Han, W N; Tao, Y H; Zhu, J S; Wang, D W and Yang, R P (2026) Terrestrial laser scan planning for bridge structures at complex sites. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 152(2): 04025241, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) planning for scanning (P4S) of bridge structures in complex environments often faces challenges such as algorithm convergence issues, inefficient panoramic scanning, and time-consuming multistation registration. To address these issues, this paper proposes a universal P4S framework that integrates simulation scene generation and TLS station and target position planning. Simulation scene generation is simplified by virtual prescanning based on a three-dimensional bridge model. TLS station planning incorporates scanning angle configuration, enabling the optimized allocation of both panoramic and angular scanning stations. Target position planning considers visibility relationships among neighboring TLS stations to minimize the number of required targets. The final P4S output includes TLS stations, target positions, scan parameters, and scan plan. The effectiveness of the proposed framework is demonstrated through a field experiment on an under-construction bridge, where the total scanning time was significantly reduced from 698 minutes to 418 minutes (a reduction of approximately 40%).
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bridge structure; complex sites; minimizing the required targets; scanning angles of high-resolution stations; terrestrial laser scan planning |
| Index terms: | resolution, face, laser scanning, experiment, effectiveness, configuration |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, data collection methods, conflict resolution, psychology, systems engineering, performance management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here