Frontier in Three-Dimensional Cave Reconstruction—3D Meshing Versus Textured Rendering

  • Mohammed Oludare Idrees
  • Biswajeet PradhanEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 9)


Underground caves and their specific structures are important for geomorphological studies. This paper investigates the capabilities of a new modelling approach advanced for true-to-life three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of cave with full resolution scan relative to 3D meshing. The cave was surveyed using terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) to acquire high resolution scans. The data was processed to generate a 3D-mesh model and textured 3D model using sub-sampled points and full resolution scan respectively. Based on both point and solid surface representation, comparative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches were examined in terms of data processing efficiency, visualization, interactivity and geomorphological feature representation and identification. The result shows that full scan point representation offers advantage for dynamic visualization over the decimated xyz point data because of high density of points and availability of other surface information like point normal, intensity and height which can be visualized in colour scale. For the reconstructed surface, mesh model is better with respect to interactivity and morphometric but 3D rendering shows superiority in visual reality and identification of micro detail of features with high precision. Complementary use of the two will provide better understanding of the cave, its development and processes.


Terrestrial laser scanning Cave 3D model Virtual reality Geomorphology Geovisualization 



This research is supported by Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia research grant (FRGS/1-2014-STWN06/UPM//02/1) with vote number 5524502 and University Putra Malaysia research grant (GP-1/2014/943200). Authors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Manfred Buchroithner for joint terrestrial laser scanning expedition funded by the National Geographic Society.


  1. 1.
    Silvestre, I., Rodrigues, J.I., Figueiredo, M.J.G., Veiga-Pires, C.: Cave chamber data modeling and 3D web visualization. Proc. Int. Conf. Inf. Vis. 468–473, (2013).
  2. 2.
    Kanaya, I., Kadobayashi, R., Chihara, K.: Three-dimensional modelling of Shofukuji burial chamber. In: Seventh international conference on virtual systems and multimedia, pp. 113–120. (2001).
  3. 3.
    Roncat, A., Dublyansky, Y., Spötl, C., Dorninger, P.: Full-3D Surveying of Caves: A Case Study of Märchenhöhle (Austria). In: Marschallinger, R., Zobl, F. (eds.) IAMG 2011 proceedings: Mathematical Geosciences at the Crossroads of Theory and Practice, pp. 1393–1403, Salzburg, Austria, September 5–9 2011.
  4. 4.
    Cosso, T., Ferrando, I., Orlando, A.: Surveying and mapping a cave using 3D laser scanner: the open challenge with free and open source software. ISPRS Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. XL-5, 181–186 (2014). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Höfle, B., Rutzinger, M.: Topographic airborne LiDAR in geomorphology: a technological perspective. Zeitschrift für Geomorphol. Suppl. Issues 55(2), 1–29 (2011). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fabio, R.: From point cloud to surface: the modeling and visualization problem. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 34, W10 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Idrees, M.O., Pradhan, B.: A Decade of modern cave surveying with terrestrial laser scanning: a Review of sensors, method and application development. Int. J. Speleol. 45(1), 71–88 (2016). Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Hakim, S. F., Fryer, J., Picard, M.: Modeling and visualization of Aboriginal rock art in the Baiame Cave. Proc. XXth Congr. Int. Soc. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 12–23 July 2004 Istanbul, Turkey. Comm. V, Work. Gr. V/2, pp. 990–995, 2004Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gonzalez-Aguilera, D., Rodriguez-gonzalvez, P., Mancera-taboada, J., Muñoz-nieto, A., Herrero-pascual, J., Gomez-lahoz, J.: Application of non-destructive techniques to the recording and modelling of palaeolithic rock art, In: Laser Scanning, Theory and Applications, Chau-Chang Wang, Ed. InTech, 2011, pp. 305–326. Doi Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gonzalez-Aguilera, D., Muñoz, a.L., Lahoz, J.G., Herrero, J.S., Corchón, M.S.m García, E.: Recording and modeling paleolithic caves through laser scanning. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Adv. Geogr. Inf. Syst. Web Serv. GEOWS 2009, 19–26, (2009).
  11. 11.
    Lerma, J.L., Navarro, S., Cabrelles, M., Villaverde, V.: Terrestrial laser scanning and close range photogrammetry for 3D archaeological documentation: the Upper Palaeolithic Cave of Parpalló as a case study. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 499–507 (2010). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Idrees, M.O., Pradhan, B.: Characterization of macro-and micro-geomorphology of cave channel from high-resolution 3d laser scanning survey: case study of gomantong cave in sabah, malaysia. In: Savas, K., Mualla, C.C. (eds.) Cave Investigation, pp. 3–24. InTechOpen (2017). doi: Scholar
  13. 13.
    McFarlane, D., Roberts, W., Buchroithner, M., Van Rentergem, G., Lundberg, J., Hautz, S.: Terrestrial LiDAR-based automated counting of swiftlet nests in the caves of Gomantong, Sabah, Borneo. Int. J. Speleol. 44(2), 55–60 (2015). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Idrees, M.O., Pradhan, B., Buchroithner, M.F., Shafri, H.Z.M., Bejo, S.K.: Assessing the transferability of a hybrid Taguchi-objective function method to optimize image segmentation for detecting and counting cave roosting birds using terrestrial laser scanning data. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 10(3), 1–16 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Besl, P., McKay, N.: A method for registration of 3-D Shapes. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 14(2), 239–256 (1992). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Canevese, E.P., Forti, P., Tedeschi, R.: New acquisition, 3D modeling, and data used methods: the laser scanning survey of retiberio cave, 16th International congress of speleology, 2, 340–345 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huber D.: The ASTM E57 File Format for 3D Imaging Data Exchange, Proc. SPIE Vol. 7864A, Electron. Imaging Sci. Technol. Conf. (IS&T), 3D Imaging Metrol. pp. 1–9 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gallay, M., Hochmuth, Z., Kaňuk, J., Hofierka, J.: Geomorphometric analysis of cave ceiling channels mapped with 3D terrestrial laser scanning. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2016(February), 1–48 (2016). Scholar
  19. 19.
    CloudCompareV2.8, “GPL software,” 2016. [Online]. Available: Accessed 15 August 2016
  20. 20.
    P. Cignoni and G. Ranzuglia, “MeshLab. Visual Computing Lab,” ISTI – CNR, 2014. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 26-Dec-2016]
  21. 21.
    Silvestre, I., Figueiredo, M., Veiga-pires, C.: High-resolution digital 3D models of Algar do Penico Chamber: limitations, challenges, and potential. Int. J. Speleol. 44(January), 25–35 (2015). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Autodesk, Autodesk software for students, educators, and educational institutions, Autodesk Education Community, 2017. [Online]. Available: Accessed 04 Nov 2016

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia
  2. 2.School of Systems, Management and Leadership, Faculty of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations