Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 14

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Characterizing building materials using multispectral imagery and LiDAR


intensity data
Zohreh Zahiri a, Debra F. Laefer b, *, Aoife Gowen c
a
Department of Physics University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610, Antwerpen, Belgium
b
Center for Urban Science and Progress and Department of Civil and Urban Engineering, Tandon School of Engineering, New York University, 370 Jay St., Brooklyn, NY,
11201, USA
c
UCD School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper addresses the underlying bottleneck of unknown materials and material characteristics for assessing
Multispectral the life cycle of an existing structure or considering interventions. This is done by classifying and characterizing
Laser scanning common building materials with two readily accessible, remote sensing technologies: multispectral imaging and
Building materials
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR). A total of 142 samples, including concrete of 3 different water/cement
Classification
Façades
ratios, 2 mortar types, and 2 brick types (each type fired at 3 different temperatures) were scanned using a 5-
band multispectral camera in the visible, RedEdge, and Near Infrared range and 2 laser scanners with
different wavelengths. A Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis model was developed to classify the main
materials and then the subcategories within each material type. With multispectral data, an 82.75% average
correct classification rate was achieved (improving to 83.07% when combined with LiDAR intensity data), but
the effect was not uniformly positive. This paper demonstrates the potential to identify building materials in a
non-destructive, non-contact manner to aid in in-situ facade material labelling.

1. Introduction cannot be deployed at scale. Recent work by Chuta, Colin, and Jeong
[12] on changed surface properties of concretes with different
Presently, obtaining fast and cheap information about building ge­ water-cement ratios provides a rational basis to investigate the use of
ometries and materials at a city-scale plays an important role in many non-contact remote sensing for automatic material determination. If
urban applications including asset management, computational model­ automatic detection of building materials and their differences could be
ling, and resiliency assessment. Despite significant research that has achieved by remote sensing (RS) data, great improvements could be
been undertaken for the automatic detection of the geometry of build­ obtained for more automated documentation and life-cycle assessment
ings (e.g. Refs. [1,2] and individual features or defects [3,4], relatively of existing buildings. This paper considers the possible benefits of two RS
little has been done to remotely identify component materials [5,6], techniques in detecting primary building materials and distinguishing
especially characterizing differences within single classes of materials differences within classes of materials.
(e.g. weak stone versus strong stone).
As noted by Dizhur et al. [7]; “One of the primary needs when 2. Background
assessing a building for refurbishment and/or retrofit is to characterize
the constituent material properties.”. However, doing so without In recent decades, remote sensing data in different forms [e.g. Light
destructive testing is difficult to achieve, especially at scale [8]. With Detection And Ranging (LiDAR), multispectral imaging, hyperspectral
respect to asset management knowing such differences can be critical in imaging) have been widely used for classification purposes in many
terms of long-term performance expectations such as whether a mortar areas such as geological investigation [13,14], vegetation identification
contains lime [9] or the in-situ strength of concrete [10]. While ultra­ [15,16], cultural heritage monitoring, and damage detection [17,18].
sonic pulse tests have been effective in characterizing different clays and Such datasets have even been used for estimation of water depth [19]
specific firing levels for structural clay blocks [11], such technology and quantification of river channel bed morphology [20]. However,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zohreh.zahiri@uantwerpen.be (D.F. Laefer).
Available online 27 April 2021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102603
2352-7102/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Received 8 November 2020; Received in revised form 7 March 2021; Accepted 21 April 2021
Z. Zahiri et al.

