Quantifying the Reliability of Volumetric and Areal Calculation with UAV-Generated DEMs: A Comparative Study with Ground Truth Data
الشريط الجانبي للمقالة
محتوى المقالة الرئيسي
الملخص
For performing an assessment of the volume estimation accuracy using Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) generated by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), an evaluation of suitability has been made. The study was operated at Tikrit University, on a man-made topographic depression in the form of fishponds. The generated DEM by using the images of the UAV followed by accuracy assessment using Ground Control Points (GCPs), the points distributed evenly throughout the pond. The results showed that the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) calculated for the DEM at the optimum flight plane ranged between 0.14 to 0.45. Comparing the pond's predicted volume utilizing UAV DEMs to the ground truth volume obtained using GNSS RTK surveying, it was discovered that the UAV DEM calculation was 97% accurate. The study came to the conclusion that the UAV Structure from Motion (SFM) method and the generated DEMs are appropriate for precisely surveying the volumes utilizing the appropriate range of flying parameters based on prior knowledge.
المقاييس
تفاصيل المقالة
هذا العمل مرخص بموجب Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
THIS IS AN OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE UNDER THE CC BY LICENSE http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
##plugins.generic.plaudit.displayName##
المراجع
Stalin JL, Gnanaprakasam R. Volume Calculation from UAV based DEM. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology 2017;6(6):126-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17577/IJERTV6IS060076
Cho SI, Lim JH, Lim SB, Yun HC. A Study on Dem-Based Automatic Calculation of Earthwork Volume for BIM Application. Journal of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography 2020; 38(2):131-140.
Kim YH, Shin SS, Lee HK, Park ES. Field Applicability of Earthwork Volume Calculations Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Sustainability 2022;14(15):9331, (1-24). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159331
Furlan LM, Moreira CA, de Alencar PG, Rosolen V. Environmental Monitoring and Hydrological Simulations of a Natural Wetland Based on High-Resolution Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Data (Paulista Peripheral Depression, Brazil). Environmental Challenges 2021;4:100146, (1-8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100146
Zeng Y, et al. Estimation of the Volume of Sediment Deposited Behind Check Dams Based on UAV Remote Sensing. Journal of Hydrology 2022;612:128143, (1-13). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128143
Gómez-Gutiérrez Á, Gonçalves GR. Surveying Coastal Cliffs Using Two UAV Platforms (Multirotor and Fixed-Wing) and Three Different Approaches for the Estimation of Volumetric Changes. International Journal of Remote Sensing 2020;41(21):8143-8175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2020.1752950
DJI. DJI Drone Manufacturer (Mavic Series). 2020: Available from: https://www.dji.com/air-2s/specs. (accessed 15 Mar 2023).
Pepe M, Fregonese L, Scaioni M. Planning Airborne Photogrammetry and Remote-Sensing Missions with Modern Platforms and Sensors. European Journal of Remote Sensing 2018;51(1):412-436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2018.1444945
Wang D, Shu H. Accuracy Analysis of Three-Dimensional Modeling of a Multi-Level UAV without Control Points. Buildings 2022;12(5):592, (1-18). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12050592
Xing C, Wang J, Xu Y. Overlap Analysis of the Images from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. International Conference on Electrical and Control Engineering 2010; Wuhan, China. IEEE: p. 1459-1462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/iCECE.2010.360
Pix4D. Difference between a Ground Control Point and a Check Point. Available from: https://support.pix4d.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000140963-Tie-points-in-photogrammetry-project-GCPs-CPs-MTPs-and-ATPs
Ajayi OG, Salubi AA, Angbas AF, Odigure MG. Generation of Accurate Digital Elevation Models from UAV Acquired Low Percentage Overlapping Images. International Journal of Remote Sensing 2017;38(8-10):3113-3134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2017.1285085
Di Franco C, Buttazzo G. Coverage Path Planning for UAVs Photogrammetry with Energy and Resolution Constraints. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 2016;83:445-462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-016-0348-x
Ali H, Abed F. The Impact of UAV Flight Planning Parameters on Topographic Mapping Quality Control. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 2019; 518: 022018, (1-11). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/518/2/022018
Nesbit PR, Hugenholtz CH. Enhancing UAV–SFM 3D Model Accuracy in High-Relief Landscapes by Incorporating Oblique Images. Remote Sensing 2019;11(3):239, (1-24). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11030239
Cabo C, Sanz-Ablanedo E, Roca-Pardiñas J, Ordóñez C. Influence of the Number and Spatial Distribution of Ground Control Points in the Accuracy of UAV-SFM Dems: An Approach Based on Generalized Additive Models. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 2021;59(12):10618-10627. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2021.3050693
Ulvi A. The Effect of the Distribution and Numbers of Ground Control Points on the Precision of Producing Orthophoto Maps with an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 2021;20(6):806-817. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2021.1973479
Tinkham WT, Swayze NC. Influence of Agisoft Metashape Parameters on UAS Structure from Motion Individual Tree Detection from Canopy Height Models. Forests 2021;12(2):250, (1-14). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f12020250
Villanueva J, Blanco A. Optimization of Ground Control Point (GCP) Configuration for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Survey Using Structure from Motion (SFM). The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2019;42:167-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W12-167-2019
Agüera-Vega F, Carvajal-Ramírez F, Martínez-Carricondo P. Accuracy of Digital Surface Models and Orthophotos Derived from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Photogrammetry. Journal of Surveying Engineering 2017; 143(2): 04016025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000206