See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/347922512

Documentation of complex structure using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

photogrammetry method and Terrestrial Laser Scanner (TLS)
[#828057]-1404503

Article · December 2020

CITATIONS READS

10 169

3 authors:

Binnaz Sarı Ali Ulvi

Mersin University Selcuk University
3 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS 67 PUBLICATIONS 529 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Seda Nur Gamze Hamal

Mersin University
17 PUBLICATIONS 79 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Binnaz Sarı on 26 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Turkish Journal of Lidar – 2020; 2(2); 48-54

Turkish Journal of LIDAR

Türkiye Lidar Dergisi
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/melid
e-ISSN 2717-6797

Documentation of complex structure using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

photogrammetry method and Terrestrial Laser Scanner (TLS)
Binnaz Sarı*1 , Seda Nur Gamze Hamal1 , Ali Ulvi1
1Mersin University, Institute of Science, Remote Sensing and Geographical Information Systems, Mersin, Turkey

Keywords ABSTRACT
3D Model Modeling objects with different size and geometry and extracting metric information of this
Photogrammetry object is more difficult than ordered geometric structures. Especially, analyses and
Unmanned Aerial measurements to be made on similar structures cannot be accurate and precise with
Vehicles conventional methods such as minarets, domes, columns, mausoleums, and statues that have
Terrestrial Laser a conical, spherical, or cylindrical shape. Three-dimensional (3D) scanning technologies such
as Terrestrial Laser Scanners (TLS) are important tool for modeling to complex structures
Scanners
Clearly, 3D scanners are more suitable than conventional methods for measuring objects with
Structure
disordered and complex surfaces. It is one of the best methods for applications with similar
complex structures. However, the biggest disadvantage of ground-based scans such as TLS
are that the data of the upper facades of the building cannot be collected due to the scanning
location. The collection of data on the upper facades of the buildings with carrier platforms
such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) that make it possible to take images from the air
contribute to overcoming this problem. In this study, the data of the columns with complex
structures in the archaeological site of Soli-Pompeipolis were collected and modeled using TLS
and UAV photogrammetry methods. For modeling, a hybrid method was used by combining
the data obtained by TLS and UAV photogrammetry methods. As a result of the study, 0.21 and
2.3 cm precise were obtained for point clouds produced by TLS and UAV photogrammetry,
respectively. By combining the point clouds obtained from both data collection methods, 1.7
cm precise was calculated.

1. INTRODUCTION measurements on similar structures such as minarets,

domes, columns and sculptures, especially, those with
The analysis of attribute information and integration conical, spherical or cylindrical shapes (Harshit et al.,
with information systems is one of the common areas of 2020; Dayal et al., 2017;). These methods used in the
study of several disciplines (Dereli et al., 2019; Aicardi et creation of 3D models have a significant effect on the
al., 2016). Especially, structures exposed to object accuracy of the model and analysis (Uysal, M., et al., 2018;
deformation are the main analysis studies. Structures are Makineci et al., 2020). With the developing technology,
deformed due to many natural or unnatural reasons UAV photogrammetry and laser scanning technology are
(Yakar et al., 2015; Ulvi et al., 2020). Analysis studies of used more and more effectively in 3D model studies
structures that are subject to deformation cannot be (Remondino, et al., 2014; Martínez-Carricondo et al.,
performed as desired using classical methods. Various 2020; Sanz-Ablanedo et al., 2018; Pepe et al., 2016;
analyses of these structures can be made with modern Ulukavak et al., 2019). These systems, which are
methods. At this point, analyses can be made quickly and complementary to each other, in the collection and
easily by producing 3D models with various data evaluation of data; It is fast, efficient, economical and
collection methods (Balletti, et al., 2015; Bolognesi et al., reliable (Yakar and Yılmaz, 2008; Güvenlikaz et al., 2011;
2014). Şanlıoğlu et al., 2013; Comert. et al., 2019). These systems
Using 3D models to extract metric information of allow the creation of high-precision 3D models, a clearer
structures with different dimensions and geometries view of the details on the object, the examination of the
give precise and accurate results (Yılmaz and Yakar, changes on the object, and the digital presentation and
2006; Ulvi and Yiğit, 2019; Cryderman et al., 2014). storage of the documents belonging to the object (Ulvi et
Modern methods should be used for analysis and al., 2019). Therefore, these systems are used in different
*Sorumlu Yazar (*Corresponding Author) Cite this article (APA);