relatively little research has been undertaken to classify building ma­ to the larger number of readings [36]. This makes estimation of different
Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603
terials and discern differences within a class of construction materials. material classes difficult, especially if the training dataset is limited
Presently, the most common RS data types for material classification [37]. Another disadvantage is that hyperspectral cameras are relatively
studies are spectral imaging data. expensive and heavy, which complicates collecting façade data from
Early applications of the spectral imaging in building material multiple elevations. Conversely, multispectral cameras are cheaper and
characterization were conducted through reflected-light imagery in the lighter, thereby, allowing for a wide range of options for unmanned
visible and near-infrared (NIR) ranges with both unsupervised classifi­ aerial vehicle usage, as described by Chen, Laefer, and Mangina. [38];
cation [21] and supervised classification approaches [22]. Lerma, Ruiz, thereby giving great flexibility in data collection. To date, the combi­
and Buchón [23] combined spectral images [red, green, blue (RGB), and nation of RedEdge multispectral and LiDAR data sets for characterizing
NIR] with three textural images (calculated from the Red band image) building materials has not been thoroughly explored. This paper con­
for classification of six different materials (cleaned cement mortar, dirty tributes to this area.
cement mortar, flaking, polished limestone, washed limestone, and dark
limestone) from the façade of Santos Juanés Church in Valencia, Spain 3. Material and methods
using a maximum likelihood classification approach [23]. While
combining the textural images and multispectral images qualitatively In the study herein, data from a multispectral camera in the Near IR
improved the classification images, no quantitative results were pre­ and RedEdge ranges (RedEdge Micasense) were used to classify multiple
sented. Later, Lerma [24] investigated the advantages of using building material samples. The classification process was repeated with
multi-band data in the identification of different facade materials (i.e., the addition of two LiDAR scans taken with different laser wavelengths,
rock, wood, and various cement mortars). Multi-band images were and various data configurations (i.e. each technique separately or
generated using a set of registered images related to the same object but combined) were tested to optimise classification accuracy, as will be
taken at different times, from distinct positions, under various lighting described in detail in this section.
conditions and with multiple sensors of different electromagnetic
wavelengths (RGB and NIR). In that work, multi-band data combined 3.1. Equipment
with multi-spectral data obtained better classification results compared
to multi-spectral classification under single lighting and atmospheric For the multispectral camera, a RedEdge MicaSense camera was
conditions. As that work was done on only a single facade with a limited used. The unit has five sensors each collecting light intensity at five
number of materials tested, a universal solution has yet to be developed different bands (Fig. 1): Blue (475 nm), Green (560 nm), Red (668 nm),
where a repeatable spectral signature is identifiable. NIR (840 nm), and Red edge (717 nm).
LiDAR is another RS technique. In that technology, a laser beam is The LiDAR data were collected by two terrestrial laser scanners
used to collect range measurements from which 3D coordinates (x-y-z) operating at different laser wavelengths (Table 1). The Trimble GS200
are established. LiDAR systems usually operate at a monochromatic scanner had a green laser with a 532 nm wavelength (Fig. 2a), while the
wavelength and record the strength of the reflected energy from the Leica scanner had a red laser with a 658 nm wavelength (Fig. 2b).
object encountered in this line-of-sight-technology. The reflected energy Collected data were in the form of a point cloud with each point pos­
is referred to as the intensity and is controlled by material surface sessing an X-, Y-, and Z-coordinate and an intensity value.
properties and atmospheric factors, as well as equipment specific con­
siderations [25]. Intensity values are the most common LiDAR outputs 3.2. Sample preparation
used for material classification. At a large scale, this has been success­
fully employed for distinguishing vegetation from non-vegetation [26], The experimental sample set was comprised of three common
for identifying shadowed areas from non-shadowed ones [27], and for building materials: concrete, brick, and mortar with a range of compo­
classifying different urban land covers [25,28]. sitions to cover some of the range of available material configurations.
Sithole [29] combined LiDAR data with hue, saturation, value trip­ Additionally, each class contained sub-classes of materials. For the
lets (obtained from converting RGB values) in a three-dimensional (3D) concrete, there were 54 samples, with 18 each of 3 different water
triangulation model to detect brick/stone blocks from surrounding cement ratios (50%, 65%, and 80%). They produced according to ASTM
mortar joints. Similarly, Hemmleb et al. [30] deployed multispectral standard C 192-90a [39] and were wholly identical, except for the water
laser scanners to classify brick, mortar, and stone materials, as well as to cement ratio (Table 2). The dimensions of each concrete sample were
damage from moisture, biological agents, and salt blooming, and Morsy, approximately 50 × 50 × 50 mm.
Shaker, and El-Rabbany [31] combined three intensity images and a The brick samples were produced from two common types of clay:
Digital Surface Model image (all created from multispectral LiDAR data) red and yellow firing clay. The bricks were machine pressed and deliv­
to classify buildings, trees, roads, and grass. While more versatile than ered unfired by the Vandersanden brick factory of Bilzen, Belgium
single-channel laser scanners, multispectral laser scanners are still
limited by their spectral sensitivity and have, therefore, only been able
to distinguish a limited number of materials. More recently, Yuan, Guo,
and Wang [32], used the reflectance, hue saturation values, and surface
roughness extracted from LiDAR data as the material classification
features. They concluded that the reflectance values deduced from
LiDAR intensity values were more accurate than using the intensity
values directly, as the latter varied with respect to the angle of incidence
and distance from the scanner.
In contrast to LiDAR and multispectral technologies, hyperspectral
cameras can collect spectral data from hundreds of continuous bands.
The hyperspectral data in the range of 1300–2200 nm was used recently
to classify concrete with different water/cement ratios [33], bricks of
different clay and firing temperatures [34] and mortars with different
binder types [35]. Although hyperspectral data provides more infor­
mation than regular RGB images and multispectral images, the higher 2
dimensionality of the data is significantly more complex to process due Fig. 1. RedEdge MicaSense Multispectral camera (support.micasense.com).
Z. Zahiri et al.

Table 1
Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603
Laser scanner specifications. Table 2
Specifications Trimble GS200™ Leica Scan Station P20 Characterization of concrete mixes.

Laser colour Green Red Water/Cement Ratio Density (kg/ Compressive Strength Slump
Laser wavelength 532 nm 658 nm (%) m3) (MPa)a (mm)
Point accuracy 3 mm @ 100 m 3 mm @ 50 m; 6 mm @ 100 m 50% 2424.67 35.72 82
Field of view 360◦ × 60o 360◦ × 60o 65% 2365.83 26.78 117
80% 2359.67 15.25 197
a
Averaged from three cube 10 cm × 10 cm × 10 cm specimens according to
BS 1881-116:2002.

Table 3
Component materials of the tested brick.
Brick Composition* Size (mm) Factory Compressive
Type Code Strength**
(MPa)

Red Red firing local 190 × 90 × 50 D24-S3- 11.40


firing loam, white firing 15077
brick German clay
Yellow Yellow firing local 210 × 100 × 65 D08-S3- 15.00
firing loam, red firing 15087
brick local loam, and
chalk

Fig. 2. Laser scanners used for collecting LiDAR data. a) Trimble laser scanner. *As reported by the manufacturer.
b) Leica laser scanner. **Average from three samples when fired at 1060 ◦ C.

(Table 3). Prior to firing, the bricks were cut by the authors into small
Table 4
cubes (roughly 40 × 40 × 40 mm) providing a total of 117 samples
Mortar composition.
across the 2 brick types (63 red brick samples and 54 yellow brick
Mortar Type Sand Water Cement Lime
samples). The samples were divided into 3 groups, with each fired at a
different temperature: 700 ◦ C, 950 ◦ C, and 1060 ◦ C. For each firing level, Type S 3 0.8 1 0.5
there were 21 red brick samples and 18 yellow brick samples. Lime 2.5 0.15 0 1

