accuracy assessment of uav data at different flying heightsaccuracy assessment of uav data at...

Peter Anderson | Michael Flowers | Cade La Londe | Nick Kamyszek Ferris State University The objectives of this project are: - To compare UAV data at 200 ft. and 400 ft. flying heights. - To compare UAV data with and without ground control points. - To compare UAV data with LiDAR data. Control Survey: Trimble S6 Total Station Image Acquisition Platform: DJI Inspire 1 Camera: Zenmuse X3 Image Processing: Pix 4d software Data Modeling: Esri Arcmap software Conclusion • Accuracy is better at lower flying height with control. • Accuracy can be unpredictable with UAV data with frequent outliers. • Outliers should be removed from UAV data. • LiDAR is much more accurate than UAV data for topographic modeling. Acknowledgments • Chad Studer, NOAR Technologies • Tony Sabat, NOAR Technologies • Tyler McMillin, NOAR Technologies • Rick Sauve, Leica Geosystems • Sagar S. Deshpande • Set Control from Ferris Control Network. Procedure Introduction Equipment Results Accuracy Assessment of UAV Data at Different Flying Heights Project Site • Vertical Accuracy: North Quad at Ferris State University Flew UAV at 200 ft. and 400 ft. Created 4 Point Clouds in Pix4D: -200 ft. flying height with control -200 ft. flying height without control -400 ft. flying height with control -400 ft. flying height without control Raster with Noise Raster without Noise TIN from Raster Created separate TINS from each point cloud: LiDAR vs. TIN Comparison Orthophoto from UAV photos using Pix4d Surveying Engineering Program – College of Engineering Technology - Senior Capstone Project – Spring 2017 0.614 1.108 0.721 0.140 0.061 1.092 1.152 0.307 0.114 0.049 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 400' without control (14 chk pts) 400' with control (20 chk pts) 200' w/o control 10 pt adj. (10 chk pts) 200' with control (20 chk pts) LiDAR Meters Conditions Results With All Points Mean Std. Dev 0.068 0.203 0.430 0.072 0.056 0.226 0.133 0.044 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 400' without control (8 chk pts) 400' with control (10 chk pts) 200' w/o control 10 pt adj. (6 chk pts) 200' with control (14 chk pts) Meters Conditions Results With Outliers Removed Mean Std. Dev

Upload: others

Post on 28-Sep-2020

8 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Report

Download

Embed Size (px):

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Accuracy Assessment of UAV Data at Different Flying HeightsAccuracy Assessment of UAV Data at Different Flying Heights Project Site • Vertical Accuracy: North Quad at Ferris State

Peter Anderson | Michael Flowers | Cade La Londe | Nick Kamyszek Ferris State University

The objectives of this project are:- To compare UAV data at 200 ft. and 400 ft. flying

heights.- To compare UAV data with and without ground

control points.- To compare UAV data with LiDAR data.

Control Survey: Trimble S6 Total StationImage Acquisition Platform: DJI Inspire 1Camera: Zenmuse X3Image Processing: Pix 4d softwareData Modeling: Esri Arcmap software

Conclusion

• Accuracy is better at lower flying height with control.• Accuracy can be unpredictable with UAV data with frequent outliers.• Outliers should be removed from UAV data.• LiDAR is much more accurate than UAV data for topographic modeling.

Acknowledgments

• Chad Studer, NOAR Technologies• Tony Sabat, NOAR Technologies • Tyler McMillin, NOAR Technologies • Rick Sauve, Leica Geosystems• Sagar S. Deshpande

• Set Control from Ferris Control Network.

ProcedureIntroduction

Equipment

Results

Accuracy Assessment of UAV Data at Different Flying Heights

Project Site

• Vertical Accuracy:

North Quad at Ferris State University

Flew UAV at 200 ft. and 400 ft.

Created 4 Point Clouds in Pix4D:-200 ft. flying height with control-200 ft. flying height without control-400 ft. flying height with control-400 ft. flying height without control

Raster with Noise Raster without Noise TIN from Raster

Created separate TINS from each point cloud:

LiDAR vs. TIN ComparisonOrthophoto from UAV photos using Pix4d

Surveying Engineering Program – College of Engineering Technology - Senior Capstone Project – Spring 2017

0.614

1.108

0.721

0.1400.061

1.0921.152

0.307

0.1140.049

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.001.101.201.301.401.501.601.701.801.902.00