Table 1
Comparison between Traditional Methods and 3D Laser Scanning Technology.
| Subject | Traditional methods | 3D Laser scanning technology |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Stations | 4 stations required for a single longitudinal beam, with 2 additional stations for each additional beam section | 4 stations required for a single longitudinal beam, with 2 additional stations for each additional beam section |
| Station Setup Efficiency | Requires back-sighting, total station requires centering and leveling, typically takes about 5 minutes | No back-sighting required, no centering or leveling needed, single station setup takes about 10 seconds |
| Station Setup Difficulty | Requires line-of-sight between adjacent stations, prisms need line-of-sight | No line-of-sight required between adjacent stations, scanning targets need line-of-sight |
| Measurement Efficiency | The more complex the actual component, the more measurement points are needed, and manual recording of feature points and positions is necessary for subsequent modeling. Single station measurement takes about 3-10 minutes | No increase in scanning time, single station scan takes 3 minutes |
| Operational Difficulty | Total station operation and measurement steps have a steep learning curve | Fully automated scanning process, no intervention required, easy to operate |
| Measurement Accuracy | Point accuracy is about 1mm + 1.5×10^-6D, single point measurement, requires measuring feature points, leading to larger measurement errors | Single station measurement accuracy is 0.1mm at 30m, large-scale point cloud data, no need to measure feature points |
| Data Types | Can only measure point coordinates | Besides point coordinates, additional information such as color and reflectivity of scanned objects is also acquired |
| 3D Modeling Efficiency | Manual modeling based on measured feature points, resulting in low work efficiency | Automated modeling, requiring minimal manual adjustments, resulting in high efficiency |
| Model Accuracy | Model accuracy depends on the precision of manually aiming at feature points; poor accuracy of feature point measurement leads to lower model accuracy | Model closely matches actual components, with feature point regions reflecting what is seen |
| Virtual Assembly | Small data size, lower difficulty in pre-assembly | Larger data size, requires higher computer specifications for pre-assembly, but high efficiency and accuracy |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.