Mobile Test

712 views
664 views

Published on

Test results for mobile mapping for the Titan system & HDS scanning.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
712
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mobile Test

  1. 1. Mobile Mapping Validation Allen Nobles, PLS Nobles Consulting Group Tallahassee, Florida 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation David J. Ward Business Development Director Terrapoint USA
  2. 2. Test Project <ul><li>Evaluate the TITAN mobile scanning system against: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Conventional survey techniques </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Static Scanning </li></ul></ul>2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  3. 3. <ul><li>TITAN mobile Lidar system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>360 degree coverage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>100 meter effective range </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Highway speed collection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Georeferenced video </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4 meter collection height </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vehicle contained operation </li></ul></ul>2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  4. 4. <ul><li>Four Riegl LMS - Q120 lasers </li></ul>2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  5. 5. TITAN Elevator is operated from inside the vehicle TITAN in Production 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  6. 6. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  7. 7. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  8. 8. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  9. 9. Lidar and Linescan Fusion 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  10. 10. Project Parameters <ul><li>8500 foot suburban 4 lane highway </li></ul><ul><li>GPS base station adjacent to site </li></ul><ul><li>Collection time 1.3 hours </li></ul><ul><li>Two passes each direction </li></ul><ul><li>400 points per square meter </li></ul>2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  11. 11. Project Site Tallahassee, Florida 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  12. 12. Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  13. 13. Titan Lidar Processing <ul><li>GPS IMU solution provides the trajectory </li></ul><ul><li>Linked with scan angles and ranges </li></ul><ul><li>Results is calibrated point cloud </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each point has X,Y,Z and Intensity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Passes are checked against one another with Terrascan </li></ul></ul>2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  14. 14. Titan QC Process <ul><li>Collected independent survey data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Kinematic profile </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Terrascan </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Horizontal alignment check </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vertical alignment check </li></ul></ul>2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  15. 15. Titan Survey Check Data <ul><li>Kinematic profile of project site </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Average DZ -0.049 Feet </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimum DZ -0.243 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maximum DZ +0.112 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Average Magnitude 0.062 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Root Mean Square 0.079 (1 sigma) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Std deviation 0.059 </li></ul></ul>2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  16. 16. Intensity Image to Check Alignment of Striping 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  17. 17. Vertical Check Between Drivelines Match to 1-2 cm 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  18. 18. Mobile Mapping Validation 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  19. 19. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation We chose to test the system on a real project. The test project was a completed and approved survey for FDOT using their standard survey practices. A full DTM was provided to FDOT and check cross-sections were used to check the DTM data (QA/QC).
  20. 20. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation The project area was later scanned with a HDS scanner.
  21. 21. Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  22. 22. Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  23. 23. Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  24. 24. How do you test a mobile scanner? 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation How good was the survey control? Is survey point data absolute?
  25. 25. How do you test a mobile scanner? 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation Typical survey control results for these projects run from 1:40,000 to 1:60,000. Survey data is also adjusted over the total site to remove errors.
  26. 26. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation Lowest Flight Altitude 360 feet Negative Scale 1”=60’ Spot Elevation Accuracy +/- 0.05’ The project area was also surveyed using LAMP (Low Altitude Mapping Photography)