A total of 42 mortar samples were used. Half were lime mortar and
the other half Type S mortar [40], as described in Table 4. The lime incorporating functions from the Image Processing and Statistics tool­
mortar was made using a lime putty from Cornish Lime Co. LTD Bodmin, boxes and additional functions written in-house.
Cornwall, UK. As the material was already in a paste form, only a small
amount of additional water was added to achieve good workability. For
4.1. Multispectral integration
the mortar Type S, Portland cement was mixed with natural hydraulic
lime (obtained from The Lime Store, Dublin. Ireland). The hydraulic
As previously mentioned, the MicaSense multispectral camera has 5
lime, cement, and sand were mixed in a small counter-top mixer, and
sensors each of which collects reflected light intensity at specific band,
then the water was added gradually, until the mix obtain a good
resulting in 5 different images. Due to small offsets of the sensors on the
workability. The mortar was cast in cubes 40 × 40 × 40 mm and cured at
camera’s face, the position from which the data were taken differs
room temperature.
slightly with respect to the angle of incidence. Hence, the images were
The calibration and validation samples for the classification models
registered and aligned using “imregconfig” function, and later they were
were assembled as two, separate, dry-laid block walls (Fig. 3). Rows
combined using the “cat” function in Matlab to create a cube of a fixed
1–3 at the bottom of each wall were concrete samples, with each row a
length and width for all images and at a fixed depth of five bands.
different water to cement (w/c) mix stacked from strongest to weakest
from the bottom up. The samples in rows 4–9 (from the bottom) were
brick samples comprised of 12 yellow and 14 red bricks in each row. 4.2. LiDAR and multispectral integration
Within each colour group (rows 4–6 and 7–9), the bricks were placed in
clusters according to firing temperature from the least fired group (rows The LiDAR point clouds from the two different terrestrial laser
4 and 7) to the most fired group (rows 6 and 9) [Fig. 3a]. The top two scanners were converted into a pair of two-dimensional planes with only
rows of each wall were mortar samples, with the lime samples (row 10) x- and y-coordinates along with intensity data for each point (Fig. 4a).
beneath mortar Type S (row 11) [Fig. 3a]. The validation wall was Then the planes were divided into grids such that the number of grids in
composed in the same order with the remaining samples (1/3rd of the the x- and y-directions were equal to the number of pixels in the length
total samples) (Fig. 3b). The two walls were scanned with the multi­ and width of the multispectral image (Fig. 4b). Finally, the mean in­
spectral camera and the two terrestrial laser scanners described in tensity value of all the points confined in each grid was calculated and
Table 1. The light illuminance at all corners of the two walls was displayed as a pixel with spatial positions corresponding to the pixels in
measured with a ISO-TECH 1335 light meter registering 30 klux, thereby the multispectral image (Fig. 4c).
confirming a uniform lighting (sunlight) across the samples. As building components may appear similar but be of different ma­
terials, the experiment was designed to exclude the geometry as that
4. Data processing cannot be relied upon. For this, samples of identical shapes and surface
properties were produced so that the only criteria by which they can be
All data analysis was conducted using MATLAB (release R2014b) 3 identified would be their electromagnetic behavior and not some
geometrical characteristic which might appear in the field in the form of
Z. Zahiri et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603

Fig. 3. Specimen input (213 samples in total).

Fig. 4. Converting Trimble 3D point cloud of Trimble scanner to 2D intensity plane.

variable z values. Additionally, the intensity data were not converted to bands (multispectral and LiDAR) are referred to as “intensity”
reflectance data, because the scanning area was relatively small (less throughout this document.
than 1 m wide) and little variance was seen. More information about the Each sample contained at least 200 pixels. For each sample in the
data integration is provided in Appendix A. wall, a region of 5 × 5 pixels (a total of 25 pixels) was selected from the
The intensity values of the LiDAR data (29–255 from the Trimble and sample’s centre. The mean, multi-sensor spectrum of these pixels was
− 1140–1514 from the Leica) and multispectral data (7168–63,175) considered as the representative spectrum of that sample. This resulted
were all normalized individually between 0 and 1 (by subtracting the in 213 spectra for the 213 samples. For further investigation of the
minimum value from all values and dividing them by the difference created classification models, the models were applied to all pixels in the
between the minimum and maximum values). Then the LiDAR image validation image. Standard Normal Variate (SNV) pre-treatment (as
planes were combined with the five spectral image planes of the mul­ described in Ref. [41] was applied to the multi-sensor data to attempt to
tispectral images using the “cat” function in Matlab resulting in a cube of correct for any surface induced variations in the measured signal.
a fixed length and width and at a fixed depth of seven sensor data sets
(instead of the previous five) [Fig. 5]. With both multispectral and 4.3. PLSDA classification models
LiDAR technologies, the sensors measure the intensity of light reflected
from the target object. Hence, to prevent confusion, the readings in all In this study, Partial Least Squares Discriminative Analysis (PLSDA)
[42] was used to classify the brick, concrete, and mortar samples. PLSDA
is a supervised classification technique based on PLS regression (PLSR)
to find the relation between two matrices (X and Y), in which X is the
information measured for each sample (i.e. the spectra of the samples)
and Y is a column vector defining the class membership for each sample
in X. The Y variable is 1 for “in class” samples and 0 for “out of class”
samples. For instance, if a PLSDA model is built to detect the brick class,
the Y variable is 1 for brick samples and 0 for non-brick (i.e. concrete
and mortar) classes. With this, five classification models were built
(Fig. 6 and Table 5). The first model was to classify the three main
building materials from each other. The other four models were gener­
ated to distinguish classes within each material group. Models were built
on both raw and SNV processed data.

4
Fig. 5. Combining multispectral and LiDAR data.
Z. Zahiri et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603

Fig. 6. Graphical description of different classification models.

