三维重建建模软件在施工现场可视化与制图中的性能比较分析

A. Keyvanfar, A. Shafaghat, Muhamad SF Rosley
{"title":"三维重建建模软件在施工现场可视化与制图中的性能比较分析","authors":"A. Keyvanfar, A. Shafaghat, Muhamad SF Rosley","doi":"10.1177/14780771211066876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology has overcome the limitations of conventional construction management methods using advanced and automated visualization and 3D reconstruction modeling techniques. Although the mapping techniques and reconstruction modeling software can generate real-time and high-resolution descriptive textural, physical, and spatial data, they may fail to develop an accurate and complete 3D model of the construction site. To generate a quality 3D reconstruction model, the construction manager must optimize the trade-offs among three major software-selection factors: functionalities, technical capabilities, and the system hardware specifications. These factors directly affect the robust 3D reconstruction model of the construction site and objects. Accordingly, the purpose of this research was to apply nine well-established 3D reconstruction modeling software tools (DroneDeploy, COLMAP, 3DF+Zephyr, Autodesk Recap, LiMapper, PhotoModeler, 3D Survey, AgiSoft Photoscan, and Pix4D Mapper) and compare their performances and reliabilities in generating complete 3D models. The research was conducted in an eco-home building at the University of Technology, Malaysia. A series of regression analyses were conducted to compare the performances of the selected 3D reconstruction modeling software in alignment and registration, distance computing, geometric measurement, and plugin execution. Regression analysis determined that among the software programs, LiMapper had the strongest positive linear correlation with the ground truth model. Furthermore, the correlation analysis showed a statistically significant p-value for all software, except for 3D Survey. In addition, the research found that Autodesk Recap generated the most-robust and highest-quality dense point clouds. DroneDeploy can create an accurate point cloud and triangulation without using many points as required by COLMAP and LiMapper. It was concluded that most of the software is robustly, positively, and linearly correlated with the corresponding ground truth model. In the future, other factors involving software selection should be studied, such as vendor-related, user-related, and automation factors.","PeriodicalId":45139,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Architectural Computing","volume":"20 1","pages":"453 - 475"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance comparison analysis of 3D reconstruction modeling software in construction site visualization and mapping\",\"authors\":\"A. Keyvanfar, A. Shafaghat, Muhamad SF Rosley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14780771211066876\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology has overcome the limitations of conventional construction management methods using advanced and automated visualization and 3D reconstruction modeling techniques. Although the mapping techniques and reconstruction modeling software can generate real-time and high-resolution descriptive textural, physical, and spatial data, they may fail to develop an accurate and complete 3D model of the construction site. To generate a quality 3D reconstruction model, the construction manager must optimize the trade-offs among three major software-selection factors: functionalities, technical capabilities, and the system hardware specifications. These factors directly affect the robust 3D reconstruction model of the construction site and objects. Accordingly, the purpose of this research was to apply nine well-established 3D reconstruction modeling software tools (DroneDeploy, COLMAP, 3DF+Zephyr, Autodesk Recap, LiMapper, PhotoModeler, 3D Survey, AgiSoft Photoscan, and Pix4D Mapper) and compare their performances and reliabilities in generating complete 3D models. The research was conducted in an eco-home building at the University of Technology, Malaysia. A series of regression analyses were conducted to compare the performances of the selected 3D reconstruction modeling software in alignment and registration, distance computing, geometric measurement, and plugin execution. Regression analysis determined that among the software programs, LiMapper had the strongest positive linear correlation with the ground truth model. Furthermore, the correlation analysis showed a statistically significant p-value for all software, except for 3D Survey. In addition, the research found that Autodesk Recap generated the most-robust and highest-quality dense point