Forest Road Wearing Course Damage Assessment Possibilities with Different Types of Laser Scanning Methods including New iPhone LiDAR Scanning Apps

Abstract

Forests make up 34.1% of the Czech Republic total area and forest roads account for nearly the same length (47,465 km) as all other roads administered by the state and its regions (55,738 km). Forest roads are not as intensively used as other roads. On the other hand, as logging trucks carry the maximum permitted load on roads and forests create a specific microclimate, forest roads are subject to rapid wear. A road wearing course is generally designed for 20 years of service and for a maximum damage level of 25% before they are supposed to be reconstructed. To ensure this life cycle is adhered to, more efficient, faster, and more flexible surface damage detection adaptable for forest environment is needed. As smartphones and their optical devices, i.e., new iPhones with LiDAR sensors, become more advanced, the option arises to perform laser scanning on road surfaces using smartphones applications. This work aimed to test this technology and its precision applicability to assessing damage to a forest wearing course and compare it with another hand-held personal laser scanner (PLShh), represented in this study by GeoSLAM ZEB Horizon scanner, and more precise terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) technology, represented in this study by Faro Focus 3D laser scanner, which have started to replace tacheometric wearing course damage surveying thanks to their greater precision. So, this study involved a comparison of three alternative laser scanning methods focused especially on these, which are implemented in new iPhones for tacheometric surveying. First, a Faro Focus 3D laser scanner was used for the TLS method. Second, the PLShh method was tested on a GeoSLAM ZEB Horizon scanner. Third, another PLShh method using an iPhone 13 Pro with applications 3D Scanner and Polycam was evaluated. If we are comparing positional height accuracy of PLShh to tacheometric surveying on reference cross position height coordinates, ZEB Horizon achieved devXY and devZ RMSE 0.108 m; 0.025 m; iPhone 13 Pro with 3D Scanner app devXY and devZ RMSE 0.185 m; 0.021 m, and with Polycam app devXY and devZ RMSE 0.31 m; 0.045. TLS achieved the best results with devXY RMSE 0.049 and devZ RMSE 0.0077. The results confirm that only the TLS scanner achieves precision values in height differences applicable for an assessment of forest road wearing course damage measurement comparable with tacheometric surveying. Surprisingly, comparing the PLShh scanners to the TLS technology, they achieved interesting results, comparing their transverse profiles and 3D objects as digital surface models (DSM) of the road to TLS in height position. In transverse profiles, ZEB Horizon achieved devZ RMSE 0.032 m; iPhone 13 Pro with 3D Scanner app devZ RMSE 0.017 m, and with Polycam app devZ RMSE 0.041 m compared to the TLS method measured using a Faro Focus 3D static laser scanner. Comparing forest road DSM to Faro Focus 3D, ZEB Horizon achieved devZ RMSE 0.028 m; iPhone 13 Pro with 3D Scanner app devZ RMSE 0.018 m and with Polycam devZ RMSE 0.041 m. These results in height differences show that the height accuracy of PLShh achieves precision, which is applicable to determining the current shape of forest road wearing course compared to the required roof shape gradient. However, further testing provided the insight that such a kind of PLShh measurement is still only possible to use for the identification of a transverse profile shape, as in length measurement the length error increases. All PLShh are able to capture the current shape of forest road cross profile, but still they cannot be used for any design or calculation of material measurement needed for wearing course repair.