is provided in Table 7, where a plus indicates an improvement, a minus


Table 5
sign a worsening in the results, and an equal sign no change.
Sample quantities in the calibration and validation sets of each model.
Model Calibration Samples Validation Samples 5.2. Applying classification models to pixels in validation wall
1 142 (36 concrete, 78 brick, and 28 71 (18 concrete, 39 brick, and 14
mortar) mortar) The classification models were later applied to the entirety of the
2 78 (36 yellow and 42 red) 39 (18 yellow and 21 red)
pixels in the validation set to visualise the performance of the models. In
3 78 (26 for each firing level) 39 (13 for each firing level)
4 28 (14 for each mortar) 14 (7 for each mortar) the making of the previous models, the mean spectrum of the 25 pixels in
5 36 (6 for each w/c ratio) 18 (6 for each w/c ratio) the centre of each sample was used for testing the models. However, in
this instance, the models were applied to all the pixels including the 25
pixels in the centre of the samples. Using the larger data set produced the
5. Results following results. For the first 3 classification models, better results were
achieved when the LiDAR data were added to the multispectral images
5.1. Assessment of classification model performance without applying SNV (Model 1c, 2c, and 3c in Fig. 7). Among these 3
models, the best result was obtained for Model 1 (85.63%), with nearly
Table 6 summarizes the correct classification rates (CCRs) achieved all bricks (99.31%), 85.92% of concrete, and 71.65% of the mortar
for the validation samples across all models. For each classification properly classified (n.b. all mortar misclassifications appeared as con­
model, four different variations of the data were considered: a) multi­ crete). However, the mortar samples were better classified with SNV pre-
spectral data without pre-treatment, b) multispectral with pre- treatment (78.45%) [Model 1d in Fig. 7].
treatment, c) multispectral and LiDAR without pre-treatment, and d) The next best result was obtained for Model 2 when the LiDAR data
multispectral and LiDAR with pre-treatment. The main observation from were added (Model 2c in Fig. 7). Similarly, SNV pre-treatment reduced
Table 6 is that the use of SNV pre-treatment on the data (both multi­ the overall CCR of Model 2 (Model 2b and Model 2d compared to Model
spectral data and the combined multispectral and LiDAR data) 2a and Model 2c in Fig. 7). This improvement of adding the LiDAR data
decreased the classification accuracy in Model 2 (brick type) and Model was especially notable in the red brick class resulting in an improvement
3 (brick firing level) by at least 10%. While, using the pre-treated data in CCR from 73.58% to 79.34% and with better segmentation for the
improved the classification of Model 5 (concrete with different w/c) and top-most row in red bricks (Model 2c in Fig. 7). In Model 3 for the brick
had little impact on the classification results of Model 1 and Model 4. In firing level, the CCR varied significantly between the red and yellow
general, the SNV pre-treatment worsened results among the 5 models bricks. However, similar to Models 1 and 2, the best overall CCR for this
from 81.08% to 76.60% for multispectral data and from 80.85% to
78.18% for the combined LiDAR and multispectral data. This decrease in
Table 7
CCR after applying SNV might be due to the similarities of spectral shape
Summary of the impact of the data sources and pre-treatment approaches on the
among classes; as described in Appendix B. CCRs.
Table 6 also shows that when LiDAR data were added and no pre-
Classification a) Base b) No LiDAR c) LiDAR d) LiDAR
treatment occurred, the classification models improved for Model 2
models Condition with SNV without SNV with SNV
(brick type) and Model 4 (mortar type) at 5% and 7% respectively. (multispectral)
However, including LiDAR data decreased the accuracy of Model 3
Model 1 95.77% þ þ þ
(brick firing levels) and Model 5 (concrete) by 5% and 10%, respec­ Model 2 92.31% - þ -
tively. The average CCR of the 5 models with the addition of the LiDAR Model 3 87.18% - - -
data improved only marginally from 82.76% to 83.07% (Table 6). Model 4 85.71% - þ -
A summary of the impact of the data sources and SNV pre-treatment Model 5 44.44% þ - ¼

Table 6
Correct classification rate (CCR %) for both multispectral and combined validation sets before and after SNV pre-treatment with best results shown per model in bold.
Data Model 1 (3 materials) Model 2 (Brick type) Model 3 (Firing level) Model 4 (Mortar type) Model 5 (Concrete w/c) Average

M* No SNV^ 95.77 92.31 87.18 85.71 44.44 81.08


With SNV 98.59 76.92 71.79 85.71 50 76.60
Average of best results from 5 classification models for multispectral data 82.76
M & L** No SNV 98.59 97.43 82.05 92.85 33.33 80.85
With SNV 97.18 84.61 71.82 92.85 44.44 78.18
Average of best results from 5 classification models for combined multispectral and LiDAR data 83.07
5
*M: Multispectral **L: LiDAR ^SNV: Standard normal variate pre-treatment.
Z. Zahiri et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603

Fig. 7. Classification images of 5 models for different data sets with and without SNV with best results of each dataset (considering SNV effect) in bold text and the
average of the best overall results presented for each technology (M and M&L)
*M: Multispectral **L: LiDAR ^SNV: Standard Normal Variate pre-treatment.

model (52.24%) was also obtained after adding the LiDAR data and in Fig. 7). The combined LiDAR and multispectral data set had a mixed
without applying SNV pre-treatment. Clear segmentation can be impact on Model 5 for differentiating concrete classes. Similar to Models
observed for most samples, except for yellow brick samples fired at 1–3, the best result (44.27%) in Model 5 was obtained after adding
700 ◦ C (Model 3c in Fig. 7). LiDAR data but with SNV pre-treatment (Model 5d in Fig. 7). In this
Model 4 for classifying mortar classes resulted in a slight reduction in model (Model 5d), 56.82% of the concrete class 50% was classified
the overall CCR after adding the LiDAR data (66.76% vs. 65.53%). correctly. Notably, the results for concrete classes 65% and 80% were
Although the segmentation of lime mortar improved by 8% after adding poorer (41.58% and 34.41% respectively). Averaging the best results
the LiDAR data, the one for Type S mortar worsened (11% lower CCR, as obtained with multispectral data (irrespective of processing approaches)
shown in Model 4a vs. Model 4c in Fig. 7). With both data types, the SNV was 62.95%, an increase of more than 2%–65.13%. In general, the
6
pre-treatment slightly reduced the overall CCR (Model 4b and Model 4d concrete classification model was the worst among the 5 models. Table 8
Z. Zahiri et al.

Table 8
Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603
Data type resulting in the best CCR for each of the 5-classification models.
Best Model 1 (3 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Results materials) (Brick (Firing (Mortar (Concrete
type) level) type) w/c)

Mean M* with M&L M M&L M with SNV


spectra SNV^
of M&L**
samples
Pixel data M&L M&L M&L M M&L with
SNV

*M: Multispectral **L: LiDAR ^SNV: Standard Normal Variate pre-treatment.


