Post on 31-Dec-2015
transcript
Remote Sensing for Asset Management
Shauna Hallmark Kamesh Mantravadi
David VenezianoReginald Souleyrette
September 23, 2001Madison, WI
The Problem/Opportunity
• DOT use of spatial data– Planning– Infrastructure Management– Traffic engineering– Safety, many others
• Inventory of large systems costly– e.g., 110,000 miles of road in Iowa
The Problem/Opportunity
• Current Inventory Collection Methods– Labor intensive– Time consuming– Disruptive– Dangerous
Data Collection Methodologies
• Manual (advantages/disadvantages)• low cost• visual inspection of road• accurate distance measurement• workers may be located on-road• difficult to collect spatial (x,y)
• Video-log/photolog vans (advantages/disadvantages)• rapid data collection• digital storage • difficult to collect spatial
(x,y)
Data Collection Methodologies
• GPS (advantages/disadvantages)
• highly accurate (x,y,z)• can record elevation• time consuming if high
accuracy is required• workers may be located
on-road
Data Collection Methodologies
• Remote sensing (advantages/disadvantages)
• Data collectors not located on-site• Initially costly but multiple uses• Can go back to the images
Research Objective
• Can remote sensing be used to collect infrastructure inventory elements?
• What accuracy is possible/necessary?
Remote Sensing• "the science of deriving information
about an object from measurements made at a distance from the object without making actual contact” Campbell, J. Introduction to Remote Sensing, Second Edition.
• Applications in many fields such as forestry, Oceanography, Transportation
Remote Sensing• 3 types
1) space based or satellite• Images acquired from space
2) airplane based or aerial• Images acquired form aerial platforms
like high, low altitude airplanes and balloons. (USGS)
3) in-situ or video/magnetic
Research Approach• Identify common inventory features • Identify existing data collection methods• Use aerial photos to extract inventory
features • Performance measures• Define resolution requirements• Recommendations
Application
• Use of Remote sensing to collect features for the Iowa DOT’s Linear Referencing System (LRS)
• Datum– Anchor points– Anchor sections
• Business data– Inventory features
Datum
• Anchor points– Physical entity– (X,Y) – Intersection of 2
roadways– Intersection of RR and
roadway– Edge of median– Bridges
• Anchor sections– Measurement of
distance between anchor points along roadway
Anchor point
Anchor section
Datum Accuracy Requirements
Anchor points ± 1.0 meter
Anchors sections ± 2.1 meter
Common Business Data Items
Shoulder Type Shoulder Width
Right and Left Number of Right/Left
Turn Lanes Number of Signalized
Intersections Number of Stop
controlled Intersections Number of Other
Intersections
• HPMS requirements• Additional Iowa DOT
elements Section Length Number of Through
Lanes Surface/Pavement
Type Lane Width Access Control Median Type Median Width Parking
Imagery Datasets
• 2-inch dataset - Georeferenced• 6-inch dataset - Orthorectified• 2-foot dataset – Orthorectified• 1-meter dataset – Orthorectified –
simulated 1-m Ikonos Satellite Imagery
* not collected concurrently
Performance Measures
• Establishing geographic location of anchor points and business data– Positional accuracy – Variation between operators for locating
elements (Operator Variability)– Ability to recognize features in imagery
(Feature Recognition)
• Calculation of anchor section lengths• Establishing roadway centerline
Positional Accuracy
• Root Mean Square (RMS)
• Imagery position vs. position w/ GPS (centimeter horizontal accuracy)
• 2 easily identified features selected– Could be identified in
all 4 datasets– Had a distinct point to
locate
SE corner of intersecting sidewalks
SE corner of drainage structure
Positional Accuracy
• 2-inch, 6-inch, 24-inch met accuracy requirements of Iowa DOT LRS for anchor points
• Even for 1-meter RMS < 2 meters
• 95% of points were located within < 3.5 meters for all datasets --- sufficient accuracy for most asset management applications
Operator Variability
• For manual location of features
• How much of spatial error can be attributed to differences in how data collectors locate objects
Variation among observers in spatially
locating a point
Operator Variability• 7 operators located 8
sets of features– Traffic signal posts – Drainage structures– Pedestrian crossings– Center of intersections– Center of driveways– RR crossings– Bridges– Medians
Edge of drainage structure as located by 7 operators
• Specific instructions for locating (i.e. SE corner of bridge)
• Compared variability among observers
Operator Variability (results)
• Only 3 features could be identified consistently in all 4 datasets– Driveways --- RR Crossings– Center of intersections
• 5 other features identified in 6-inch & 2-inch datasets
Operator Variability (results)
• Certain features, such as railroad crossings, could be located with less variation than features such as driveway centers (less distinct)
• mean variability < 0.5 meters– Drainage structures, driveways, traffic signal posts, pedestrian
crossings (2 and 6-inch tested only)
• mean variability >= 0.5 m & < 1.0 m– Medians (2 & 6-inch tested only, RR crossings)
• mean variability >= 1.0 m– Intersections, bridges
• Significant variability in features used as anchor points
• Variability ~ allowed error (1.0 meter)
Feature Identification• Points can be located within
allowance for anchor points (± 1.0 m) for all but 1-meter
• Even 1-meter rms < 2.0 meters, sufficient for most asset-related applications
• But can features be consistently recognized
IP (%) = (Fa/Fg) * 100
• % of features recognized in imagery compared to ground count
Extraction of features from 6-inch image
Feature Identification
Feature Identification
• Of 21 features– 2-inch: 100% identified consistently – 6-inch: > 80% identified consistently
• Signs, median type, stopbars, utility poles
– 24-inch: < 50% consistently identified• 6 features not identified at all
– 1-meter: < 25% consistently identified• 8 features not identified at all
Calculation of anchor section lengths
• Linear measure along roadway centerline between anchor points
• Iowa DOT LRS requires ± 2.1 m
• Established centerline and measured for 7 test anchor section test segments
• Compared against DMI
values from Iowa DOT LRS Pilot Study• Also collected distance using Roadware DMI
van (but collected at ± 10 m)
Anchor Section Results
• None of the methods met ± 2.1 m RMS required for anchor section distances
**** Iowa DOT study found 6-inch met accuracy requirement ***
• All imagery: RMS < 8 meters
• All imagery: mean < 2 m
Establishing Roadway Centerline
• Compared centerline representation of 3 methods– Imagery– VideoLog DGPS– Roadway DGPS
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
0
181
362
543
724
905
1086
1267
1448
1628
1809
1990
2171
2352
2533
2714
2895
3076
3257
3438
3619
3800
3981
4162
4343
Distance Along Segment (meters)
Dev
iati
on
Fro
m D
atu
m (
met
ers)
Roadware 1
Roadware 2
Videolog
Typical Segment on Dakota (imagery and DGPS)
Deviation from datum (m)
Establishing Roadway Centerline
Worst Alignment on Union (DGPS)
Deviation from datum (m)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
0 74 149 223 298 372 447 521 596 670
Distance Along Segment (feet)
Dev
iati
on
Fro
m D
atu
m (
met
ers)
24-Inch
1-Meter
Roadware 1
Roadware 2
DGPS Traces from Iowa DOT LRS Pilot Study
Nevada, IA
Conclusions
• Most significant issue with imagery– At lower resolutions, difficult to identify features
• Spatial accuracy for all imagery datasets comparable
• Limiting factor is ability to consistently identify features
• Minimum of 6-inch required for identification of features
• 1-meter or 24-inch:– for measurement of centerline– Identification of large features
Questions?