Google Scholar
  7. Baird ME (2010) The “phases” of emergency management. Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute, p 50Google Scholar
  8. Bay H, Tuytelaars T, Van Gool L (2006) SURF: speeded up robust features. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), pp 404–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14:239–256. Scholar
  10. Boehler W, Bordas Vicent M, Marbs A (2003) Investigating laser scanner accuracy. In: Altan O (ed) Proceedings of XIXth CIPA symposium. ISPRS/CIPA, vol 34. Antalya, Turkey, pp 696–701Google Scholar
  11. Chang KT, Wang EH, Chang YM, Cheng HK (2008) Post-disaster structural evaluation using a terrestrial laser scanner. Paper presented at the international federation of surveyors (FIG) Working Week 2008, Stockholm, Sweden, 14–19 June 2008Google Scholar
  12. CloudCompare (2018) CloudCompare v 2.6.X user documentation. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  13. Cutter SL (2003) GI science, disasters, and emergency management. Trans GIS 7:439–446. Scholar
  14. Dabove P, Di Pietra V, Lingua AM (2018) Close range photogrammetry with tablet technology in post-earthquake scenario: Sant’Agostino church in Amatrice. Geoinformatica 22:463–477. Scholar
  15. Dai F, Dong S, Kamat VR, Lu M (2011) Photogrammetry assisted measurement of interstory drift for rapid post-disaster building damage reconnaissance. J Nondestruct Eval 30:201–212. Scholar
  16. Devilat BM (2014) 3D laser scanning of heritage areas after earthquakes: San Lorenzo de Tarapacá, Chile. Opticon1826 12.
  17. Dong L, Shan J (2013) A comprehensive review of earthquake-induced building damage detection with remote sensing techniques. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 84:85–99. Scholar
  18. Erden T, Karaman H (2012) Analysis of earthquake parameters to generate hazard maps by integrating AHP and GIS for Küçükçekmece region. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:475–483. Scholar
  19. Erkal BG (2017) the prototype of a software application for laser and image-based surface damage detection. Paper presented at the 2nd world congress on civil, structural, and environmental engineering (CSEE 2017), Barcelona, Spain, 2–4 April 2017Google Scholar
  20. FARO Technologies, Inc (2018) FARO scene. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  21. Fernandez Galarreta J, Kerle N, Gerke M (2015) UAV-based urban structural damage assessment using object-based image analysis and semantic reasoning. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 15:1087–1101. Scholar
  22. Furukawa Y, Ponce J (2010) Accurate, dense, and robust multiview stereopsis. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 32:1362–1376. Scholar
  23. Gallo A, Muzzupappa M, Bruno F (2014) 3D reconstruction of small sized objects from a sequence of multi-focused images. J Cult Herit 15:173–182. Scholar
  24. Gerke M, Kerle N (2011) Automatic structural seismic damage assessment with airborne oblique pictometry© imagery. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77:885–898. Scholar
  25. Girardeau-Montaut D, Roux M, Marc R, Thibault G (2005) Change detection on points cloud data acquired with a ground laser scanner. In: International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences-ISPRS archives, vol 36, pp 30–35Google Scholar
  26. Goodchild MF (2006) GIS and disasters: planning for catastrophe. Comput Environ Urban Syst 30:227–229. Scholar
  27. Hackel T, Wegner JD, Savinov N, Ladicky L, Schindler K, Pollefeys M (2018) Large-scale supervised learning For 3D point cloud labeling: Semantic3d.Net. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 84:297–308. Scholar
  28. Hanke K, Grussenmeyer P, Streilein A (2002) Architectural photogrammetry: basic theory, procedures, tools. In: Kasser M, Egels Y (eds) Digital photogrammetry. Taylor & Francis, pp 300–339Google Scholar
  29. Hashemi M, Alesheikh AA (2011) A GIS-based earthquake damage assessment and settlement methodology. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:1607–1617. Scholar
  30. Hu F, Xia G-S, Hu J, Zhang L (2015) transferring deep convolutional neural networks for the scene classification of high-resolution remote sensing imagery. Remote Sens 7:14680–14707. Scholar
  31. Ingensand H, Ryf A, Schulz T (2003) Performances and experiences in terrestrial laser scanning. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on optical 3D measurement techniques. Zurich, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  32. Jafari B, Khaloo A, Lattanzi D (2017) Deformation tracking in 3D point clouds via statistical sampling of direct cloud-to-cloud distances. J Nondestruct Eval 36:65. Scholar
  33. Jiang R, Jáuregui DV, White KR (2008) Close-range photogrammetry applications in bridge measurement: literature review. Measurement 41:823–834. Scholar
