Segmentation of Change in Surface Geometry Analysis for Cultural Heritage Applications
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Reconstruction
2.1.1. Stitching of Point Clouds
2.1.2. CrossTime Alignment of the Models
2.2. Global Geometry Analysis
2.2.1. Point to Point Absolute Distance (P2P)
2.2.2. PointtoPoint Vector Distance (P2P_Direction)
2.2.3. PointtoPoint along Normal Vector (P2P_AlongNV)
2.2.4. PointToPoint Projection along Normal Vector (P2P_ProjectionAlongNV)
2.3. Local Geometry Analysis
2.4. Segmentation
2.5. Visualization
3. Results and Analysis
3.1. Case Study I
3.1.1. Results of Simulated Data
3.1.2. Results of Real Scenario
3.2. Case Study II
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Considered Stone Slabs for the Analysis  

Stone Slabs  Material  Experiment 
EL3  Pentelic Marble  H_{2}SO_{4} + HNO_{3}(aq) Acid 
ES1  Pentelic Marble  H_{2}SO_{4}(aq) Acid 
NGL2  Grytdal Soapstone  Salt 
NBL1  Grytdal Soapstone  FreezeThaw 
NBL2  Grytdal Soapstone  Salt 
NGS1  Grytdal Soapstone  Outdoors/Trondheim 
Stone Slabs  m_{1} (g)  m_{2} (g)  Δm (g)  Δm/m (%) 

EL3  27.5131  27.4734  −0.0397  −0.14 
ES1  27.5872  27.5156  −0.0716  −0.26 
NGL2  160.5487  159.4037  −1.1450  −0.71 
NBL1  168.8975  Unknown  
NBL2  188.9025  179.8329  −9.0696  −4.80 
NGS1  20.6227  20.5998  −0.0229  −0.11 
Mean Erosion δ (mm) during Session 1 to Session 2  

