-
102 1
(UAS)
[1*] [2] [3] [4]
2013 6(UAS)
Pix4UAV
UAS
(GPS)
UAS
UAS
Pix4UAV
A feasibility study on unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for
high accuracy mapping
Bo-Hsien Su[1*]
Yu-Shen Hsiao[2] Jay-Ming Wang[3] Su-Chin Chen[4]
ABSTRACT A rigorous and completed photogrammetric survey with
fixed-wing unmanned aerial system
(UAS) was carried out on the campus of National Chung Hsing
University (NCHU) in June, 2013. The
orthophoto mosaics and digital surface model were subsequently
made by the software Pix4UAV. We mainly
investigate the influence of the distributions of land control
points for the UAS survey. The coordinate and
distance observations obtained from the mission are compared to
those from a total station and GPS,
respectively. The accuracies of the UAS survey are also well
analyzed at both horizontal and vertical
components. In addition, a comparison between this and other UAS
surveys on NCHU before is described in
detail. Overall, the purpose of this study is to discuss the
feasibility of UAS-derived mapping with high
accuracy and to help future researchers select an appropriate
compromise between cost and precision of UAS
photogrammetry.
Key Words: unmanned aerial system (UAS), mapping, Pix4UAV.
1 * E-mail:[email protected]
Master Student, Dept. of Soil and Water Conservation, National
Chung Hsing University, Taichung 402, Taiwan 2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Soil and Water Conservation,
National Chung Hsing University, Taichung 402, Taiwan 3
Doctoral Student, Dept. of Soil and Water Conservation, National
Chung Hsing University, Taichung 402, Taiwan 4
Professor, Dept. of Soil and Water Conservation, National Chung
Hsing University, Taichung 402, Taiwan
mailto:[email protected]
-
102 2
(
(1995)Wolf Dewitt(2000)) UAS(Unmanned
Aerial System
(2007) (2004)
2010
2008 5 12
(201020102010)
UAS
(,2009) UAS
(,2011)(, 2000)
UAS
UAS
Pix4UAV
2013 6
Chien-Ting Wu (2013) 15
UAS
1943
UAS
1.
(UAS)UAS UAS 1 UAS
1
S 2
-
102 3
S S
2 Chien-Ting Wu
210cm 5cm 25cm
50cm 3
1
Table 1 The informations of three flight missions.
UAS Avian UAS SV-1000 Avian UAS
1.6 m 1m 1.6 m
Panasonic DMC-FT2 Canon PowerShot S100 Samsung NX200
14,000,000 12,000,000 20,000,000
1/250 1/2000 1/640
28mm 24mm 24mm
f/3.3 f/2 f/2.5~f/9
S S S
5 12 21
59 53 162
2011 11 2013 3 2013 6
1 UAS SV-1000 Avian UAS
Fig.1 Apperances of used UAS (left: SV-1000; Right: Avian
UAS)
-
102 4
2
Fig.2
3 (C04)
Fig.3 Left one shows an artificial target ; right one denotes
the locations of all artificial targets
2.
(,2009)
( 4)( 5)
()
-
102 5
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
6
2
4 A03
Fig.4 The control point A03. The color is close to the road and
it is hard to be identified in UAS image.
5 B33
Fig.5 The control point B33. It is too small to be identified in
UAS image.
-
102 6
2
Table 2 The descriptions of new control points
6 pix4UAV 15
Fig.6 The distributions of the image control points in pix4UAV
processing.
3.
15 3
(1)(2)(3)(4)
A18 F01
A17 F02
TC01 F03
A11 F04
A12 F05
A13 F06
A14 F07
A10 F08
A08 F09
A07 F10
A15-1 F11
B44 F12
A03 F13
A06 F14
B04-1 F15
-
102 7
4.
23 12 7
G 11 7 T
( 8) Nikon DTM-30
DTM-332 3
UAS
7
Fig.7 The distributions of the detection points. The red points
are on the surface and the yellow ones are
on the top of buildings.
3 Nikon DTM-30 DTM-332
Table 3 The information of the total station Nikon DTM-332
Nikon DTM-302
DTM-332
33X
/ 1/5
2.300m
( 3 + 2 ppm x D )mm
10.000
IPX6
-
102 8
8 Nikon DTM-30 DTM-332
Fig.8 The Nikon DTM-322 Total Station.
5.
Pix4UAV
( EPFL )(C.Strecha , 2012)Pix4UAV
3D
Google Earth KML DSM
UAS
25 (
2012) 25
1.
4 942.42
G09 49.83 G09
10.33
7.33 25
5 895.6
187
40 70
-
102 9
4
Table 4 The statistics of the elevation accuracies evaluated by
detection points on surface.
(m)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
G01 55.49 58.51 301.73 63.89 839.82 61.20 571.20 55.52 3.05
55.52 2.39 55.64 14.88 55.60 11.07
G02 55.94 58.85 290.97 61.47 553.47 61.05 510.82 55.81 13.18
55.89 5.45 56.08 13.87 56.02 8.15
G03 55.92 58.82 289.86 63.34 741.78 60.98 505.92 55.98 6.14
55.97 5.35 56.11 18.80 55.98 6.48
G04 55.05 58.03 297.57 62.32 727.19 60.11 505.82 55.17 11.35
55.07 2.27 55.28 22.81 55.10 4.48
G05 54.92 57.54 261.92 63.63 870.94 60.17 524.79 54.96 3.99
54.96 4.11 55.22 29.68 54.95 3.36
G06 54.67 57.18 251.37 64.09 942.42 60.28 560.94 54.76 9.34
54.71 4.17 54.75 8.17 54.68 1.27
G07 54.99 57.07 207.62 62.80 780.80 60.60 561.02 55.03 4.11
54.97 2.18 55.04 5.11 55.06 7.02
G08 56.50 59.05 255.34 63.72 722.24 61.94 543.74 56.53 3.13
56.58 7.72 56.50 0.40 56.54 3.63
G09 56.07 58.49 242.33 61.39 532.23 61.40 533.63 56.57 49.83
56.03 3.87 56.05 1.32 55.99 7.36
G10 56.80 59.41 261.67 61.03 423.50 62.08 528.67 56.62 18.04
56.77 2.61 56.68 11.87 56.74 5.45
G11 57.59 60.72 313.24 60.82 322.89 62.80 521.34 57.33 25.82
57.34 24.71 57.60 1.18 57.60 1.30
G12 56.66 59.58 292.16 61.44 477.57 61.59 492.54 56.51 15.53
56.65 1.64 56.74 7.39 56.76 9.32
272.15 661.24 530.04 13.63 5.54 11.29 5.74
30.54 194.65 24.97 13.37 6.28 9.20 3.07
5
Table 5 The statistics of the elevation accuracies evaluated by
detection points on top of buildings
(m) [](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
T01 65.5 68.5 302.7 70.5 501.7 71.1 562.2 65.8 24.9 65.9 38.3
65.8 26.9 65.9 39.3
T02 71.2 74.8 353.2 75.4 419.9 76.9 570.5 71.8 56.4 71.7 46.5
71.3 8.8 71.4 17.1
T03 89.7 92.5 288.9 97.1 747.9 94.5 484.2 89.2 44.2 89.2 41.2
89.4 29.2 89.3 35.8
T04 102.7 106.7 404.8 108.0 525.3 107.0 433.1 103.4 71.5 103.2
51.8 102.8 7.7 102.5 24.6
T05 97.9 101.4 356.2 103.0 514.3 101.9 402.2 98.3 38.6 98.5 61.6
97.5 36.9 97.0 87.2
T06 82.4 84.3 185.6 78.1 427.8 86.0 357.7 81.8 62.2 81.8 61.2
81.4 103.0 81.8 65.3
T07 70.7 72.3 158.0 78.3 754.5 76.7 599.0 70.6 16.8 71.2 48.3
69.4 132.9 69.8 92.3
T08 88.8 92.5 368.9 96.9 815.1 94.4 557.1 89.7 92.4 89.7 95.9
88.4 36.9 88.1 66.2
T09 69.0 72.1 311.8 78.0 895.6 73.1 411.7 67.2 187.0 70.0 95.6
69.9 91.1 68.3 70.7
T10 96.6 98.8 217.1 102.3 569.8 102.2 558.8 96.7 10.8 97.7 108.4
96.5 4.9 96.3 30.7
T11 68.8 71.2 237.8 74.9 603.6 70.3 150.2 68.9 8.9 69.6 73.4
68.7 9.3 68.0 77.9
289.6 616.0 462.4 55.8 65.6 44.3 55.2
80.5 161.9 132.1 51.0 24.4 44.2 26.4
-
102 10
2.
6 G01
580.94
G01 G01
60
8
7 776.71 T06
23.40 18.55
T03 T06
6
Table 6 The statistics of the horizontal accuracies evaluated by
detection points on surface.
