Next Article in Journal
Regional Mapping and Spatial Distribution Analysis of Canopy Palms in an Amazon Forest Using Deep Learning and VHR Images
Next Article in Special Issue
3D-TTA: A Software Tool for Analyzing 3D Temporal Thermal Models of Buildings
Previous Article in Journal
Automated SAR Image Thresholds for Water Mask Production in Alberta’s Boreal Region
Previous Article in Special Issue
Remote Detection of Moisture and Bio-Deterioration of Building Walls by Time-Of-Flight and Phase-Shift Terrestrial Laser Scanners
Article

Point Cloud vs. Mesh Features for Building Interior Classification

1
Department of Civil Engineering, TC Construction—Geomatics, KU Leuven—Faculty of Engineering Technology, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
2
Geomatics Unit, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(14), 2224; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12142224
Received: 4 June 2020 / Revised: 30 June 2020 / Accepted: 6 July 2020 / Published: 11 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Point Cloud Processing and Analysis in Remote Sensing)
Interpreting 3D point cloud data of the interior and exterior of buildings is essential for automated navigation, interaction and 3D reconstruction. However, the direct exploitation of the geometry is challenging due to inherent obstacles such as noise, occlusions, sparsity or variance in the density. Alternatively, 3D mesh geometries derived from point clouds benefit from preprocessing routines that can surmount these obstacles and potentially result in more refined geometry and topology descriptions. In this article, we provide a rigorous comparison of both geometries for scene interpretation. We present an empirical study on the suitability of both geometries for the feature extraction and classification. More specifically, we study the impact for the retrieval of structural building components in a realistic environment which is a major endeavor in Building Information Modeling (BIM) reconstruction. The study runs on segment-based structuration of both geometries and shows that both achieve recognition rates over 75% F1 score when suitable features are used.
View Full-Text
Keywords: feature extraction; unsupervised segmentation; classification; machine learning; BIM; point clouds; mesh feature extraction; unsupervised segmentation; classification; machine learning; BIM; point clouds; mesh
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Bassier, M.; Vergauwen, M.; Poux, F. Point Cloud vs. Mesh Features for Building Interior Classification. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2224. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12142224

AMA Style

Bassier M, Vergauwen M, Poux F. Point Cloud vs. Mesh Features for Building Interior Classification. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12(14):2224. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12142224

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bassier, Maarten, Maarten Vergauwen, and Florent Poux. 2020. "Point Cloud vs. Mesh Features for Building Interior Classification" Remote Sensing 12, no. 14: 2224. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12142224

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop