SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Engineering / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 3

Comparative Analysis of Terrestrial and Handheld Laser Scanning Technologies for Sub-Millimeter Deformation Detection in Industrial Parts

Shah Wali Nazari(BULENT ECEVIT UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-9873-375X
Veli Akarsu(BULENT ECEVIT UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-0845-3533
Murat Yakar(MERSIN UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ENGINEERING)0000-0000-0000-0000
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-06
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results demonstrate that HLS provides a fast, accurate, and industry-ready solution for Quality 4.0 applications in precision manufacturing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Industry 4.0 requires sub-millimeter metrological precision for the geometric quality assurance of high-value industrial components, particularly in aviation and defense applications.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Creaform HandySCAN Black (0.020 mm + 0.040 mm/m) and FARO Focus X330 (±2 mm) were benchmarked across four software platforms: CloudCompare (M3C2), PolyWorks, Geomagic Control X, and MeshLab.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results demonstrate that HLS provides a fast, accurate, and industry-ready solution for Quality 4.0 applications in precision manufacturing.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Handheld laser scanning · M3C2 algorithm · Deformation analysis

Abstract

Industry 4.0 requires sub-millimeter metrological precision for the geometric quality assurance of high-value industrial components, particularly in aviation and defense applications. This study presents a comparative evaluation of triangulation-based Handheld Laser Scanning (HLS) and phase-shift Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) for micro-scale deformation detection. The Creaform HandySCAN Black (0.020 mm + 0.040 mm/m) and FARO Focus X330 (±2 mm) were benchmarked across four software platforms: CloudCompare (M3C2), PolyWorks, Geomagic Control X, and MeshLab. HLS achieved superior performance with an RMS deviation of 0.114866 mm, successfully identifying defects below 0.05 mm across 858 validated classes. TLS exhibited a noise floor of ±2 mm, confirming its limitations for component-level inspection. Statistical analysis demonstrated that the deviation data followed a Gaussian distribution (R² = 0.9834), indicating high measurement reliability and absence of systematic bias. The integration of HLS with the M3C2 algorithm enables high-fidelity Digital Twin generation and automated as-built vs. as-designed comparison workflows compliant with ISO 17025 requirements. The results demonstrate that HLS provides a fast, accurate, and industry-ready solution for Quality 4.0 applications in precision manufacturing.

🔖

Cite This Article

Nazari, S. W., Akarsu, V., Yakar, M. (2026). Comparative Analysis of Terrestrial and Handheld Laser Scanning Technologies for Sub-Millimeter Deformation Detection in Industrial Parts. Turkish Journal of Engineering, Volume: 10 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.1908484