*(binnaz452@gmail.com) ORCID ID 0000-0002-8240-9680 Sarı S, Hamal S N G & Ulvi A (2020). Documentation of complex structure using Unmanned
(sedanurgamzehamal@gmail.com) ORCID ID 0000-0002-1050-3088 Aerial Vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry method and Terrestrial Laser Scanner (TLS),
(aliulvi@mersin.edu.tr) ORCID ID 0000-0003-3005-8011 Turkish Journal of LIDAR, 2(2), 48-54.

Araştırma Makalesi (Research Article) / DOI: XXXXXXXXXXXX Received: 19/11/2020; Accepted: 18/12/2020
 Turkish Journal of Lidar – 2020; 2(2); 48-54

disciplines (Karabörk et al., 2009, Alptekin et al., 2019a,

Şenol et al., 2017).
Studies in the literature show that the TLS data, such
as buildings that make up the 3D city model can be
quickly collected and extracted from the land (Yakar et
al., 2006; Çelik et al., 2020; Şenol et al., 2019; Şenol et al.,
2020). In addition, with the integration of UAVs in this
area, the collection of data on the missing fronts has been
ensured (Mırdan & Yakar, 2017).
In this study, accuracy analysis was performed on the
3D model of the cylindrical columns considering the
advantages of UAV photogrammetry and the TLS system.
The combined utilization of UAV and TLS technologies
contribute to obtaining highly sensitive products (Chen
et al., 2020). In addition, the use of the UAV-TLS hybrid
Figure 2. The study area is divided into A-B-C blocks
method allows the entire object to be modeled since data
on all surfaces of the object that cannot be collected with 2.2. 3D Modeling and Analysis
a single system (Valenti et al., 2019; Alptekin et al.,
2019b; Hamal et al., 2020). Getting both visual and metric TLS method; LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging)
information of the result obtained with these systems technology is a system that is used to obtain a point cloud
allow it to be used as a base in different studies (Ağca et with X, Y, Z coordinates belonging to the targeted object.
al., 2020). As a result of the study, 0.21-2.3 cm accuracy It can measure with high accuracy and speed with TLS. In
was obtained for point clouds produced by TLS and UAV addition, it is used in the documentation, restoration,
photogrammetry, respectively. By combining the point restitution, reverse engineering, 3D modeling, and
clouds obtained from both data collection methods, 1.7 analysis studies, as it enables printing in digital form and
cm was calculated. creating a base for different studies.
The UAV photogrammetry method is basically a
2. METHODOLOGY
method of taking pictures with overlays and obtaining 3D
In this study, 3D models of complex structures were models using the photogrammetry method (Yiğit &
produced using TLS and UAV photogrammetry methods Uysal, 2020).
and accuracy analysis was evaluated. Within the context of the study, a 3D model was
created using Soli's UAV and TLS methods (Figure 3).
2.1. Study Area

The study area is the Sütunlu Cadde of the ancient city

of Soli-Pompeiopolis in Mersin province (Figure 1).
There are 49 columns in the study area. That's why the
study area is divided into three blocks. Blocks A, B and C
include 14, 8 and 27 columns, respectively. (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Study area (36.74°N 34.54°E)

Figure 3. 3D model created using UAV and TLS methods

49 Turkish Journal of LIDAR

 Turkish Journal of Lidar – 2020; 2(2); 48-54

The 3D model workflow used in the study is shown coordinating the model, and 17 of them were used as
in Figure 4. check-points for accuracy analysis.
Considering the physical properties of the columns,
sharp details have been chosen for the control points.
The selection of control points from sharp details is
important in terms of distinguishing and marking on the
model.