  27. 27. Control Survey Lamp Data Checks 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation <ul><li>Elevation Data </li></ul><ul><li>Point Survey LAMP Difference </li></ul><ul><li>301 87.97 87.994 +0.024 </li></ul><ul><li>302 87.13 87.162 +0.032 </li></ul><ul><li>303 86.77 86.793 +0.023 </li></ul><ul><li>304 87.30 87.334 +0.034 </li></ul><ul><li>305 86.17 86.191 +0.021 </li></ul><ul><li>306 87.77 87.778 +0.008 </li></ul><ul><li> 86.45 86.499 +0.049 </li></ul><ul><li> 86.93 86.665 -0.010 </li></ul><ul><li> 86.28 86.312 +0.024 </li></ul><ul><li> 86.84 88.863 +0.023 </li></ul>
  28. 28. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation Who is checking who now?
  29. 29. How do you test a mobile scanner? 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation <ul><li>How good was the survey control? </li></ul><ul><li>Survey points are not absolute. </li></ul><ul><li>Do you check just control points? </li></ul><ul><li>Do you test against the DTM? </li></ul><ul><li>Surfaces are not flat in the scanner data. </li></ul><ul><li>Adjusted survey control vs. single point RTK </li></ul><ul><li>Local vs. network </li></ul><ul><li>How do you check 3D data? </li></ul>
  30. 30. Project was scanned using a Leica ScanStation. Each setup was adjusted into the existing ground control. Two Traverses (total length 7,177 feet) Avg. Hor. error = 0.08 feet (1:40,000) Avg. Vertical error = 0.10 feet 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  31. 31. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation Cross-section Points
  32. 32. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  33. 33. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  34. 34. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  35. 35. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  36. 36. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  37. 37. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  38. 38. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  39. 39. Results from cross-data from ground survey vs. scanner data (search radius of 0.25 feet and a max. elevation tolerance of 0.10 feet). 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation <ul><li>Used 143 points at cross-section areas. </li></ul><ul><li>75 points supported (68 unsupported) </li></ul><ul><li>53 points meet rejection tolerance </li></ul><ul><li>22 points were rejected </li></ul><ul><li>Mean Deviations = 0.052 feet </li></ul><ul><li>RMS Deviation = 0.065 feet </li></ul>
  40. 40. Results from the survey DTM vs. the HDS scanner data (search radius of 0.25 feet and a max. elevation tolerance of 0.10 feet). 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation <ul><li>Used 368 points at cross-section areas. </li></ul><ul><li>159 points supported (209 unsupported) </li></ul><ul><li>92 points meet rejection tolerance </li></ul><ul><li>67 points were rejected </li></ul><ul><li>Mean Deviations = 0.060 feet </li></ul><ul><li>RMS Deviation = 0.070 feet </li></ul>
  41. 41. Checkpoint results using only shots within the pavement (search radius of 1.0 feet). 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation <ul><li>Used 52 points at cross-section areas. </li></ul><ul><li>50 points supported (2 unsupported) </li></ul><ul><li>37 points meet rejection tolerance </li></ul><ul><li>13 points were rejected </li></ul><ul><li>Mean Deviations = 0.047 feet </li></ul><ul><li>RMS Deviation = 0.060 feet </li></ul>
  42. 42. Checkpoint results using only shots within the pavement (search radius of 0.25 feet). 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation <ul><li>Used 52 points at cross-section areas. </li></ul><ul><li>52 points supported (0 unsupported) </li></ul><ul><li>35 points met rejection tolerance </li></ul><ul><li>17 points were rejected </li></ul><ul><li>Mean Deviations = 0.044 feet </li></ul><ul><li>RMS Deviation = 0.055 feet </li></ul>
  43. 43. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation
  44. 44. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation HDS Scans Titan Scans
  45. 45. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation Titan – HDS Comparison Checkpoints for Horizontal Comparison
  46. 46. Titan – HDS Checkpoints for Horizontal Comparison North Sums East Sums Point to Points Distance Sums Δ N -0.0223 0.0379 0.0167 -0.1168 0.0029 0.0134 0.0137 0.1216 -0.0168 0.0643 0.1452 -0.0435 -0.0259 -0.1587 Δ E -0.0023 0.0508 -0.0263 0.2692 0.0849 -0.0286 0.0902 0.1068 0.2463 0.0254 -0.1189 -0.0529 -0.1837 -0.0383 Point CK1 CK2 CK2 CK3 CK4 CK5 CK6 CK7 CK8 CK9 CK10 CK11 CK12 CK13 0.084 DEV-SQ 0.080 STD-DEV 0.204 DEV-SQ 0.125 STD-DEV Δ Distance 0.0224 0.0634 0.0312 0.2934 0.0849 0.0316 0.0912 0.1618 0.2469 0.0691 0.1877 0.0685 0.1855 0.1633 0.147 RMS 0.0852 STD-DEV 0.2934 MAX 0.0224 MIN
  47. 47. Comparisons TITAN to Static Scanning <ul><li>Accuracies were very similar </li></ul><ul><li>Static Scanning cleaner data than mobile </li></ul><ul><li>More density of points with Static Scan </li></ul><ul><li>Both have high level of utility </li></ul><ul><li>Mobile takes dramatically less time to collect </li></ul><ul><li>Mobile provides one continuous point cloud for a corridor </li></ul><ul><li>Mobile best suited for corridors </li></ul>
  48. 48. Questions? Thank You. 2009 Spar Conference Denver, Colorado Mobile Mapping Validation

×