Fig. 8. Comparing the PLSDA classification performance of different spec­
tral data.
shows the approach that generated the best outputs when applied to the
mean spectra of samples’ central regions and to the pixel data. In both
methods, most of the models worked better when multispectral data better (Table 9).
were combined with the LiDAR data. The bar chart in Fig. 8 compares the classification results from
spectrometry data with more than 200 bands in short-wave Infrared
[33–35], RedEdge multispectral data in Vis-NIR (5 bands), and com­
6. Discussion
bined multispectral and LiDAR intensity data (7 bands). These results
demonstrate that while spectrometry data in SWIR with more than 200
The CCRs in this study varied among the different classification
bands obtained the highest performance, the multispectral data (either
models by (1) using exclusively multispectral data, (2) combining them
exclusively or combined with LiDAR intensity) perform similarly, except
with LiDAR intensity data, and (3) applying SNV pre-treatment. How­
for concrete classification (Model 5). The poor results of the approach in
ever, overall, the combination of multispectral and LiDAR data resulted
concrete classification were also due to the fact that multi-sensor data
in the best CCR in most classification models (Table 8) and marginally
were mostly within visible range and NIR range, which are insensitive to
improved the average CCR of all models (82.76%–83.07%). Previous
water. In future, utilizing laser scanners with an Infrared laser (e.g a
work for land cover classification has also shown that integration of
ILRIS laser scanner) or including more SWIR wavelengths in the
LiDAR intensity data and multispectral marginally increased the clas­
multi-spectral sensor might improve the classification results, especially
sification accuracy from 82.5% to 83.5% [43]. In that research, inclu­
when desiring to classify concrete based on water content.
sion of LiDAR intensity improved the classification for water (from 90%
Although the overall results of most classification models improved
to 100%) and pavement (from 68% to 88%) but significantly decreased
slightly by adding LiDAR data (Table 8 and Fig. 7), the capability of the
classification accuracy of bare ground (from 80% to 52%). Similarly, in
MicaSense multispectral data exclusively, was confirmed to detect dif­
the study herein, the introduction of LiDAR intensity data improved
ferences in material samples (Fig. 8). Hence, the multispectral imaging
classification of some materials but not uniformly. However, the often
with MicaSense RedEdge camera presented a compelling approach to be
marginal and inconsistent results achieved with the introduction of the
the basis for material classification, especially given its limited spectral
LiDAR intensity data indicate that further research is needed to deter­
resolution, significantly easier set up compared to a laser scanner, and its
mine whether the relative benefits outweigh the extra difficulties and
rapid data capturing ability.
costs associated with collecting data from multiple remote sensing de­
While these observations provide useful insights into possible
vices and the subsequent storage and processing, as well as the most
equipment based means to classify building materials in a non-
beneficial wavelength(s) for the LiDAR.
destructive, non-contact manner, to be able to more rigorously gener­
To determine whether the results could be improved through a
alize the observations will require extensive additional investigations
different modelling approach, a Support vector machine (SVM) classi­
that combination of close range non-destructive testing and destructive
fier, which is commonly used for image classification, was built from the
chemical analysis (e.g. XRD, TGA, etc.) beyond the scope of this study.
same training data and was applied to the test data for further analysis.
In SVM, a hyperplane is used to linearly separate the higher dimensional
7. Conclusions
data. Non-linear data in the original dimension is mapped to linearly
separable higher dimensional space [44].
Multispectral images were considered with and without intensity
SVM could achieve 100% accuracy for all types and combinations of
data from RedEdge multispectral camera and two LiDAR units operating
data in Model 1 (Table 6 vs. Table 9). In Model 2, for classifying brick
at different emitting wavelengths in an attempt to classify different
types, SVM only slightly improved the results from Multispectral data
building materials (concrete, brick, and mortar). A PLS-DA approach
without pre-treatment but worsened or did not change the results for
applied to the data was capable to classify main material classes (con­
other types of data. The results of Model 3, Model 4 and Model 5 also
crete, brick, and mortar) and then differentiate distinctions within each
worsened by using SVM classifier for almost all data. In general, the
certain material class (different brick, mortar, and concrete types).
results from SVM classification were worse for most of the models and
There were promising results in the models related to mortar type, brick
proved that the PLSDA classifier, which was considered initially, works

Table 9
Correct classification rate (CCR %) results achieved by SVM classifier.
Data Model 1 (3 materials) Model 2 (Brick type) Model 3 (Firing level) Model 4 (Mortar type) Model 5 (Concrete w/c) Average

M* No SNV^ 100 94.87 71.79 57.14 33.33 71.43


With SNV 100 82.05 69.23 57.14 33.33 68.35
M & L** No SNV 100 92.31 82.05 57.14 33.33 72.97
With SNV 100 84.62 64.10 57.14 33.33 67.84

*M: Multispectral **L: LiDAR ^SNV: Standard Normal Variate pre-treatment.


7
Z. Zahiri et al.

clay type, and brick firing levels. Poorer results were obtained dis­ Mr. John Ryan from UCDJournal
technician team, as well as Mr. Bert Neyens
of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603
tinguishing concretes made with different water to cement ratios. The (Vandersanden Group) for their support and assistance in conducting
results also showed that in most cases, multispectral data (either the experimental parts of the study. This work was supported by New
exclusively or combined with LiDAR data) obtained exceed 80% for York University’s Center for Urban Science and Progress; and The Eu­
correct classification rates. This proves the potential for using RedEdge ropean Research Council (ERC) [grant number ERC-2013-StG-335508—
multispectral camera for detecting changes in building materials and BioWater].
that such technologies may be able to estimate mechanical properties of
material via a non-destructive, non-contact technique. Such an ability Author statement
would represent a major breakthrough in building conservation with
respect to identifying and distinguishing in situ materials. Zohreh Zahiri undertook the conceptualization, methodology, vali­
To determine the full value of this type of work, future experimental dation, formal analysis, investigation, writing, visualization.
efforts should be undertaken for brick with additional clay types and Debra Laefer provided the conceptualization, resources, writing,
compositions, mortars of different aggregates and lime contents, and visualization, supervision, project administration, and funding
concretes with other cements and aggregate types, as well as with acquisition.
plasticizers and retarders and those with long-term exposure to Aoife Gowan contributed to the methodology, software, reviewing.
pollutant. This technique should also be assessed under varying levels of
sunlight noting, however, that the multispectral camera used in this Declaration of competing interest
study requires direct sunlight for capturing proper images in the NIR and
RedEdge bands. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Acknowledgements the work reported in this paper.