3. RESULTS

Firstly, generate point clouds were used by TLS and

UAV photogrammetry techniques in the study. Scanning
was performed from 49 different station points using the
TLS method. The 3D point cloud was created with the
obtained data with JRC 3D Reconstructor software. Point
cloud is combined with a precision of 0.21 cm. 386
images were obtained with UAV. 3D point cloud with an
accuracy of 2.3 cm was created with Contex Capture
software.
Combining TLS and UAV point cloud was created in
JRC 3D Reconstructor software with the hybrid method
and 1.7 cm precision was obtained. Later, 20 of the 37
points that collected by the Total-station were accepted
as actual coordinates and 17 points were accepted as
Figure 4. 3D model planning check-points. Control points were used in the accuracy
analysis.
The data collection methods and workflow used in
the study are shown in Figure 5. 3.1. Accuracy Analysis of 3D Models Obtained TLS
and UAV

On the model created by TLS and UAV

photogrammetry techniques, the accuracy of 17 Check-
point positions measured by Total-station were
examined. mXYZ values for TLS and UAV
photogrammetry methods are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. mXYZ accuracy analysis of control points

Total-Station (m) TLS(cm) UAV (cm)
NN x y z x y z x y z
1 1002.31 1000.83 999.51 2.3 0.8 -0.5 2.6 1.8 -0.8
2 1000.82 999.91 999.59 0.8 -0.1 -0.4 -0.2 1.5 -0.4
3 996.10 996.97 999.97 -3.9 -3.0 0.0 -8.9 -11.5 -0.2
4 1000.83 998.11 997.72 0.8 -1.9 -2.3 1.4 -0.2 -2.3
5 1001.34 1002.55 998.53 1.3 2.5 -1.5 2.2 3.6 -1.8
6 1000.88 1002.60 999.80 0.9 2.6 -0.2 2.3 3.7 0.0
7 1001.56 1001.70 1000.09 1.6 1.7 0.1 2.9 3.5 0.4
8 1001.29 1001.52 1001.40 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.8
9 1001.14 1000.81 1001.42 1.1 0.8 1.4 1.3 0.8 1.5
10 1003.13 1001.06 1000.98 3.1 1.1 1.0 4.1 0.4 1.6
11 1001.31 1000.93 999.49 1.3 0.9 -0.5 2.3 1.1 -0.1
12 1000.70 1001.56 998.71 0.7 1.6 -1.3 2.2 2.2 -1.2
13 999.84 1000.93 998.98 -0.2 0.9 -1.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.1
14 1002.93 1000.76 1001.16 2.9 0.8 1.2 3.0 1.9 1.7
15 993.84 996.33 997.53 -6.2 -3.7 -2.5 -5.2 -6.7 -2.9
16 999.41 998.25 997.79 -0.6 -1.7 -2.2 -1.8 -1.9 -1.2
17 1000.50 1003.32 1001.30 0.5 3.3 1.3 1.2 4.6 1.7

As seen in Figure 6, the mX mY mZ position accuracies

for TLS and UAV photogrammetry techniques are
Figure 5. Workflow diagram
consistent with each other.
In this study, 37 control points were measured
homogeneously over the columns with the Total-station
to measure coordinate the 3D model and determine the
position accuracy. 20 of the control points were used in

50 Turkish Journal of LIDAR

 Turkish Journal of Lidar – 2020; 2(2); 48-54

3.2. Accuracy Analysis of the Model's Base Area

and Volume

The area (A) and volume (V) of a flat cylindrical object

are calculated with (1) and (2) equations, respectively. In
the equation, r and h refer Radius and height.

𝐴 = 2𝜋r(r + h) (1)

𝑉 = 𝜋𝑟 2 ℎ (2)

Hand Survey and Total-station measurement and

Advanced Model (3D) calculations of the columns are
compared and shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Base Area and Volume Accuracy Analysis

