## 5 Material Volume Analysis
### Results II--Changes Between 3D Model Phases  
This chapter shows the calculated volumes between phases. All calculated volumes were compared with the data obtained by the GemaArt International company. At the end of this chapter, summaries of the volumes of the material worked with and altered are given.  
Figure 8: Procedure for determining differences between phases and calculating the changed volume.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**3D Model** & **Texture** & **Precision** & **Data Amount** & **Transport** & **Time for Data** & **Time for Creating** & **3D Model—Point** & **Final Point Cloud Size** \\  & & & & & & & **Cloud** & **(5 mm Spacing, E57)** \\ \hline Photogrammetric & Yes, high quality & 1.25 mm &
\begin{tabular}{c} 16 GB \\ (1 phase) \\ \end{tabular} & easy & 8 h & 10 h & 2.94 GB \\ \hline PLS GeoSam & no & 1-3 cm & 300 MB & easy & 30 minut & 1 h & 1 GB \\ \hline TLS Faro 5150 & yes & 5 mm & 75 GB & normal & 15.6 h & 6 h & 4.5 GB \\ \hline TLS BLC360 & yes & 7 mm & 19.8 GB & easy & 3.6 h & 3 h & 2.9 GB \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: 3D models (point cloud) comparison (parameters are for processing one phase).  
Difference between Phase 1 and 2.  
According to the calculated heatmaps, it was confirmed that only debris removal in the shrine area occurred between the Phases 1 and 2 of measurement. Figures 9 and 10 show a heatmap of the two locations inside the shrine where debris removal from the collapsed vault sections occurred and are clearly visible.  
The calculated value of debris removed between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is shown in Table 5. The volume from the construction work logs is also shown here. The difference between the calculated volume and the construction volume is nearly 10 m\({}^{3}\). On the construction site, volumes were measured only approximately, often by estimation.  
The difference between Phase 2 and 3.  
Figure 10: Heatmap used to calculate debris volumes, with the height differences of Phases 1 and 2 shown in color.  
Figure 9: Identifying the difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 using the generated heatmaps.  
The measurements from Phase 3 already show more significant differences from the previous measurements. Figure 11 shows the heatmaps produced and the removed and newly constructed elements are visible, especially the walls and vault sections, but the top left image also shows the landscing that has been done.  
Such a complex model had to be divided into 12 smaller parts to meet the 2.5D conditions. In the area around the shrine where the material was removed, and new elements were added here as well, the values were compared with the volumes from the work logs in Tables 6 and 7. The image on the left of Figure 11 shows where the ceiling and vaults have been modified; here, 27 m\({}^{3}\) have been removed. On the right, the excavation work can be seen, and the removed steps are clearly visible. A total of 82 m\({}^{3}\) of soil was moved. On the other hand, the added elements can be seen in Figures 12 and 13; these were primarily major and minor modifications to the walls and ceiling vaults. The top two heatmaps show the newly completed vault sections 14 m\({}^{3}\) in total, while the others show the completed walls in and around the sanctuary. The material used was 38 m\({}^{3}\).