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., & Khan, S. (2022). Understanding the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in improving environmental sustainability. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.01.008
  2. Akcin, H., Kutoglu, H. S., Kemaldere, H., Deguchi, T., & Koksal, E. (2010). Monitoring subsidence effects in the urban area of Zonguldak Hardcoal Basin of Turkey by InSAR-GIS integration. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10(9), 1807-1814. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1807-2010
  3. Alyilmaz, C., Alyilmaz, S., & Yakar, M. (2010). Measurement of petroglyhps (rock of arts) of Qobustan with close range photogrammetry. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 38(Part 5), 29-32.
  4. Karabacak, A., & Yakar, M. (2023). Giyilebilir mobil LiDAR'ın kadastroda kullanılabilirliği. Türkiye Lidar Dergisi, 5(2), 52-60.
  5. Gur, D. O., & Yakar, M. (2024). Kriminal olay yerlerinin dijital belgelenmesinde yersel lazer tarama kullanımı. Türkiye Fotogrametri Dergisi, 6(2), 54-70. https://doi.org/10.53030/tufod.1594123
  6. Çakmak, Z. B., Akpınar, B., & Selbesoğlu, M. O. (2022). Taşınabilir lazer tarama sistemleri ile farklı alanlarda doğruluk analizi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 22(5), 1075-1086.
  7. Suchocki, C., Janicka, J., & Zagubien, A. (2025). Using handheld 3D laser scanner and high-resolution handheld digital microscope for hybrid building condition measurements. Measurement, 253, 117751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2024.117751
  8. Besl, P. J., & McKay, N. D. (1992). A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14(2), 239-256.
  9. Akarsu, V. (2012). Investigation of the Effect of Observation Duration on the Determination of GPS Point Velocities (Doctoral Thesis). Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul.
  10. [Lague, D., Brodu, N., & Leroux, J. (2013). Accurate 3D comparison of complex topography with terrestrial laser scanner: Application to the Rangitikei canyon (N-Z). ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 82, 10-26.
  11. Özdoğan, M. V., & Deliormanlı, A. H. (2018). Yersel lazer tarayıcı ile yeraltı galerisinde meydana gelen deformasyonların belirlenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, 20(59), 663-675.
  12. Varhan, O. (2024). Türk savunma ve havacılık sanayiinde döngüsel ekonomi ve ürün yaşam döngüsü yönetimi: Yapay zeka destekli uygulama örnekleri. Ulaştırma Yönetimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 35-59.
  13. Yakar, M., & Yılmaz, H. M. (2025). The Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Cultural Heritage Documentation. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 11(2), 496-509. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.1801614. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.637050
  14. Zeybek, M. (2021). Classification of UAV point clouds by random forest machine learning algorithm. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 5(2), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.669566-101. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.669566
  15. [Sevgen, S. C., & Karsli, F. (2020). Automatic ground extraction for urban areas from airborne LiDAR data. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 4(3), 113-122. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.641501
  16. Cubukcu, E. A., Demir, V., & Sevimli, M. F. (2022). Digital elevation modeling using artificial neural networks, deterministic and geostatistical interpolation methods. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 6(3), 199-205. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.889570
  17. Polat, N., Uysal, M., & Toprak, A. S. (2020). Investigating the accuracy of DSM and orthophoto produced by UAVs with different flight altitudes: A case study. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 4(4), 170-176. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.653631
  18. Karataş, L., Alptekin, A., Karabacak, A., & Yakar, M. (2022). Detection and documentation of stone material deterioration in historical masonry buildings using UAV photogrammetry: A case study of Mersin Sarisih Inn. Mersin Photogrammetry Journal, 4(2), 53-61.
  19. Yılmaz, H. M., Mutluoğlu, Ö., Ulvi, A., Yaman, A., & Bilgilioğlu, S. S. (2018). İnsansız hava aracı ile ortofoto üretimi ve Aksaray Üniversitesi kampüsü örneği. Geomatik, 3(2), 129-136.
  20. Karataş, Lale, Aydın Alptekin, and Murat Yakar. "Detection and documentation of stone material deterioration in historical masonry structures using UAV photogrammetry: A case study of Mersin Aba Mausoleum." Advanced UAV 2, no. 2 (2022): 51-64.
  21. Canaz Sevgen, S. (2019). Airborne LiDAR data classification in complex urban area using random forest: A case study of Bergama, Turkey. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 4(1), 45-51. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.440828
  22. Yıldırım, Ü. K., & Şişman, Y. (2019). The deformation analysis using hypothesis tests. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 4(2), 88-93. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.478025
  23. Konak, H., Küreç Nehbit, P., Karaöz, A., & Cerit, F. (2020). Interpreting deformation results of geodetic network points using the strain models based on different estimation methods. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 5(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.581584
  24. Duran, Z., & Atik, M. E. (2021). Accuracy comparison of interior orientation parameters from different photogrammetric software and direct linear transformation method. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 6(2), 74-80. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.691696
  25. Senkal, E., Kaplan, G., & Avdan, U. (2021). Accuracy assessment of digital surface models from unmanned aerial vehicles' imagery on archaeological sites. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 6(2), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.696001
  26. Maras, E. E., & Nasery, N. (2023). Investigating the length, area and volume measurement accuracy of UAV-based oblique photogrammetry models produced with and without ground control points. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 8(1), 32-51. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.1017176
  27. Akçay, O., Erenoğlu, R., & Avsar, E. (2017). The effect of JPEG compression in close range photogrammetry. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 2(1), 35-40. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.287308
  28. Mohammed, O., & Yakar, M. (2016). Yersel fotogrametrik yöntem ile ibadethanelerin modellenmesi. Selcuk University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 15(2), 85-95.
  29. ISO 22514-2:2017. (2017). Statistical methods in process management — Capability and performance — Part 2: Process capability and performance of time-dependent process models. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  30. Montgomery, D. C. (2019). Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (8th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA.
  31. Yakar, M. (2009). The effect of grid resolution in defining terrain surface. Experimental Techniques.
  32. Karataş, L., Alptekin, A., & Yakar, M. (2022). Determination of Stone Material Deteriorations on the Facades with the Combination of Terrestrial Laser Scanning and Photogrammetric Methods: Case Study of Historical Burdur Station Premises. Advanced Geomatics, 2(2), 65-72.
  33. Yakar, M., Yıldız, F., Uray, F., & Metin, A. (2010). Photogrammetric measurement of the Meke Lake and its environment with kite photographs to monitoring of water level to climate change. In ISPRS Commission V Mid-Term Symposium (pp. 613-616).
  34. Yakar, M., & Yildiz, F. (2005, September). Digital photogrammetric methods in documentation of cultural heritages and Beysehir example. In CIPA 2005 XX International Symposium (Vol. 26).
  35. Karabörk, H., Göktepe, A., Yılmaz, H. M., Mutluoğlu, Ö., Yıldız, F., & Yakar, M. (2009). Tarihi ve kültürel varlıkların lazer tarama ve lazer nokta ölçme teknolojileri ile 3B modellenmesinde duyarlılık araştırması ve uygulama modelinin belirlenmesi. 12. Türkiye Harita Bilimsel ve Teknik Kurultayı, 11-15.
  36. Alyilmaz, C., Alyilmaz, S., & Yakar, M. (2010). Measurement of petroglyhps (rock of arts) of Qobustan with close range photogrammetry. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 38(Part 5), 29-32.