HAND SURVEY
and ADVANCED MODEL
TOTAL-STATİON (3D MODEL)
MEASUREMENT
NN R(m) Height Base Volu Base Area Volume
(m) Area me (m2) (m3)
(m2) (m3)
1 0.93 7.30 0.68 4.95 1.03 4.45
2 0.85 6.84 0.56 3.84 0.91 3.12
3 0.83 6.52 0.54 3.53 1.21 4.12
4 0.84 7.76 0.55 4.30 1.03 3.86
5 0.85 6.65 0.57 3.77 0.96 3.45
6 0.87 2.97 0.59 1.75 0.98 2.94
7 0.88 1.91 0.61 1.16 0.60 1.17
8 0.86 7.90 0.58 4.55 1.03 5.15
9 0.86 7.85 0.58 4.52 0.98 5.88
10 0.87 7.99 0.60 4.79 1.02 5.10
11 0.87 7.95 0.59 4.71 0.95 4.75
12 0.89 7.78 0.62 4.79 1.20 5.04
13 0.88 7.69 0.60 4.63 1.04 5.20
14 0.89 7.59 0.62 4.69 0.98 5.88
15 0.85 7.51 0.57 4.28 0.94 5.64
Figure 6. TLS and UAV Photogrammetry mXYZ position 16 0.86 7.63 0.58 4.41 0.94 6.58
accuracy : (a) mX , (b) mY , (c) mZ 17 0.86 7.73 0.59 4.54 1.31 5.90
18 0.85 7.97 0.57 4.57 1.36 5.54
19 0.88 7.66 0.61 4.65 1.06 5.96
However, there is an inconsistency in the checkpoint
20 0.89 7.12 0.62 4.38 1.07 4.81
of TLS and UAV data of number 3 shown in Figure 7. The 21 0.87 7.41 0.60 4.45 1.06 5.28
reason for the error value of the point is deformation and 22 0.87 3.55 0.59 2.09 0.55 2.44
error caused by the operator. In brief, the sharpness and 23 0.90 7.75 0.63 4.88 1.08 5.06
24 0.85 3.27 0.57 1.86 0.60 2.36
location of the selected detail points are important in the
25 0.88 7.88 0.61 4.79 1.06 5.61
georeferencing of 3D models. 26 0.90 7.94 0.63 5.04 1.09 6.45
27 0.87 7.67 0.59 4.54 1.05 5.35
28 0.89 7.70 0.62 4.74 1.07 5.66
29 0.88 5.41 0.60 3.26 1.06 5.29
30 0.87 6.75 0.59 3.98 1.04 5.22
31 0.88 7.37 0.61 4.48 1.06 5.31
32 0.87 7.61 0.60 4.55 1.05 5.26
33 0.90 7.44 0.63 4.69 1.09 5.43
34 0.87 7.85 0.59 4.62 1.04 5.22
35 0.90 6.78 0.63 4.28 1.09 5.43
36 0.85 7.29 0.57 4.18 1.03 5.56
37 0.88 6.86 0.60 4.13 1.06 5.71
38 0.91 6.84 0.65 4.46 1.11 5.98
39 0.89 2.61 0.62 1.63 0.58 1.72
40 0.91 5.47 0.66 3.59 1.11 4.22
41 0.90 2.09 0.63 1.32 0.52 1.48
Figure 7. Check-point of the number 3 42 0.88 5.59 0.60 3.36 1.06 4.23
43 0.90 5.76 0.63 3.63 1.08 4.34
44 0.86 2.39 0.58 1.39 1.04 1.52
45 0.87 6.24 0.59 3.68 1.04 4.80
46 0.90 7.24 0.64 4.62 1.09 5.03
47 0.89 7.45 0.62 4.60 1.07 4.93
48 0.88 7.34 0.60 4.42 1.06 5.29
49 0.79 7.61 0.49 3.72 1.18 4.48

