Research Article

A Comparative Analysis of UAV-RTK and UAV-PPK Methods in Mapping Different Surface Types

Volume: 7 Number: 1 June 30, 2021
EN

A Comparative Analysis of UAV-RTK and UAV-PPK Methods in Mapping Different Surface Types

Abstract

This study aimed to compare unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based real-time kinematic (RTK) and post-processing kinematic (PPK) methods via five approaches: an RTK-CORS method (M1), a short-baseline PPK method obtaining corrections from a GNSS base station (M2), and three long-baseline PPK methods that obtained corrections from the three Turkish RTK-CORS network TUSAGA-Aktif reference stations (M3: IZMI, M4: CESM, and M5: KIKA). The comparison was based on the accuracy of the corrected camera positions, the average error of the camera locations computed in the photo-alignment and optimization process, georeferencing errors of the models via nine GCPs based on four scenarios, and Root Mean Square (RMS) errors in the Z-direction for different surface types (i.e. roads, shadows, shrubs, boulders, trees, and ground). For the surface types of “ground”, “roads”, and “shrubs”, RMS error rates were obtained 10 cm lower than that of other surface types in all methods except M4. The greatest differences were obtained over trees and shadowed areas. The conclusion of these comparisons was that the lowest RMS error rate was determined on a solid textured surface. The consideration of mean RMS error regardless of surface type in such model comparisons is misleading.

Keywords

Accuracy comparison , GNSS , Photogrammetry , RTK/PPK , Surface Types , UAV

References

  1. Abdelkader, M., Shaqura, M., Claudel, C.G., Gueaieb, W., 2013. A UAV based system for real time flash flood monitoring in desert environments using Lagrangian microsensors. International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Atlanta, GA, USA, 25-34.
  2. Adams, M.S., Bühler, Y., Fromm, R., 2018. Multitemporal accuracy and precision assessment of unmanned aerial system photogrammetry for slope-scale snow depth maps in alpine terrain. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 175: 3303–3324.
  3. Agisoft Metashape User Manual, 2019. Agisoft Metashape User Manual: Professional Edition, Version 1.5 https://www.agisoft.com/pdf/metashape-pro_1_5_en.pdf.
  4. Agüera-Vega, F., Carvajal-Ramírez, F., Martínez-Carricondo, P., 2017. Assessment of photogrammetric mapping accuracy based on variation ground control points number using unmanned aerial vehicle. Meas J Int Meas Confed, 98: 221–227.
  5. Akgul, M., Yurtseven, H., Gulci, S., Akay, A.E., 2018. Evaluation of UAV- and GNSS-based DEMs for earthwork volume. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 43(4): 1893–1909.
  6. Annis, A., Nardi, F., Petroselli, A., Apollonio, C., Arcangeletti, E., Tauro, F., Belli, C., Bianconi, R., Grimaldi, S., 2020. UAV-DEMs for Small-Scale Flood Hazard Mapping. Water, 12, 1717.
  7. Bühler, Y., Adams, M.S., Bösch, R., Stoffel, A., 2016. Mapping snow depth in alpine terrain with unmanned aerial systems (UASs): Potential and limitations. Cryosphere, 10: 1075–1088.
  8. Campana, S., 2017. Drones in archaeology. State-of-the-art and future perspectives. Archaeol Prospect, 24: 275-296.
  9. Carvajal, F., Agüera, F., Pérez, M., 2011. Surveying a landslide in a road embankment using unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XXXVIII (Part 1/C22): 201–206.
  10. Colomina, I., Molina, P., 2014. Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and remote sensing: a review. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 92: 79-97.
APA
Eker, R., Alkan, E., & Aydın, A. (2021). A Comparative Analysis of UAV-RTK and UAV-PPK Methods in Mapping Different Surface Types. European Journal of Forest Engineering, 7(1), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.33904/ejfe.938067

Cited By

Consistency Analysis of RTK and Non-RTK UAV DSMs in Vegetated Areas

IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing

https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2023.3288947