  34. Kampffmeyer M, Salberg A-B, Jenssen R (2016) Semantic segmentation of small objects and modeling of uncertainty in urban remote sensing images using deep convolutional neural networks. In: 2016 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops (CVPRW). IEEE, pp 680–688Google Scholar
  35. Karpathy A, Toderici G, Shetty S, Leung T, Sukthankar R, Fei-Fei L (2014) Large-scale video classification with convolutional neural networks. In: 2014 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. IEEE, pp 1725–1732Google Scholar
  36. Kayen R, Collins B, Bawden G, Pack R (2006) Earthquake deformation analysis using terrestrial scanning laser-lidar technology. In: 8th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering. San Francisco, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Kiratzi A (2018) The 12 June 2017 Mw 6.3 Lesvos Island (Aegean Sea) earthquake: slip model and directivity estimated with finite-fault inversion. Tectonophysics 724–725:1–10. Scholar
  38. 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 82:10–26. Scholar
  39. Lerma JL, Navarro S, Cabrelles M, Villaverde V (2010) Terrestrial laser scanning and close range photogrammetry for 3D archaeological documentation: the Upper Palaeolithic Cave of Parpalló as a case study. J Archaeol Sci 37:499–507. Scholar
  40. Li M, Cheng L, Gong J, Liu Y, Chen Z, Li F, Chen G, Chen D, Song X (2008) Post-earthquake assessment of building damage degree using LiDAR data and imagery. Sci China Ser E: Technol Sci 51:133–143. Scholar
  41. Lowe DG (1999) Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pp 1150–1157Google Scholar
  42. Maltezos E, Doulamis N, Doulamis A, Ioannidis C (2017) Deep convolutional neural networks for building extraction from orthoimages and dense image matching point clouds. J Appl Remote Sens 11:1. Scholar
  43. Morelan AE, Trexler CC, Oskin ME (2015) Surface-rupture and slip observations on the day of the 24 August 2014 South Napa earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 86:1119–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moussa W, Wenzel K, Rothermel M, Abdel-Wahab M, Fritsch D (2013) Complementing TLS point clouds by dense image matching. Int J Herit Digit Era 2:453–470. Scholar
  45. Olsen MJ, Kayen R (2012) Post-earthquake and tsunami 3D laser scanning forensic investigations. Forensic Engineering 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp 477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olsen MJ, Chen Z, Hutchinson T, Kuester F (2013) Optical techniques for multiscale damage assessment. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 4:49–70. Scholar
  47. Papadimitriou P, Kassaras I, Kaviris G, Tselentis G-A, Voulgaris N, Lekkas E, Chouliaras G, Evangelidis C, Pavlou K, Kapetanidis V, Karakonstantis A, Kazantzidou-Firtinidou D, Fountoulakis I, Millas C, Spingos I, Aspiotis T, Moumoulidou A, Skourtsos E, Antoniou V, Andreadakis E, Mavroulis S, Kleanthi M (2018) The 12th June 2017 M w = 6.3 Lesvos earthquake from detailed seismological observations. J Geodyn 115:23–42. Scholar
  48. Papakonstantinou A, Doukari M, Moustakas A, Chrisovalantis D, Chaidas K, Roussou O, Athanasis N, Topouzelis K, Soulakellis N (2018) UAS multi-camera rig for post-earthquake damage 3D geovisualization of Vrisa village. In: Themistocleous K, Hadjimitsis DG, Michaelides S, Ambrosia V, Papadavid G (eds) Sixth international conference on remote sensing and geoinformation of the environment (RSCy2018). SPIE, p 52Google Scholar
  49. Pesci A, Teza G, Bonali E, Casula G, Boschi E (2013) A laser scanning-based method for fast estimation of seismic-induced building deformations. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 79:185–198. Scholar
  50. Pomerleau F, Colas F, Siegwart R, Magnenat S (2013) Comparing ICP variants on real-world data sets. Auton Robots 34:133–148. Scholar
  51. Puente I, Lindenbergh R, Van Natijne A, Esposito R, Schipper R (2018) Monitoring of progressive damage in buildings using laser scan data. In: International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences-ISPRS archives, vol 42, no 2, pp 923–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Qi CR, Su H, Kaichun M, Guibas LJ (2017) PointNet: deep learning on point sets for 3D classification and segmentation. In: 2017 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). IEEE, pp 77–85Google Scholar
  53. Rastiveis H, Eslamizade F, Hosseini-Zirdoo E (2015) Building damage assessment after earthquake using post-event LiDAR data. In: International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences-ISPRS archives, vol 40, no 1W5, pp 595–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rieke-Zapp DH, Peipe J (2006) Performance evaluation of a 33 megapixel alpa 12 medium format camera for digital close range photogrammetry. In: International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences-ISPRS archives, vol 36, p 4Google Scholar