51 Turkish Journal of LIDAR

 Turkish Journal of Lidar – 2020; 2(2); 48-54

Only 6 colums of the 49 cylindrical columns in the study photogrammetry use because of faster and more
area are flat cylindrical objects. As an example, the height accurate data collection, especially with time and cost
(h) and diameter(R) measurement of column number 7 savings.
shown in Figure 8 with the classical measurement The distance between TLS and the scanned surface
method was measured as 1.19 m and 0.88 m, directly affects the resolution of the point cloud data, and
respectively. The base area of the cylindrical structure is the rays coming from the laser scanner to the surface to
0.652 m2 with equation (1) and the volume is calculated be scanned also affect the quality of the point cloud data.
as 1.169 m3 with equation (2). The base area and volume The TLS system also allows an object, structure, or object
of the same column from the solid model created by the to be scanned from horizontal and vertical directions to
photogrammetry technique were calculated as 0.60 m 2 obtain a point cloud image. Therefore, it is the most
and 1.17 m3, respectively. preferred system in the 3D modeling of buildings.
However, with such ground-centered systems, the data
of the upper facades of the buildings are missing. This
problem has been resolved by using carrier platforms
such as UAVs. By taking pictures from the air, the UAV
photogrammetry method was used and a 3D point cloud
of the building was produced. In this way, the data of the
lateral facades of the building were collected with TLS,
and the data of the upper facades were collected by UAV.
Complete 3D data of the building was obtained with
Figure 8. Check-point of the number 7 hybrid data collection methods and various analyses
were made.
However, there are 6 flat cylindrical-shaped columns In this study, the merging process of point cloud is
in the study area and there are indentations and 0.21 cm with TLS and 2.3 cm accuracy with UAV. The
protrusions in other structures. Measuring indentations precision of combining UAV and TLS data is 1.7 cm. More
and protrusions on columns are difficult and time- sensitive results were obtained with the TLS method.
consuming. The diameters and heights of the complex However, data on the superstructures of the columns
columns were measured in the study. cannot be obtained with TLS. This problem has been
For example, the height and diameter of column solved with the UAV photogrammetry technique and the
number 3 were measured as 6.52 m and 0.829 m, missing areas have been completed.
respectively, using the classical method. The base area of As a result of the Check-point mXYZ location analysis
column 3 was calculated as 0.54 m2 with the equation (1) shown in Figure 6, TLS and UAV methods have obtained
and the volume was calculated as 3.53 m3 with equation values close to each other. In Figure 7, although mZ is
(2). The base area of the same column is calculated from consistent in both methods, the error value of mX and mY
the model as 1.21 m2 and its volume as 4.12 m3 (Figure is higher than mZ. Therefore the location of the points are
9). not chosen clearly and sharply. In brief, the clarity and
location of the detailed points to be selected are
important in geographical referencing.
The volumes of cylindrical structures with smooth
geometries are not difficult to calculate in a classical way.
However, only 6 out of the 49 cylinders in our study area
have a smooth geometric structure. The volume of
cylindrical objects with disordered geometry is difficult
to calculate with classical methods. This study
investigated the use of TLS and UAV photogrammetry
methods in modeling complex structures, extracting
metric information of the structure, and performing
analysis.
Figure 9. Check-point of the number 3

4. CONCLUSION and DISCUSSION

For the analysis of structures with different geometric

shapes, their physical properties should be considered
and appropriate evaluation tools should be selected.
Rather than using a single method in the spatial
recording of buildings, the use of hybrid methods
contributes significantly to an accurate analysis. For this
purpose, firstly geodesic measurement techniques, laser
scanning data collection methods such as UAV
photogrammetry and TLS were used for the analysis of
complex structures. However, field studies made with
geodesic or classical measurements cause excessive time,
manpower, and increase the cost. TLS and UAV
52 Turkish Journal of LIDAR
 Turkish Journal of Lidar – 2020; 2(2); 48-54

REFERENCES Dereli M A, Polat N & Uysal M (2019). Düşük maliyetli İHA

ile yüksek çözünürlüklü SYM üretimi. Nevşehir Bilim
Ağca M, Kaya E & Yılmaz H (2020). 3d Modeling of ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 8 (1), 56-62.
Cultural Heritages with UAV and TLS Systems: A Case
Study on the Somuncu Baba Mosque. Artgrid - Journal Hamal S N G, Sarı B & Ulvi A (2020). Using of Hybrid Data
of Architecture Engineering and Fine Arts, 2 (1), 1-12. Acquisition Techniques for Cultural Heritage a Case
Study of Pompeiopolis. Türkiye İnsansız Hava Araçları
Aicardi I, Dabove P, Lingua AM & Piras M (2016). Dergisi, 2 (2), 55-60.
Ormancılık uygulamaları için TLS ve İHA fotogrametri
teknikleri arasında entegrasyon. iForest- Harshit Jain K & Mishra V (2020). Analysis of Survey
Biogeosciences ve Ormancılık, 10 (1), 41. Approach Using UAV Images and Lidar for a Chimney
Study. J Indian Soc Uzaktan Algılama.
Alptekin A, Çelik M Ö & Yakar M (2019a). Anıtmezarın
yersel lazer tarayıcı kullanarak 3B modellenmesi. Karabörk H, Göktepe A, Yılmaz H M, Mutluoğlu Ö, Yıldız F
Türkiye Lidar Dergisi, 1 (1), 1-4. & Yakar M (2009). Tarihi ve kültürel varlıkların lazer
tarama ve lazer nokta ölçme teknolojileri ile 3B
Alptekin A, Çelik M Ö, Doğan Y & Yakar M (2019b). modellenmesinde duyarlılık araştırması ve uygulama
Mapping of a Rockfall Site With an Unmanned Aerial modelinin belirlenmesi. 12. Türkiye Harita Bilimsel
Vehicle. Mersin Photogrammetry Journal, 1(1), 12-16. ve Teknik Kurultayı, pp.11-15.

