Accuracy assessment of digital surface models from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles' imagery on glaciers

201Citations
Citations of this article
374Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) for photogrammetric surveying has recently gained enormous popularity. Images taken from UAVs are used for generating Digital Surface Models (DSMs) and orthorectified images. In the glaciological context, these can serve for quantifying ice volume change or glacier motion. This study focuses on the accuracy of UAV-derived DSMs. In particular, we analyze the influence of the number and disposition of Ground Control Points (GCPs) needed for georeferencing the derived products. A total of 1321 different DSMs were generated from eight surveys distributed on three glaciers in the Swiss Alps during winter, summer and autumn. The vertical and horizontal accuracy was assessed by cross-validation with thousands of validation points measured with a Global Positioning System. Our results show that the accuracy increases asymptotically with increasing number of GCPs until a certain density of GCPs is reached. We call this the optimal GCP density. The results indicate that DSMs built with this optimal GCP density have a vertical (horizontal) accuracy ranging between 0.10 and 0.25m (0.03 and 0.09 m) across all datasets. In addition, the impact of the GCP distribution on the DSM accuracy was investigated. The local accuracy of a DSM decreases when increasing the distance to the closest GCP, typically at a rate of 0.09m per 100-m distance. The impact of the glacier's surface texture (ice or snow) was also addressed. The results show that besides cases with a surface covered by fresh snow, the surface texture does not significantly influence the DSM accuracy.

Figures

  • Figure 1. (a) Overview of the study areas. Coordinates are given in CH1903+/LV95 [35]. The outlines of Findelengletscher (b), Griesgletscher (c) and Sankt Annafirn (d) are given in violet for the year 2015. The locations of the GCPs and the validation points measured with a differential Global Positioning Systems (dGPS) (continuous dGPS points) are depicted for each season. Because of the high spatial density, continuous dGPS points are not resolved individually, but appear as a line. The elevation differences between two DSMs over stable areas (Section 4.2) are shown for Findelen- and Griesgletscher. (Background maps: Swiss Federal Office of Topography, Swisstopo.)
  • Figure 2. Example of a GCP set on (a) ice and (b) snow. The GCP center is measured with a Leica GPS 1200 (b). (c) SenseFly eBee (left) and computer (right) linked to the transmitter sending the flight coordinates to the UAV.
  • Table 1. Overview of the conducted field campaigns. The season and date of each survey is given together with the total number of (a) UAV flights (N f light), (b) images acquired (Nimg), (c) GCPs deployed (NGCP), (d) collected continuous dGPS points (Ncont.pts) and (e) produced DSMs (NDSM). In addition, the area surveyed during each campaign (Area) is provided. Note that no continuous dGPS points were collected for Sankt Annafirn.
  • Figure 3. Workflow used for DSM and orthophoto generation (left column) and parameters selected in Agisoft Photoscan (right column).
  • Figure 4. Methodology to assess the vertical accuracy for DSMs built with different numbers of GCPs. Here, an example is given for one dataset with N GCPs. Given a number of GCPs to be used for DSM generation (e.g., 3 and 4 in the top and bottom part of the figure, respectively; orange points), n different GCP-combinations (rows) are randomly selected. The remaining GCPs (check points; grey) are used for DSM validation. The standard deviation of the elevation difference between the DSM and the check points is then computed by pooling the n combinations (σvert).
  • Figure 5. Vertical (a) and horizontal (b) DSM accuracy against GCP density. The accuracy is defined as the standard deviation (SD) of the elevation differences between DSMs and check points. The GCP density is calculated from the number of GCPs used to build a DSM, divided by the area investigated. Glaciers (seasons) are represented by different symbols (colors). The exponential fit (in black) follows Equation (1).
  • Table 2. Vertical (σvert) and horizontal (σhoriz) accuracies derived from parameter c in Equation (1). For Findelen- and Gries- gletscher, σvert as estimated from the continuous dGPS points (cont. pts) is given additionally.
  • Table 3. Comparison between studies assessing DSM accuracy on snow or glaciers. The survey date, ground sampling distance (GSD), vertical (σvert) and horizontal (σhoriz) accuracies, as well as the density of GCPs are given.

References Powered by Scopus

'Structure-from-Motion' photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications

3196Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and remote sensing: A review

2322Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A comparison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms

2186Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Unmanned aerial vehicle remote sensing for field-based crop phenotyping: Current status and perspectives

602Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Quality assessment of DSMs produced from UAV flights georeferenced with on-board RTK positioning

216Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A comprehensive review on recent applications of unmanned aerial vehicle remote sensing with various sensors for high-throughput plant phenotyping

157Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gindraux, S., Boesch, R., & Farinotti, D. (2017). Accuracy assessment of digital surface models from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles’ imagery on glaciers. Remote Sensing, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9020186

Readers over time

‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25020406080

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 153

66%

Researcher 44

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 24

10%

Lecturer / Post doc 11

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Earth and Planetary Sciences 83

37%

Engineering 68

30%

Environmental Science 61

27%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13

6%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 30

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0