(m)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
G02 164.89 164.23 66.05 160.60 429.03 165.11 21.41 165.04 14.13
164.69 20.66 165.02 12.32 164.88 1.25
G03 134.54 134.11 42.87 131.09 345.70 134.74 19.45 134.84 29.77
134.65 10.68 134.77 22.39 134.57 2.59
G04 164.78 164.15 62.81 160.42 435.78 164.79 1.25 165.04 25.45
164.85 6.83 164.88 9.76 164.66 11.69
G05 130.77 130.66 11.52 127.36 341.61 130.83 5.56 131.23 46.02
130.80 2.92 130.84 7.08 130.72 5.27
G06 134.64 134.33 31.55 131.09 355.46 134.51 13.54 134.75 10.45
134.98 33.79 134.74 9.48 134.63 0.96
G07 147.96 147.53 43.16 144.14 381.79 147.72 23.87 148.09 12.79
148.25 28.82 148.06 9.80 147.89 7.12
G08 116.18 115.71 46.48 113.25 292.52 115.90 28.01 116.20 1.63
116.54 36.17 116.19 1.38 116.14 4.14
G09 184.61 185.46 84.69 179.94 466.79 184.53 8.59 184.66 5.07
184.99 37.94 184.78 17.07 184.80 18.45
G10 205.56 204.70 86.04 200.30 526.54 205.50 5.78 205.60 4.01
205.84 28.13 205.64 8.09 205.67 10.89
G11 236.98 236.05 93.25 231.17 580.94 237.04 6.27 237.16 17.89
237.35 36.79 237.15 16.42 237.12 13.60
G12 178.61 177.89 71.72 173.89 472.01 178.69 7.50 178.67 5.86
178.61 0.08 178.61 0.10 178.69 7.47
58.20 420.74 12.84 15.73 22.07 10.35 7.58
25.41 87.18 8.92 13.42 14.50 6.58 5.55
-
102 11
7
Table 7 The statistics of the horizontal accuracies evaluated by
detection points on top of buildings.
(m)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
[](m)
(cm)
T01 183.54 183.00 53.75 179.41 413.70 183.79 25.08 183.86 32.14
183.96 42.12 183.76 21.95 183.78 24.01
T02 198.43 197.61 81.86 193.80 463.05 198.41 1.75 198.68 24.55
198.52 8.54 198.48 4.92 198.24 18.60
T03 233.66 232.02 163.99 225.89 776.71 230.98 267.79 233.49
17.54 233.56 10.07 230.04 362.00 230.95 271.14
T04 131.68 131.13 55.50 129.58 210.68 131.55 13.45 131.77 8.82
131.87 18.92 131.19 49.09 131.38 30.53
T05 107.66 107.18 47.86 105.57 208.90 107.89 23.41 107.58 8.11
107.48 18.37 106.71 95.45 107.27 38.71
T06 233.76 235.94 217.40 230.57 319.70 236.33 256.20 236.62
286.06 236.83 306.97 236.46 269.52 236.26 249.88
T07 184.90 184.30 59.92 180.04 485.86 184.55 35.05 185.20 30.78
184.86 3.78 183.98 91.51 183.91 99.05
T08 44.19 44.42 23.26 43.53 65.60 43.97 21.95 44.66 47.75 44.23
3.76 44.13 5.49 44.46 27.64
T09 59.34 59.33 0.56 58.05 129.07 57.95 138.49 59.84 50.59 58.96
38.17 59.31 2.63 58.88 46.25
T10 193.37 192.29 107.79 189.26 410.66 191.00 237.22 193.32 5.17
193.27 10.08 193.13 24.23 191.81 155.41
T11 151.70 150.95 75.20 147.72 397.76 150.61 109.39 151.79 8.52
151.38 31.73 151.16 54.44 151.05 65.31
80.64
352.88
102.71
47.27
44.77
89.20
93.32
62.44
198.29
105.74
80.76
87.99
118.38
92.00
UAS Unmanned Aerial System
1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
UAS
1. 2012247:79-82
2. 1995.
1. 2010
-29(3):17-36
2. 2010)
3. 2007()43 (4):453-459
4. 2010 DEM
-
102 12
5. 2004 3D
15(2):74-77
6. 2009 DEM
33(4):9~13
7. 2011 3 3.1
42(2):120-130
8. 2009 UAV
9. 2000Kodak DCS210
5(4):39-54
10. PR Wolf, BA Dewitt(2000).Elements of photogrammetry: with
applications in GIS,Vol. 3,New York:
McGraw-Hill.
11. Strecha, C., Kng, O., and Fua, P. (2012),AUTOMATIC MAPPING
FROM ULTRA-LIGHT UAV
IMAGERY.
12. Wu, C. T., Hsiao, C. Y.,and Hsieh, P. S. (2013). Using UAV
and VBS-RTK for Rapid Reconstruction
of En-vironmental 3D Elevation Data of the Typhoon Morakot
Disaster Area and Disaster Scale
Assessment. Journal of Chinese Soil and Water Conservation,
44(1):23-33.
