Accuracy Assessment of Point Clouds from LiDAR and Dense Image Matching Acquired Using the UAV Platform for DTM Creation

In this paper, the results of an experiment about the vertical accuracy of generated digital terrain models were assessed. The created models were based on two techniques: LiDAR and photogrammetry. The data were acquired using an ultralight laser scanner, which was dedicated to Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) platforms that provide very dense point clouds (180 points per square meter), and an RGB digital camera that collects data at very high resolution (a ground sampling distance of 2 cm). The vertical error of the digital terrain models (DTMs) was evaluated based on the surveying data measured in the field and compared to airborne laser scanning collected with a manned plane. The data were acquired in summer during a corridor flight mission over levees and their surroundings, where various types of land cover were observed. The experiment results showed unequivocally, that the terrain models obtained using LiDAR technology were more accurate. An attempt to assess the accuracy and possibilities of penetration of the point cloud from the image-based approach, whilst referring to various types of land cover, was conducted based on Real Time Kinematic Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS-RTK) measurements and was compared to archival airborne laser scanning data. The vertical accuracy of DTM was evaluated for uncovered and vegetation areas separately, providing information about the influence of the vegetation height on the results of the bare ground extraction and DTM generation. In uncovered and low vegetation areas (0–20 cm), the vertical accuracies of digital terrain models generated from different data sources were quite similar: for the UAV Laser Scanning (ULS) data, the RMSE was 0.11 m, and for the image-based data collected using the UAV platform, it was 0.14 m, whereas for medium vegetation (higher than 60 cm), the RMSE from these two data sources were 0.11 m and 0.36 m, respectively. A decrease in the accuracy of 0.10 m, for every 20 cm of vegetation height, was observed for photogrammetric data; and such a dependency was not noticed in the case of models created from the ULS data.

[1]  A. Abellán,et al.  Identification of Rock Slope Discontinuity Sets from Laser Scanner and Photogrammetric Point Clouds: A Comparative Analysis , 2017 .

[2]  Andrzej Borkowski,et al.  PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF sUAS EQUIPPED WITH VELODYNE HDL-32E LiDAR SENSOR , 2017 .

[3]  Paul-Henri Faure,et al.  UAV LINEAR PHOTOGRAMMETRY , 2015 .

[4]  Mark A. Fonstad,et al.  Topographic structure from motion: a new development in photogrammetric measurement , 2013 .

[5]  Norbert Pfeifer,et al.  OPALS - A framework for Airborne Laser Scanning data analysis , 2014, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[6]  Matthijs C. Dorst.  Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints , 2011 .

[7]  Martin J. Wooster,et al.  Assessment of Errors Caused by Forest Vegetation Structure in Airborne LiDAR-Derived DTMs , 2017, Remote. Sens..

[8]  Jean Ponce,et al.  Accurate, Dense, and Robust Multiview Stereopsis , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[9]  D. Zawieska,et al.  Terrestrial scanning or digital images in inventory of monumental objects? – case study , 2014 .

[10]  M. J. McCullagh,et al.  TERRAIN AND SURFACE MODELLING SYSTEMS: THEORY AND PRACTICE , 2006 .

[11]  Emmanuel P. Baltsavias,et al.  A comparison between photogrammetry and laser scanning , 1999 .

[12]  Peter Axelsson,et al.  Processing of laser scanner data-algorithms and applications , 1999 .

[13]  Ursula Riegl,et al.  UAV-based laser scanning to meet special challenges in lidar surveying , 2015 .

[14]  Adam J. Mathews,et al.  Assessment of Image-Based Point Cloud Products to Generate a Bare Earth Surface and Estimate Canopy Heights in a Woodland Ecosystem , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[15]  P. Ćwiąkała,et al.  Comparison of low-altitude UAV photogrammetry with terrestrial laser scanning as data-source methods for terrain covered in low vegetation , 2017 .

[16]  Arko Lucieer,et al.  Time Series Analysis of Landslide Dynamics Using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) , 2015, Remote. Sens..

[17]  M. Pierrot-Deseilligny,et al.  UAV PHOTOGRAMMETRY TO MONITOR DYKES - CALIBRATION AND COMPARISON TO TERRESTRIAL LIDAR , 2014 .

[18]  Jan Skaloud,et al.  FIXED-WING MICRO AERIAL VEHICLE FOR ACCURATE CORRIDOR MAPPING , 2015 .

[19]  Friedrich Fraundorfer,et al.  On the Use of Uavs in Mining and Archaeology - Geo-Accurate 3d Reconstructions Using Various Platforms and Terrestrial Views , 2015 .

[20]  Fabio Remondino,et al.  State of the art in high density image matching , 2014 .

[21]  Konrad Górski,et al.  THE POTENTIAL OF LIGHT LASER SCANNERS DEVELOPED FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES – THE REVIEW AND ACCURACY , 2016 .

[22]  Konrad Górski,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of lidar data acquired using a UAS for levee monitoring: preliminary results , 2017 .

[23]  Heiko Hirschmüller,et al.  Stereo Processing by Semiglobal Matching and Mutual Information , 2008, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[24]  Oguz Gungor,et al.  Performance Evaluation of Different Ground Filtering Algorithms for Uav-Based Point Clouds , 2016 .

[25]  J. Gonçalves,et al.  UAV photogrammetry for topographic monitoring of coastal areas , 2015 .

[26]  Diego González-Aguilera,et al.  Image-Based Modelling from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Photogrammetry: An Effective, Low-Cost Tool for Archaeological Applications , 2015 .

[27]  Z. Kurczyński.  THE SELECTION OF AERIAL LASER SCANNING PARAMETERS FOR COUNTRYWIDE DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL CREATION , 2013 .

[28]  Norbert Pfeifer,et al.  Dense Image Matching vs. Airborne Laser Scanning – Comparison of two methods for deriving terrain models , 2016 .

[29]  Stig-Göran Mårtensson,et al.  Height uncertainty in digital terrain modelling with unmanned aircraft systems , 2017 .

[30]  K. Bakuła,et al.  POSSIBILITIES FOR USING LIDAR AND PHOTOGRAMMETRIC DATA OBTAINED WITH AN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE FOR LEVEE MONITORING , 2016 .

[31]  K. Bakuła,et al.  Influence of Elevation Data Source on 2D Hydraulic Modelling , 2016, Acta Geophysica.

[32]  A. S. Toprak,et al.  DEM generation with UAV Photogrammetry and accuracy analysis in Sahitler hill , 2015 .

[33]  L. Wallace,et al.  Assessment of Forest Structure Using Two UAV Techniques: A Comparison of Airborne Laser Scanning and Structure from Motion (SfM) Point Clouds , 2016 .

[34]  Arko Lucieer,et al.  Assessing the Accuracy of Georeferenced Point Clouds Produced via Multi-View Stereopsis from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Imagery , 2012, Remote. Sens..

[35]  M. Hodgson,et al.  An evaluation of LIDAR- and IFSAR-derived digital elevation models in leaf-on conditions with USGS Level 1 and Level 2 DEMs , 2003 .

[36]  M. Downey,et al.  SEMI-GLOBAL MATCHING : AN ALTERNATIVE TO LIDAR FOR DSM GENERATION ? , 2010 .

[37]  J. Revuelto,et al.  The application of terrestrial laser scanner and SfM photogrammetry in measuring erosion and deposition processes in two opposite slopes in a humid badlands area (central Spanish Pyrenees) , 2015 .