Stone Slabs  V_{1} (cm^{3})  V_{2} (cm^{3})  ΔV (cm^{3})  S (cm^{2})  δ^{(a)} (mm)  δ^{(b)} (mm) 
EL3  10.1391  10.1575  0.0184  29.7689  0.0065  0.0062 
ES1  10.1510  10.1497  −0.0013  29.9718  −0.0005  −0.0004 
NGL2  55.2833  55.1410  −0.1423  102.5810  −0.0164  −0.0139 
NBL1  61.7922  Unknown  
NBL2  68.6979  66.6648  −2.0331  125.6727  −0.2040  −0.1618 
NGS1  7.1294  7.1398  0.0104  24.6578  0.0047  0.0042 
References
 Dante, A. BuiltHeritage Multitemporal Monitoring through Photogrammetry and 2D/3D Change Detection Algorithms. Stud. Conserv. 2019, 64, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Logothetis, S.; Delinasiou, A.; Stylianidis, E. Building Information Modelling for Cultural Heritage: A review. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2015, II5/W3, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
 Sitnik, R.; Lech, K.; Bunsch, E.; Michoński, J. Monitoring surface degradation process by 3D structured light scanning. In Proceedings of the SPIE 11058, Optics for Arts, Architecture, and Archaeology VII, Munich, Germany, 12 July 2019; p. 1105811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Lague, D.; Brodu, N.; Leroux, J. Accurate 3D comparison of complex topography with terrestrial laser scanner: Application to the Rangitikei canyon (NZ). ISPRS P&RS 2013, 82, 10–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
 Nicola, L. Monitoring earthen archaeological heritage using multitemporal terrestrial laser scanning and surface change detection. J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 39, 152–165. [Google Scholar]
 Grilli, E.; Remondino, F. Classification of 3D Digital Heritage. Remote. Sens. 2019, 11, 847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
 Murtiyoso, A.; Grussenmeyer, P. Automatic Heritage Building Point Cloud Segmentation and Classification Using Geometrical Rules. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci 2019, XLII2/W15, 821–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
 PérezSinticala, C.; Janvier, R.; Brunetaud, X.; Treuillet, S.; Aguilar, R.; Castañeda, B. Evaluation of Primitive Extraction Methods from Point Clouds of Cultural Heritage Buildings. In Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions. RILEM Bookseries; Aguilar, R., Torrealva, D., Moreira, S., Pando, M.A., Ramos, L.F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 18. [Google Scholar]
 Engelmann, F.; Kontogianni, T.; Schult, J.; Leibe, B. Know What Your Neighbors Do: 3D Semantic Segmentation of Point Clouds. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2018 Workshops. ECCV 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; LealTaixé, L., Roth, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 11131. [Google Scholar]
 Theologou, P.; Pratikakis, I.; Theoharis, T. Unsupervised Spectral Mesh Segmentation Driven by Heterogeneous Graphs. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2016, 39, 397–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 Brezina, T.; Graser, A.; Leth, U. Geometric methods for estimating representative sidewalk widths applied to Vienna’s streetscape surfaces database. J. Geogr. Syst. 2017, 19, 157–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
 Sitnik, R.; Błaszczyk, P.M. Segmentation of unsorted cloud of points data from full field optical measurement for metrological validation. Comput. Ind. 2012, 63, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Khatamian, A.; Hamid, A. Survey on 3D Surface Reconstruction. J. Inf. Process. Systems 2016, 12, 338–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
 Gupta, D.; Anand, R.S. A hybrid edgebased segmentation approach for ultrasound medical images. Biomed. Signal Process. Control. 2017, 31, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Tchapmi, L.; Choy, C.; Armeni, I.; Gwak, J.; Savarese, S. Segcloud: Semantic Segmentation of 3D Point Clouds. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), Qingdao, China, 10–12 October 2017; pp. 537–547. [Google Scholar]
 Rethage, D.; Wald, J.; Sturm, J.; Navab, N.; Tombari, F. Fully Convolutional Point Networks for LargeScale Point 765 Clouds. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2018; ECCV 2018. Lecture 766 Notes in Computer Science; Ferrari, V., Hebert, M., Sminchisescu, C., Weiss, Y., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 11208. [Google Scholar]
 Haibin, H.; Evangelos, K.; Siddhartha, C.; Duygu, C.; Vladimir, G.K.; Ersin, Y. Learning Local Shape Descriptors from Part Correspondences with Multiview Convolutional Networks. ACM Trans. Graph. 2017, 37, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
 Mączkowski, G.; Krzesłowski, J.; Sitnik, R. Integrated Method for ThreeDimensional Shape and Multispectral Color Measurement. J. Imaging Sci. Technol. 2011, 55, 305021–3050210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Tsakiri, M.; VasileiosAthanasios, A. Change Detection in Terrestrial Laser Scanner Data via Point Cloud Correspondence. Int. J. Eng. Innov. Research 2015, 4, 476–486. [Google Scholar]
 He, Y.; Liang, B.; Yang, J.; Li, S.; He, J. An Iterative Closest Points Algorithm for Registration of 3D Laser Scanner Point Clouds with Geometric Features. Sensors 2017, 17, 1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
 Saha, S.; DudaMaczuga, A.; Papanikolaou, A.; Sitnik, R. Approach for Identification of Geometry Change on Cultural Heritage Surface. In Proceedings of the IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2021: 3D Imaging and Applications Proceedings, Online. San Francisco, CA, USA, 18 January 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Saha, S.; Forys, P.; Martusewicz, J.; Sitnik, R. Approach to Analysis the Surface Geometry Change in Cultural Heritage Objects. In Proceedings of the ICISP 2020: 9th International Conference on Image and Signal Processing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Marrakesh, Morocco, 4–6 June 2020; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 12119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Heidenreich, N.B.; Schindler, A.; Sperlich, S. Bandwidth selection for kernel density estimation: A review of fully automatic selectors. Adv. Stat. Analysis 2013, 97, 403–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
 Pilario, K.E.; Shafiee, M.; Cao, Y.; Lao, L.; Yang, S.H. A Review of Kernel Methods for Feature Extraction in Nonlinear Process Monitoring. Processes 2020, 8, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
 Wang, X.; Eric, P.; Daniel, X.; Schaid, J. Kernel methods for largescale genomic data analysis. Brief. Bioinform. 2015, 16, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
 Silverman, B.W. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis; Published in Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1986. [Google Scholar]
 Marcin, A.; Maciej, S.; Robert, S.; Adam, W. Hierarchical, ThreeDimensional Measurement System for Crime Scene Scanning. J. Forensic. Sci. 2017, 62, 889–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
 Theoharis, T.; Papaioannou, G. PRESIOUS 3D Cultural Heritage Fragments. 2013. Available online: http://presious.eu/resources/3ddatasets (accessed on 14 May 2020).
 Michoński, J.; Witkowski, M.; Glinkowska, B.; Sitnik, R.; Glinkowski, W. Decreased Vertical Trunk Inclination Angle and Pelvic Inclination as the Result of MidHighHeeled Footwear on Static Posture Parameters in Asymptomatic Young Adult Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
 Domasłowski, W. Preventive Conservation of Stone Historical Objects; Chapter 3: Causes of Stone Deterioration; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika: Torun, Poland, 2003; ISBN 8323116458. [Google Scholar]
Parameters  Unit  Description  Visual Paradigm 