clouds. DroneDeploy can create an accurate point cloud and triangulation without using many points as required by COLMAP and LiMapper. It was concluded that most of the software is robustly, positively, and linearly correlated with the corresponding ground truth model. In the future, other factors involving software selection should be studied, such as vendor-related, user-related, and automation factors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Architectural Computing\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"453 - 475\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Architectural Computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14780771211066876\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHITECTURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Architectural Computing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14780771211066876","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

无人机技术利用先进的自动化可视化和三维重建建模技术,克服了传统施工管理方法的局限性。虽然测绘技术和重建建模软件可以生成实时、高分辨率的描述性纹理、物理和空间数据,但它们可能无法建立准确、完整的施工现场三维模型。为了生成高质量的3D重建模型,施工经理必须优化三个主要软件选择因素之间的权衡:功能、技术能力和系统硬件规格。这些因素直接影响到施工场地和物体的三维重建模型的鲁棒性。因此,本研究的目的是应用九种成熟的3D重建建模软件工具(DroneDeploy、COLMAP、3DF+Zephyr、Autodesk Recap、LiMapper、PhotoModeler、3D Survey、AgiSoft Photoscan和Pix4D Mapper),并比较它们在生成完整3D模型方面的性能和可靠性。这项研究是在马来西亚科技大学的一座生态住宅建筑中进行的。通过一系列的回归分析比较了所选三维重建建模软件在对准配准、距离计算、几何测量和插件执行方面的性能。回归分析表明,在软件程序中,LiMapper与ground truth model的正线性相关性最强。此外,相关分析显示,除3D Survey外,所有软件的p值均具有统计学意义。此外,研究发现,Autodesk Recap生成了最健壮、质量最高的密集点云。DroneDeploy可以创建精确的点云和三角测量,而无需像COLMAP和LiMapper那样使用许多点。结果表明,大多数软件与相应的地面真值模型具有鲁棒性、正相关性和线性相关性。在未来,应该研究涉及软件选择的其他因素,例如与供应商相关的、与用户相关的和自动化因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Performance comparison analysis of 3D reconstruction modeling software in construction site visualization and mapping
Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology has overcome the limitations of conventional construction management methods using advanced and automated visualization and 3D reconstruction modeling techniques. Although the mapping techniques and reconstruction modeling software can generate real-time and high-resolution descriptive textural, physical, and spatial data, they may fail to develop an accurate and complete 3D model of the construction site. To generate a quality 3D reconstruction model, the construction manager must optimize the trade-offs among three major software-selection factors: functionalities, technical capabilities, and the system hardware specifications. These factors directly affect the robust 3D reconstruction model of the construction site and objects. Accordingly, the purpose of this research was to apply nine well-established 3D reconstruction modeling software tools (DroneDeploy, COLMAP, 3DF+Zephyr, Autodesk Recap, LiMapper, PhotoModeler, 3D Survey, AgiSoft Photoscan, and Pix4D Mapper) and compare their performances and reliabilities in generating complete 3D models. The research was conducted in an eco-home building at the University of Technology, Malaysia. A series of regression analyses were conducted to compare the performances of the selected 3D reconstruction modeling software in alignment and registration, distance computing, geometric measurement, and plugin execution. Regression analysis determined that among the software programs, LiMapper had the strongest positive linear correlation with the ground truth model. Furthermore, the correlation analysis showed a statistically significant p-value for all software, except for 3D Survey. In addition, the research found that Autodesk Recap generated the most-robust and highest-quality dense point clouds. DroneDeploy can create an accurate point cloud and triangulation without using many points as required by COLMAP and LiMapper. It was concluded that most of the software is robustly, positively, and linearly correlated with the corresponding ground truth model. In the future, other factors involving software selection should be studied, such as vendor-related, user-related, and automation factors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
17.60%
发文量
44
期刊最新文献
Encapsulating creative collaborations: A case study in the design of cement tiles RO-BIK—A robotic approach to developing dynamic architecture A convolutional neural network approach to classifying urban spaces using generative tools for data augmentation Reclaiming site analysis from co-sensing to co-ideation: A collective cartography strategy and tactical trajectories Interpreting a virtual reconstruction from different levels of detail: 3D modeling approaches combined with a phenomenological exploratory study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1