The authors wish to thank Mr. Donal Lennon, Mr. Derek Holmes, and

Appendix A. Concatenation

In this study, a multispectral image of the wall with fixed dimensions (x*y) was used where x is the number of pixels in the x direction and y is the number
of pixels in the y direction. The data collected by laser scanners are not pixel-based but are, instead, parts of point clouds with thousands of points indicating
the x, y, z coordinates, as well as the intensity values for each point. To be able to combine these two data sets (multispectral image and LiDAR point clouds),
the three-dimensional point cloud data had to be projected into two-dimensional planes, as mentioned in the main text. This was done by making a mesh with
the exact number of x and y pixels as that which appears in the multispectral image and by computing the average intensity of all the points within every cell of
this mesh. In this case, the two resulting planes are of the same dimensions of the multispectral image, which enables a co-registration.
The ’cat’ function is the shortened name for concatenate and is a function in Matlab, which was used to concatenate two matrices along a certain
dimension. For example, C = cat(dim,A,B) concatenates B to the end of A along dimension dim. The aim was to concatenate the multispectral matrix
and the LiDAR planes not along the x or y dimensions, but along the 3rd dimension, which is the intensity values [MnL = cat(3,Multispectral, LiDAR)].
For the multispectral image, there are 5 different intensity matrices (5 spectral bands), and for the LiDAR planes, there are 2 different intensity
matrices (2 spectral bands from 2 different laser scanners). Hence, after concatenating, the MnL matrix has fixed x and y dimensions, the 3rd
dimension is now 7. While the Cat function does not explicitly introduce error, there is a marginal concatenating error in combining the two datasets,
because they are completely different data types (one is a 2D image, while the other 3D point cloud). By checking the edges of the wall, the error was
established to be less than 5 mm in the length in both the calibration and validation walls (60 cm and 30 cm, respectively).

Appendix B. Additional Results

B1.1. Model 1 classification results (classifying main materials)

After scanning with both techniques (i.e. multispectral and LiDAR), the mean spectra for the brick, concrete, and mortar samples were calculated

Fig. B1. Mean spectra of materials in Model 1.


8
Z. Zahiri et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603

Fig. B2. Validation results of Model 1 for classifying main materials B: Brick C: Concrete M: Mortar.

and plotted (Fig. B1). In general, the mean spectra of the three main material classes showed distinctive patterns in the multispectral bands, with the
mortar and concrete spectra showing higher intensities (especially in the blue and green bands) compared to the brick spectra (Fig. B1a). Less effective
for the three materials were the Near IR and RedEdge bands (around 0.2) where less distinction was apparent, except with the mortar in the RedEdge
band.
After adding the LiDAR data, the brick and mortar exhibited similar intensity in the Leica (wavelength 658 nm) and Trimble (wavelength 532 nm)

Fig. B3. Mean spectra of yellow and red bricks.

9
Z. Zahiri et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603

Fig. B4. Validation results of Model 2 for classifying yellow and red bricks (Y: Yellow brick R: Red brick).

Fig. B5. Mean spectra of bricks at different firing level.

bands (around 0.65 and 0.8 respectively), but the concrete exhibited more distinguishable intensities [Fig. B1a]. This further distinction in the
concrete spectra with the LiDAR bands justifies the improvement in classification of concrete and mortar and a slight increase in the overall CCR by
adding LiDAR data (from 95.77% to 98.59%). When SNV pre-treatment was applied to the multispectral data, the brick spectra was distinctive among
the materials (Fig. B1b). Specifically, better separation between spectra was observed in the Leica (L) and Trimble (T) data in Fig. B1b.
With Model 1, when only the multispectral data were used, 3 of the 71 samples were misclassified without the SNV (Fig. B2a) and 1 with the SNV
(Fig. B2b). With the LiDAR data, there was 1 misclassification both with and without the SNV pre-treatment (Fig. B2c and Fig. B2d). Interestingly, in
all cases, the misclassification was only between the mortar and concrete, but in each instance different samples were misclassified.

10
Z. Zahiri et al.

B1.2. Model 2 classification results (classifying yellow and red bricks) Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603

The mean spectra of each of the two brick classes (Model 2) are plotted in Fig. B3. Despite having similar patterns in the multispectral bands, the
red brick had lowere intensities than the yellow bricks. However, the intensities from the yellow and red bricks became closer to each other in the Near
IR and RedEdge bands (Fig. B3a). Similarly, when the LiDAR data were added, distinctive behaviour was observed in spectra with higher intensities for
the yellow brick (Fig. B3a). When SNV was applied to the multispectral data, the offset between the spectra disappeared, and they became closer to
each other, especially in the blue and red bands (Fig. B3b). Similarly, the SNV pre-treatment made the spectra of two brick types very close to each
other in the LiDAR bands (Fig. B3b).
When Model 2 was built on the multispectral data (Model 2a), all yellow bricks were classified correctly, but 3 of the 21 red bricks were mis­
classified as yellow bricks without the SNV (Fig. B4a). Misclassification increased four-fold to 12 when SNV pre-treatment was applied (Fig. B4b). The
addition of the LiDAR data reduced the misclassification to a single instance (Fig. B4c). SNV pre-treatment also had a worsening effect and resulted in 6
misclassified samples (Fig. B4d). So, while the LiDAR data improved the classification, the SNV did not. Notably, most misclassified bricks were the red
ones fired at the highest temperature. The RGB image displayed a yellowing of these samples, which may in part explain the misclassification.

B1.3. Model 3 classification results (classifying 3 levels of brick firing)

The mean spectra of bricks fired at different temperature are plotted in Fig. B5. Despite similar spectra, the mean spectra were still distinguishable
[especially in the Green, Red, and RedEdge bands (Fig. B5a)]. When the LiDAR data were added, bricks fired at 700 ◦ C and 950 ◦ C showed almost the
same intensity in the Leica and Trimble bands (Fig. B5a). This might explain the reduction in CCR after adding LiDAR data. In general, the spectra
showing the brick at the three firing levels were very similar in both multispectral and combined data sets. After applying SNV to the multispectral and
combined data sets, the spectra became even closer to each other and less distinguishable (Fig. B5a vs Fig. B5b), thus accounting for the poorer results
for Model 3 after applying SNV pre-treatment.
Initially, for the 700 ◦ C firing class data, 9 of the 13 samples were correctly classified with just the multispectral data (Fig. B6a). This decreased to
only 7 when the LiDAR data were added (Fig. B6c). No misclassification was observed with the bricks fired at 950 ◦ C, and only 1 sample was mis­
classified for the bricks fired at 1060 ◦ C with both multispectral and combined datasets (Fig. B6a vs. Fig. B6c). When SNV pre-treatment was applied,
the number of misclassified samples increased in the multispectral data (Model 3b) in both the 700 ◦ C and 950 ◦ C classes but remained unchanged in
the 1060 ◦ C class, with only 1 misclassified sample (Fig. B6b). The negative impact of SNV pre-treatment was even worse in Model 3d with the

Fig. B6. Validation results of Model 3 for classifying brick firing level.