Sampling distance (sd)  Millimeter  The average pointtopoint distance of the input data, i.e., resolution of the 3D scanner, is considered as the sampling distance.  
Knn_Count (knn)  Integer  The total number of points, i.e., size of neighborhood inside each spherical neighborhood considered for the local geometry analysis, is termed Knn_Count.  
Bandwidth (B_{w}) and Mean (m_{u})  Real  The bandwidth/number of bins that illustrate the appearance of the local distance histogram. The Bandwidth is calculated as in Equation (3). The mean of the histogram is the average of the values in the local distance histogram. Both the bandwidth and the mean are normalized to the resolution of the input data to make the segmentation method more independent of the input data.  
Noise (N)  Real  The noise is basically calculated as the plane fitting error for the input data. The noise is calculated by using the random sampling of the input data. The randomly selected points were fitted to a bestfitting plane, considering the neighboring points up to a given radius of scaling factor × sd. The scaling factor for the analysis was set to 5; however, the user can scale it based on the density of the data. From randomly chosen points from the surface, the plane fitting error was calculated in terms of RMS distance from the considered points to the calculated plane. In this case, the noise was averaged from both the original and the changed surface. To make the method more independent of the resolution of the input data and the amount of noise, it was normalized with the calculated sampling distance.  
Error 1 (e_{1}) and Error 2 (e_{2})  Millimeter  From each locality and its corresponding local distribution, the plane error was calculated, and we inspected the behavior of those errors for the segmentation method. Both the original surface and the changed surface locality were considered for RMS distance calculation from the points to the local plane. However, this RMS distance calculation is confined to the local distribution, unlike the noise from the entire surface. 
Threshold  Description 

Deposit/Loss Threshold (D_{t})/(L_{t})  The deposit/loss threshold is used to define the amount of deposit/loss to/from the surface. This user input will quantify this as minor or major according to the change with respect to the size of the object. A deposit/loss less than the size of the deposit/loss threshold will be presented as minor while one greater than the threshold will be considered a major deposit/loss on the surface. 
Nonchanged Threshold (N_{t})  This threshold was considered based on the alignment of the 3D models and the accuracy. The alignment threshold is a ratio of normalized noise, for which a default value is set to 1. However, the user can increase the value in certain cases with known reference to an unchanged part of the surface. In some cases, based on user expertise of the object material and the considered time interval, an unchanged threshold can be set to a particular value that will provide more accuracy for the quantification of changes. 
Change Types  Local Naming  Parameter’s Behavior 