Balletti C, Guerra F, Scocca V & Gottardi C (2015). 3D Makineci H B, Karabörk H & Durdu A (2020). Comparison
integrated methodologies for the documentation and of DEM based on Geodetic Methods and
the virtual reconstruction of an archaeological site. Photogrammetric Usage of UAV. Turkish Journal of
The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing, 2 (2), 58-69.
Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 40
(5), 215. Martínez-Carricondo P, Carvajal-Ramírez F, Yero-
Paneque L & Agüera-Vega F (2020). Combination of
Bolognesi M, Furini A, Russo V, Pellegrinelli A & Russo P nadiral and oblique UAV photogrammetry and HBIM
(2014). Accuracy of cultural heritage 3D models by for the virtual reconstruction of cultural heritage.
RPAS and terrestrial photogrammetry. The Case study of Cortijo del Fraile in Níjar, Almería
International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote (Spain). Building Research & Information, 48 (2), 140-
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 40 (5), 113. 159.

Çelik M Ö, Alptekin A, Ünel F B, Kuşak L & Kanun E Mirdan O & Yakar M (2017). Tarihi eserlerin İnsansız
(2020). The Effect of Different Flight Heights on Hava Aracı ile modellenmesinde karşılaşılan
Generated Digital Products: Dsm And Orthophoto. sorunlar. Geomatik, 2 (3), 118-125.
Mersin Photogrammetry Journal, 2 (1), 1-9.
Pepe M, Ackermann S, Fregonese L & Achılle C (2016). 3D
Chen X, Jia D & Zhang W (2020, August). Integrating UAV Point Cloud Model Color Adjustment by Combining
photogrammetry and terrestrial laser scanning for Terrestrial Laser Scanner and Close Range
three-dimensional geometrical modeling of post- Photogrammetry Datasets. In ICDH 2016: 18th
earthquake county of Beichuan. In International International Conference on Digital Heritage (Vol. 10,
Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Pp. 1942-1948). International Journal of Computer
Engineering (pp. 1086-1098). Springer, Cham. and Information Engineering.

Comert R, Avdan U, Gorum T & Nefeslioglu H A (2019). Remondino F, Spera M G, Nocerino E, Menna F & Nex F
Mapping of shallow landslides with object-based (2014). State of the art in high density image
image analysis from unmanned aerial vehicle data. matching. The photogrammetric record, 29 (146),
Engineering Geology, 260, 105264 144-166.

Cryderman C, Mah S B & Shufletoski A (2014). Evaluation Şanlıoğlu İ, Zeybek M & Karauğuz G (2013).
of UAV photogrammetric accuracy for mapping and photogrammetric survey and 3d modeling of Ivriz
earthworks computations. Geomatica, 68 (4), 309- Rock Relief in late hittite era. Mediterranean
317. Arhaeology and Archaeometry, 13 (2).