11
Z. Zahiri et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603

Fig. B7. Mean spectra of mortar classes.

combined dataset (Fig. B6d). While bricks at 700 ◦ C got relatively better segmentation, the misclassifications samples increased for bricks fired at
higher temperatures (950 ◦ C and 1060 ◦ C).

Fig. B8. Validation results of Model 4 for classification of mortar.

B1.4. Model 4 classification results (classifying 2 mortar classes)

The Type S and lime mortars were similar in most multispectral bands, except in the Blue and Green bands, with the lime mortar having higher
intensity (Fig. B7a). The addition of LiDAR data changed this, with higher intensity exhibited in the Leica and Trimble bands (Fig. B7a). This may
explain the classification improvement (from 85.71% to 92.85%) with the introduction of the LiDAR data. Significant change was not observed in the
spectra of the mortar after applying SNV (Fig. B7a vs. Fig. B7b). With the multispectral data, two lime mortar samples were misclassified as mortar
Type S, both before and after pre-treatment (Fig. B8a vs. Fig. B8b). Incorporation of the LiDAR data corrected one of the misclassified samples
(Fig. B8c). In contrast, application of SNV pre-treatment had no impact on the classification results (Fig. B8d).

B1.5. Classification results of model 5 (classifying 3 concrete classes)

The concrete spectra behaved very similarly in the multispectral bands, except in the Blue and Green bands (Fig. B9a). The intensity of the concrete
class 50% was highest in the Green band, while in the Blue band this was almost the same as that of concrete class 80% and slightly more than concrete
class 65% (Fig. B9a). When the LiDAR data were added, the same trend happened
12 in the Trimble band (532 nm), with the higher intensity values for
concrete classes 50% and 80% (Fig. B9a). The application of SNV pre-treatment had no notable effect on the spectra in multispectral bands but slightly
Z. Zahiri et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603

Fig. B9. Mean spectra of concrete.

Fig. B10. Validation results of Model 5 for concrete classification.

13
Z. Zahiri et al.

increased the intensity of concrete class 65% in the Leica band of 658 nm (Fig. B9b). Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102603
The initial PLS-DA model on multispectral data (before applying SNV) successfully classified all concrete class 65% samples (Fig. B10a) but only
two samples from concrete class 50% and none from concrete class 80%. SNV pre-treatment doubled the correct classification rate of concrete class
50% and enabled 5 of the 6 samples from concrete class 80% to be predicted correctly but then failed with all concrete 65% samples (Fig. B10b). When
LiDAR data were added, all concrete samples were predicted in concrete class 65% (Fig. B10c). After applying SNV to the combined dataset, 5 samples
from concrete class 50%, only 3 samples in concrete class 65% were classified correctly and none in concrete class 80% (Fig. B10d). In summary, the
results of the models were very mixed across the three concrete classes, with none working well across all samples. The inconsistent results from all
versions of Model 5 might be related to the very similar spectra of these three concrete classes (Fig. B9) in the limited number of bands that were
available.