Type 1  No Change  ${B}_{w}<\frac{N}{knn}\times {N}_{t}{m}_{u}\frac{sd}{knn}\times {N}_{t}$ 
Type 2  Minor Change (Deposit)
 ${m}_{u}\le {D}_{t}{m}_{u}0$

Minor Change (Loss)
 ${m}_{u}\ge {L}_{t}{m}_{u}0$
 
Type 3  Major Change (Deposit)
 ${m}_{u}>{D}_{t}{m}_{u}0$

Major Change (Loss)
 ${m}_{u}<{L}_{t}{m}_{u}0$
 
Type 4  Unknown  Other behavior of parameters. 
Change Types  Assigned Code  Assigned RGB Code/Color  

Type 1  0  (0, 0, 255)  
Type 2  +1 (Deposit)  (0, 128, 255) Equal  (0, 255, 255) Linear  (153, 255, 255) Nonlinear 
−1 (Loss)  (255, 255, 153) Equal  (255, 255, 0) Linear  (255, 128, 0) Nonlinear  
Type 3  +2 (Deposit)  (153, 255, 153) Equal  (0, 255, 0) Linear  (0, 102, 0) Nonlinear 
−2 (Loss)  (255, 102, 102) Equal  (255, 0, 0) Linear  (153, 0, 0) Nonlinear  
Type 4  X  (102, 0, 0) 
Datasets  N (mm)  sd (mm)  Normalized Noise N/sd  N_{t} (Scaled by N/sd)  D_{t} (mm)  L_{t} (mm) 

Simulated data  0.015  0.098  0.15  1  1  1 
Real scenario  0.014  0.010  0.14  100  0.5  2 
Method  Global Geometry Analysis  Segmentation 

P2P  
P2P_Direction  
P2P_AlongNV  
P2P_ProjectionAlongNV 
Method  Global Geometry Analysis  Segmentation 

P2P  
P2P_Direction  
P2P_AlongNV  
P2P_ProjectionAlongNV 
Considered Stone Slabs for the Analysis and Monitoring Period  

Stone Slabs (Naming from [30])  Session 1  Session 2 
Elefsis Large 03(EL3)  20150112  20150515 
Elefsis Small 01 (ES1)  20150112  20150515 
Nidaros Good Large 02 (NGL2)  20150112  20150515 
Nidaros Bad Large 01 (NBL1)  20150112  20151204 
Nidaros Bad Large 02 (NBL2)  20150112  20150515 
Nidaros Good Small 01 (NGS1)  20150112  20150515 
Stone Slabs  Original Surface  Changed Surface 

Session 1  Session 2  
EL3  
ES1  
NGL2  
NBL1  
NBL2  
NGS1 
Datasets  N (mm)  sd (mm)  Normalized Noise N/s  N_{t} (Scaled by N/s)  D_{t} (mm)  L_{t} (mm) 

EL3  0.006  0.072  0.09  1  0.1  0.2 
ES1  0.006  0.072  0.08  0.1  0.2  
NGL2  0.007  0.062  0.10  0.15  0.5  
NBL1  0.007  0.056  0.12  0.25  1  
NBL2  0.008  0.065  0.12  0.25  1  
NGS1  0.008  0.070  0.11  0.15  0.5 
Method  P2P  P2P_Direction  P2P_AlongNV  P2P_ProjectionAlongNV 

Global Geometry Analysis  
Segmentation 
Segmentation  Total Point Count  No Change  Minor Change  Major Change  % of Surface with Deposit  % of Surface with Loss  

Deposit  Loss  Deposit  Loss  
P2P_Direction  976,587  1  363,788  496,653  13,368  115,978  37.25  62.74 
P2P_AlongNV  1  261,220  393,974  4464  316,928  27.20  72.80  
P2P_ProjectionAlongNV  557  267,661  407,043  5768  295,558  27.01  72.95 
Method  P2P  P2P_Direction  P2P_AlongNV  P2P_ProjectionAlongNV 

