Adjidjonu, D and Burgett, J (2021) Assessing the accuracy of unmanned aerial vehicles photogrammetric survey. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 17(1), pp. 85-96. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have seen an increase in use on terrain mapping, especially in lieu of manual surveying methods. This study will evaluate the accuracy that can be achieved using a commercially available UAV and Structure-from-Motion (SfM) software. Photogrammetric data were captured with a UAV at three elevations three separate times. Sixteen aerial targets were located by a surveyor and used to geo-reference the models. Absolute accuracy was principally evaluated by measuring the distance between the computed location and the location determined by the surveyors. The study found that the most accurate survey conducted had a horizontal error of 0.88 cm (0.029 ft) and a vertical error of 0.38 cm (0.012 ft). The study also found that there was very little statistically significant difference in accuracy between surveys created with images captured from flights at the same altitude. An additional experiment conducted evaluated what the optimal number of ground control points was to yield the most accurate results. The study found that with a 7,500 m2 (82,500 sq. ft) site that there were significant improvements to the survey when three ground control points (GCPs) were included but only marginal improvements when four or more GCPs were added.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | drone; mapping; photogrammetry; surveying; uav |
| Index terms: | mapping, survey, accuracy, experiment, surveying, drone, unmanned aerial vehicle |
| Subjects: | automation and robotics, spatial and geospatial analysis, professional development, health monitoring assessment and metrics, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Digital Applications, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here