| Literature DB >> 34883835 |
Oktawia Lewicka1, Mariusz Specht2, Andrzej Stateczny3, Cezary Specht1, David Brčić4, Alen Jugović4, Szymon Widźgowski2, Marta Wiśniewska2.
Abstract
The integration of geospatial data in hydrography, performed using different measurement systems, involves combining several study results to provide a comprehensive analysis. Each of the hydroacoustic and optoelectronic systems is characterised by a different spatial reference system and the method for technical implementation of the measurement. Therefore, the integration of hydrographic data requires that problems in selected fields of electronics, geodesy and physics (acoustics and optics) be solved. The aim of this review is to present selected fusion methods applying the data derived from Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), Real Time Kinematic (RTK) measurements, hydrographic surveys, a photogrammetric pass using unmanned vehicles and Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) and compare their accuracy. An additional goal is the evalution of data integration methods according to the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) S-44 standard. The publication is supplemented by implementation examples of the integration of geospatial data in the Geographic Information System (GIS). The methods described indicate the lack of a uniform methodology for data fusion due to differences in both the spatial reference systems and the techniques used. However, the integration of hydroacoustic and optoelectronic data allows for high accuracy geospatial data to be obtained. This is confirmed by the methods cited, in which the accuracy of integrated geospatial data was in the order of several centimetres.Entities:
Keywords: Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS); data integration; hydroacoustic methods; hydrographic surveys; optoelectronic methods
Year: 2021 PMID: 34883835 PMCID: PMC8659856 DOI: 10.3390/s21237831
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1A diagram presenting hydroacoustic (blue colour) and optoelectronic (green colour) devices and systems.
Figure 2A simplified block diagram presenting the GNSS, TLS, UAV and USV data integration according to [17].
Figure 3A simplified block diagram presenting the GNSS, TLS, UAV and USV data integration according to [24].
Figure 4A simplified block diagram presenting the UAV and USV data integration according to [30].
Figure 5Different views of point clouds: (a) TPC; (b,c) topobathymetric point cloud presenting the combination of two data sources and its main terrain characteristics according to [30].
Figure 6A simplified block diagram presenting the LiDAR, NOAA and USGS data integration according to [40].
Figure 7Results of the integration of (a) bathymetric and LiDAR data; (b) depth and topographic data according to [40].
Accuracy of selected GNSS, hydroacoustic and optoelectronic data integration methods used in hydrography.
| Measurement Accuracy | Method According to | Method According to | Method According to |
|---|---|---|---|
| dN 1 | 0.023 m | – | – |
| dE 2 | 0.16 m | – | – |
| dNH 3 | 0.027 m | – | – |
| RMSEx 4 | – | 0.15 m | – |
| RMSEy 5 | – | 0.18 m | – |
| RMSEz 6 | – | 0.007 m | – |
| RMSE 7 | – | 0.18 m | – |
| MAE 8 | – | 0.05 m | – |
| R2 9 | – | 0.90 | – |
| RMSE 10 | – | – | 0.43 m |
Maximum difference in Northing 1, Easting 2 and normal height 3 coordinates with respect to reference points. RMSE of x 4, y 5 and z 6 coordinates with respect to the SfM model and 7 GCPs. RMSE 7, MAE 8 and R2 9 with respect to the BPC and TPC models. RMSE 10 with respect to the bathymetric grid and reference transect data.