Global Geometry Analysis  
Segmentation 
Segmentation  Total Point Count  No Change  Minor Change  Major Change  % of Surface with Deposit  % of Surface with Loss  

Deposit  Loss  Deposit  Loss  
P2P_Direction  854,730  0  286,411  473,175  73,094  22,050  42.06  57.94 
P2P_AlongNV  0  159,543  310,138  159,421  225,628  37.31  62.69  
P2P_ProjectionAlongNV  5  299,863  50,2268  16,905  35,689  37.06  62.94 
Method  P2P  P2P_Direction  P2P_AlongNV  P2P_ProjectionAlongNV 

Global Geometry Analysis  
Segmentation 
Segmentation  Total Point Count  No Change  Minor Change  Major Change  % of Surface with Deposit  % of Surface with Loss  

Deposit  Loss  Deposit  Loss  
P2P_Direction  3,545,412  11  1,792,619  1,587,970  97,467  67,345  53.32  46.69 
P2P_AlongNV  22  1,817,344  1,426,692  14,482  286,872  51.67  48.33  
P2P_ProjectionAlongNV  872  1,828,897  1,437,406  15,926  262,311  52.03  47.98 
Method  P2P  P2P_Direction  P2P_AlongNV  P2P_ProjectionAlongNV 

Global Geometry Analysis  
Segmentation 
Segmentation  Total Point Count  No Change  Minor Change  Major Change  % of Surface with Deposit  % of Surface with Loss  

Deposit  Loss  Deposit  Loss  
P2P_Direction  2,671,989  135  924,015  1,337,342  122,829  287,667  39.17  60.82 
P2P_AlongNV  138  870,475  1,309,608  10,023  481,745  32.95  67.04  
P2P_ProjectionAlongNV  2083  860,933  1,376,565  12,852  419,556  32.70  67.22 
Method  P2P  P2P_Direction  P2P_AlongNV  P2P_ProjectionAlongNV 

Global Geometry Analysis  
Segmentation 
Segmentation  Total Point Count  No Change  Minor Change  Major Change  % of Surface with Deposit  % of Surface with Loss  

Deposit  Loss  Deposit  Loss  
P2P_Direction  3,978,584  3  1,502,188  1,780,675  229,699  466,019  43.53  56.46 
P2P_AlongNV  3  1,607,029  1,542,373  6891  822,280  40.57  59.43  
P2P_ProjectionAlongNV  161  1,802,635  1,595,841  5951  573,996  45.46  54.53 
Method  P2P  P2P_Direction  P2P_AlongNV  P2P_ProjectionAlongNV 

Global Geometry Analysis  
Segmentation 
Segmentation  Total Point Count  No Change  Minor Change  Major Change  % of Surface with Deposit  %of Surface with Loss  

Deposit  Loss  Deposit  Loss  
P2P_Direction  600,857  38  242,324  349,888  3677  4930  40.94  59.05 
P2P_AlongNV  42  200,138  370,322  8787  21,568  34.78  65.22  
P2P_ProjectionAlongNV  1218  201,266  369,771  8974  19,628  34.99  64.80 
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Saha, S.; Martusewicz, J.; Streeton, N.L.W.; Sitnik, R. Segmentation of Change in Surface Geometry Analysis for Cultural Heritage Applications. Sensors 2021, 21, 4899. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21144899
Saha S, Martusewicz J, Streeton NLW, Sitnik R. Segmentation of Change in Surface Geometry Analysis for Cultural Heritage Applications. Sensors. 2021; 21(14):4899. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21144899
Chicago/Turabian StyleSaha, Sunita, Jacek Martusewicz, Noëlle L. W. Streeton, and Robert Sitnik. 2021. "Segmentation of Change in Surface Geometry Analysis for Cultural Heritage Applications" Sensors 21, no. 14: 4899. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21144899