Dayal KR, Raghavendra S, Pande H, Tiwari PS & Chauhan Sanz-Ablanedo E, Chandler J H, Rodríguez-Pérez J R &
I (2017). Ücretsiz ve karasal lazer tarayıcıdan Ordóñez C (2018). Accuracy of unmanned aerial
oluşturulan 3B nokta bulutlarının karşılaştırmalı vehicle (UAV) and SFM photogrammetry survey as a
analizi. The International Archives of function of the number and location of ground control
Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial points used. Remote Sensing, 10 (10), 1606.
Information Sciences, 42, 67.
Şenol H I, Erdogan S, Onal M, Ulukavak M, Memduhoglu
A, Mutlu S & Yilmaz M (2017). 3D modeling of a

53 Turkish Journal of LIDAR

 Turkish Journal of Lidar – 2020; 2(2); 48-54

bazaar in ancient Harran city using laser scanning Ulvi A & Yiğit A Y (2020). 3D study of modelling and
technique. International Archives of the animation of Kayseri Gülük Mosque. Mersin
Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Photogrammetry Journal, 2 (2), 33-37.
Information Sciences, 42.
Uysal M, Yılmaz M, Tiryakioğlu İ & Polat N (2018).
Şenol H İ, Memduhoğlu A, Ulukavak M, Çetin B & Polat N İnsansiz hava araçlarinin afet yönetiminde kullanimi.
(2019). Lazer tarayıcı ve insansız hava aracı Anadolu Üniversitesi Bilim Ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 6, 219-
kullanılarak kızılkoyun kral kaya mezarlarının 3 224.
boyutlu belgelenmesi. 17. Türkiye Harita Bilimsel ve
Teknik Kurultayı, 25-27 Nisan 2019, Ankara. Yakar M & Yılmaz H M (2008). Kültürel miraslardan
tarihi Horozluhan’ın fotogrametrik rölöve çalışması
Şenol H İ, Memduhoğlu A & Ulukavak M. (2020). Multi ve 3 boyutlu modellenmesi.
instrumental documentation and 3D modelling of an
archaeological site: a case study in Kizilkoyun Yakar M, Orhan O, Ulvi A, Yiğit A Y & Yüzer M M (2015).
Necropolis Area. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Sahip Ata Külliyesi rölöve örneği. TMMOB Harita ve
Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 11(3), 1241-1250. Kadastro Mühendisleri Odası, 10.

Ulukavak M, Memduhoğlu A, Şenol H İ & Polat N (2019). Yakar M, Kabadayı A, Yiğit A Y, Çıkıkcı K, Kaya Y & Catin S
The use of UAV and photogrammetry in digital S (2016). Emir Saltuk Kümbeti fotogrametrik rölöve
documentation. Mersin Photogrammetry Journal, çalışması ve 3boyutlu modellenmesi. Geomatik, 1(1),
1(1), 17-22. 14-18.

Ulvı̇ A & Yiğit A Y (2019). Kültürel mirasın dijital Yiğit A Y & Uysal M (2019). Nesne Tabanlı Sınıflandırma
dokümantasyonu: Taşkent Sultan Çeşmesinin Yaklaşımı Kullanılarak Yolların Tespiti. Türkiye
Fotogrametrik Teknikler Kullanarak 3B Modelinin Fotogrametri Dergisi, 1(1), 17-24.
Yapılması. Türkiye Fotogrametri Dergisi, 1 (1), 1-6.
Yiğit A Y & Uysal M (2020). Automatic Road Detection
Ulvi A, Yakar M, Yiğit A Y & Kaya Y (2019). The Use of from Orthophoto Images. Mersin Photogrammetry
Photogrammetric Techniques in Documenting Journal, 2 (1), 10-17.
Cultural Heritage: The Example of Aksaray Selime
Sultan Tomb. Universal Journal of Engineering Science, Yiğit A Y, Kaya Y & Kabadayı A (2020). Comparison of
7 (3), 64-73. Documenting Cultural Artifacts with the 3D Model in
Different Software. Mersin Photogrammetry Journal, 2
Ulvi A, Yakar M, Yiğit A Y & Kaya Y (2020) İHA ve yersel (2), 51-58.
fotogrametrik teknikler kullanarak Aksaray Kızıl
Kilise’nin 3 Boyutlu nokta bulutu ve modelinin Yilmaz H M & Yakar M (2006). Yersel lazer tarama
üretilmesi. Geomatik Dergisi, 5 (1), 19-26. Teknolojisi. Yapı Teknolojileri Elektronik Dergisi, 2
(2), 43-48.

© Author(s) 2020.
This work is distributed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

54 Turkish Journal of LIDAR

View publication stats