  55. Selvaggi I, Dellapasqua M, Franci F, Spangher A, Visintini D, Bitelli G (2018) 3D comparison towards a comprehensive analysis of a building in cultural heritage. In: International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences-ISPRS archives, vol 42, no 2, pp 1061–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sivakumar R, Ghosh S (2017) Earthquake hazard assessment through geospatial model and development of EaHaAsTo tool for visualization: an integrated geological and geoinformatics approach. Environ Earth Sci 76:442. Scholar
  57. Snavely N, Seitz SM, Szeliski R (2006) Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3D. ACM Trans Graph 25:835–846. Scholar
  58. Snavely N, Seitz SM, Szeliski R (2008) Modeling the world from Internet photo collections. Int J Comput Vis 80:189–210. Scholar
  59. Tong X, Hong Z, Liu S, Zhang X, Xie H, Li Z, Yang S, Wang W, Bao F (2012) Building-damage detection using pre- and post-seismic high-resolution satellite stereo imagery: a case study of the May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 68:13–27. Scholar
  60. Triggs B, McLauchlan PF, Hartley RI, Fitzgibbon AW (2000) Bundle adjustment—a modern synthesis. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 298–372Google Scholar
  61. Tu J, Sui H, Feng W, Song Z (2016) Automatic building damage detection method using high-resolution remote sensing images and 3D GIS model. ISPRS Ann Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci III-8:43–50. Scholar
  62. Ullman S (1979) The interpretation of structure from motion. In: Proceedings of the royal society B: biological sciences, pp 405–426Google Scholar
  63. Van Westen CJ (2013) Remote sensing and GIS for natural hazards assessment and disaster risk management. In: Schroder JF, Bishop MP (eds) Treatise on geomorphology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 259–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vetrivel A, Gerke M, Kerle N, Vosselman G (2015) Identification of damage in buildings based on gaps in 3D point clouds from very high resolution oblique airborne images. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 105:61–78. Scholar
  65. Vetrivel A, Gerke M, Kerle N, Nex F, Vosselman G (2018) Disaster damage detection through synergistic use of deep learning and 3D point cloud features derived from very high resolution oblique aerial images, and multiple-kernel-learning. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 140:45–59. Scholar
  66. Vosselman G, Maas H-G (2010) Airborne and terrestrial laser scanning. Whittles Publishing, Scotland, UKGoogle Scholar
  67. Westoby MJ, Brasington J, Glasser NF, Hambrey MJ, Reynolds JM (2012) ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: a low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 179:300–314. Scholar
  68. Widyaningrum E, Gorte BGH (2017) Comprehensive comparison of two image-based point clouds from aerial photos with airborne LiDAR for large-scale mapping. In: International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences-ISPRS archives, vol 42, no 2W7, pp 557–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wu C, Liu Y, Dai Q, Wilburn B (2011) Fusing multiview and photometric stereo for 3D reconstruction under uncalibrated illumination. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 17:1082–1095. Scholar
  70. Wu J, Cui Z, Sheng VS, Zhao P, Su D, Gong S (2013) A comparative study of SIFT and its variants. Meas Sci Rev 13:122–131. Scholar
  71. Xu X, Bureick J, Yang H, Neumann I (2018) TLS-based composite structure deformation analysis validated with laser tracker. Compos Struct 202:60–65. Scholar
  72. Yamazaki F, Matsuda T, Denda S, Liu W (2015) Construction of 3D models of buildings damaged by earthquakes using UAV aerial images. In: Proceedings of the tenth Pacific conference on earthquake engineering. Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  73. Yang X, Zhang Q (2013) Seismic spatial information grid: applications of geo-informatics in earthquake disaster management. In: Bian F, Xie Y, Cui X, Zeng Y (eds) Communications in computer and information science. Springer, Berlin, pp 397–406Google Scholar
  74. Zhao X, Kargoll B, Omidalizarandi M, Xu X, Alkhatib H (2018) Model selection for parametric surfaces approximating 3D point clouds for deformation analysis. Remote Sens 10:634. Scholar
  75. Zhihua X, Lixin W, Yonglin S, Qiuling W, Ran W, Fashuai L (2014) Extraction of damaged building’s geometric features from multi-source point clouds. In: 2014 IEEE geoscience and remote sensing symposium. IEEE, pp 4764–4767Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christos Vasilakos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stamatis Chatzistamatis
    • 2
  • Olga Roussou
    • 1
  • Nikolaos Soulakellis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of the AegeanMytileneGreece
  2. 2.Department of Cultural Technology and CommunicationUniversity of the AegeanMytileneGreece

Personalised recommendations