References [21] J.M. Grunicke, G. Sacher, B. Strackenbrock, Image processing for mapping
damages to buildings, in: CIPA International Symposium, Cracow, Poland, 1990,
pp. 257–263.
[1] L.J. Sánchez-Aparicio, B. Riveiro, D. Gonzalez-Aguilera, L.F. Ramos, The
[22] J. Herráez, P. Navarro, J.L. Lerma, Integration of normal colour and colour Infrared
combination of geomatic approaches and operational modal analysis to improve
emulsions for the identification of pathologies in architectural heritage using a
calibration of finite element models: a case of study in Saint Torcato Church
digital photogrammetric system, Int. Arch. Photogram. Rem. Sens. (1997)
(Guimarães, Portugal), Construct. Build. Mater. 70 (2014) 118–129.
240–245. XXXII(5C1B).
[2] H. Aljumaily, D.F. Laefer, D. Cuadra, Big-Data approach for three-dimensional
[23] J.L. Lerma, L.Á. Ruiz, F. Buchón, Application of spectral and textural classifications
building extraction from aerial laser scanning, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30 (3) (2015),
to recognize materials and damages on historic building facades, Int. Arch.
04015049.
Photogram. Rem. Sens. (2000) 480–484. XXXIII(B5).
[3] S. Zolanvari, D.F. Laefer, Slicing method for building facade extraction from LiDAR
[24] J.L. Lerma, Multiband versus multispectral supervised classification of
point clouds, ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 119 (2016) 334–346.
architectural images, Photogramm. Rec. 17 (97) (2001) 89–101.
[4] M. Cabaleiro, J. Hermida, B. Riveiro, J.C. Caamaño, Automated processing of dense
[25] W.Y. Yan, A. Shaker, N. El-Ashmawy, Urban land cover classification using
points clouds to automatically determine deformations in highly irregular timber
airborne LiDAR data: a review, Remote Sens. Environ. 158 (2015) 295–310.
structures, Construct. Build. Mater. 146 (2017) 393–402.
[26] B. Höfle, M. Hollaus, J. Hagenauer, Urban vegetation detection using
[5] S. Kotthaus, T.E. Smith, M.J. Wooster, C.S.B. Grimmond, Derivation of an urban
radiometrically calibrated small-footprint full-waveform airborne LiDAR data,
materials spectral library through emittance and reflectance spectroscopy, ISPRS J.
ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 67 (2012) 134–147.
Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 94 (2014) 194–212.
[27] G. Tolt, M. Shimoni, J. Ahlberg, A shadow detection method for remote sensing
[6] R. Ilehag, M. Weinmann, A. Schenk, S. Keller, B. Jutzi, S. Hinz, Revisiting existing
images using VHR hyperspectral and liDAR data, in: Proceedings of International
classification approaches for building materials based on hyperspectral data, Int.
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Canada, Vancouver, 2011,
Arch. Photogram. Rem. Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. 42 (2017).
pp. 4423–4426, 25-29 July.
[7] D. Dizhur, M. Giaretton, I. Giongo, K.Q. Walsh, J.M. Ingham, Material property
[28] M. Idrees, H.Z.M. Shafri, V. Saeidi, Imaging spectroscopy and light detection and
testing for the refurbishment of a historic URM building in Yangon, Myanmar, J.
ranging data fusion for urban features extraction, Am. J. Appl. Sci. 10 (12) (2013)
Build. Eng 26 (2019) 100858.
1575–1585.
[8] S. Chang, D. Castro-Lacouture, Y. Yamagata, Decision support for retrofitting
[29] G. Sithole, Detection of bricks in a masonry wall, Int. Arch. Photogram. Rem. Sens.
building envelopes using multi-objective optimization under uncertainties, J.Build.
Spatial Inf. Sci. (2008) 567–571. XXXVII(B5).
Eng (2020) 101413.
[30] M. Hemmleb, F. Weritz, A. Schiemenz, A. Grote, C. Maierhofer, Multispectral data
[9] I. Torres, G. Matias, P. Faria, Natural hydraulic lime mortars-the effect of ceramic
acquisition and processing techniques for damage detection on building surfaces,
residues on physical and mechanical behaviour, J.Build. Eng (2020) 101747.
Int. Arch. Photogram. Rem. Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. 36 (B5) (2006) 6.
[10] D. Breysse, X. Romao, M. Alwash, Z.M. Sbartaï, V.A. Luprano, Risk evaluation on
[31] S. Morsy, A. Shaker, A. El-Rabbany, Multispectral LiDAR data for land cover
concrete strength assessment with NDT technique and conditional coring
classification of urban areas, Sensors 17 (5) (2017) 958.
approach, J.Build. Eng (2020) 101541.
[32] L. Yuan, J. Guo, Q. Wang, Automatic classification of common building materials
[11] M.T. Marvila, A.R.G. Azevedo, J. Alexandre, E.B. Zanelato, N.G. Azeredo, N.
from 3D terrestrial laser scan data, Autom. ConStruct. 110 (2020) 103017.
T. Simonassi, S.N. Monteiro, Correlation between the properties of structural clay
[33] Z. Zahiri, D.F. Laefer, A. Gowen, The feasibility of short-wave infrared
blocks obtained by destructive tests and ultrasonic pulse tests, J.Build. Eng 26
spectrometry in assessing water-to-cement ratio and density of hardened concrete,
(2019) 100869.
Construct. Build. Mater. 185 (2018) 661–669.
[12] E. Chuta, J. Colin, J. Jeong, The impact of the water-to-cement ratio on the surface
[34] D.F. Laefer, Z. Zohreh, A. Gowen, Using short-wave infrared range spectrometry
morphology of cementitious materials, J.Build. Eng (2020) 101716.
data to determine brick characteristics, Int. J. Architect. Herit. (2018), https://doi.
[13] T.H. Kurz, J.S. Buckley, J.A. Howell, Close-range hyperspectral imaging for
org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1503362.
geological field studies: workflow and methods, Int. J. Rem. Sens. 34 (5) (2013)
[35] Z. Zahiri, D.F. Laefer, A. Gowen, Classification of Hardened Cement and Lime
1798–1822.
Mortar Using Short-Wave Infrared Spectrometry Data. Structural Analysis of
[14] P. Hartzell, C. Glennie, K. Biber, S. Khan, Application of multispectral LiDAR to
Historical Constructions, Springer, Cham, 2019, pp. 437–446.
automated virtual outcrop geology, ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 88
[36] W. Liao, A. Pizurica, P. Scheunders, W. Philips, Y. Pi, Semi supervised local
(2014) 147–155.
discriminant analysis for feature extraction in hyperspectral images, IEEE Trans.
[15] E.W. Bork, J.G. Su, Integrating LIDAR data and multispectral imagery for enhanced
Geosci. Rem. Sens. 51 (1) (2013) 184–198.
classification of rangeland vegetation: a meta-analysis, Remote Sens. Environ. 111
[37] D.L. Donoho, High-dimensional data analysis: the curses and blessing of
(2007) 11–24.
dimensionality, in: AMS Math. Challenges 21st Century, 2000.
[16] S. Yoga, J. Bégin, B. St-Onge, D. Gatziolis, Lidar and multispectral imagery
[38] S. Chen, D. Laefer, E. Mangina, State of technology review of civilian UAVs,
classifications of balsam fir tree status for accurate predictions of merchantable
Engineering Patent Journal, Bentham 10 (3) (2016) 160–174.
volume, Forests 8 (7) (2017) 253.
[39] Astm C192-90a, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens
[17] L. Palombi, D. Lognoli, V. Raimondi, G. Cecchi, J. Hällström, K. Barup, C. Conti,
in the Laboratory, American Society Testing & Materials, USA, 1990.
R. Grönlund, A. Johansson, S. Svanberg, Hyperspectral fluorescence LiDAR
[40] Astm C270-14a, Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry, ASTM
imaging at the Colosseum, Rome: elucidating past conservation interventions, Opt
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014. www.astm.org.
Express 16 (10) (2008) 6794–6808.
[41] C. Esquerre, A.A. Gowen, J. Burger, G. Downey, C.P. O’Donnell, Suppressing
[18] V. Raimondi, G. Cecchi, D. Lognoli, L. Palombi, R. Grönlund, A. Johansson,
sample morphology effects in near infrared spectral imaging using chemometric
S. Svanberg, K. Barup, J. Hällström, The fluorescence LiDAR technique for the
data pre-treatments, Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 117 (2012) 129–137.
remote sensing of photoautotrophic biodeteriogens in the outdoor cultural
[42] P. Geladi, B.R. Kowalski, Partial least-squares regression: a tutorial, Anal. Chim.
heritage: a decade of in situ experiments, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 63 (7) (2009)
Acta 185 (1986) 1–17.
823–835.
[43] K.A. Hartfield, K.I. Landau, W.J.D. Van Leeuwen, Fusion of high resolution aerial
[19] R.P. Stumpf, K. Holderied, M. Sinclair, Determination of water depth with high-
Multispectral and LiDAR data: land cover in the context of urban mosquito habitat,
resolution satellite imagery over variable bottom types, Limnol. Oceanogr. 48 (1)
Rem. Sens. 3 (2011) 2364–2383.
(2003) 547–556.
[44] V. Sowmya, K.P. Soman, M. Hassaballah, Hyperspectral image: fundamentals and
[20] S.J. Winterbottom, D.J. Gilvear, Quantification of channel bed morphology in
advances, in: Recent Advances in Computer Vision, Springer, Cham, 2019,
gravel-bed rivers using airborne multispectral imagery and aerial photography,
pp. 401–424.
River Res. Appl. 13 (6) (1997) 489–499.

14

You might also like