Unmanned Aircraft System Assessments of Landslide Safety for Transportation Corridors

Unmanned Aircraft System Assessments of Landslide Safety for Transportation Corridors

Cunningham, Keith; Olsen, Michael J.; O'Banion, Matt; Wartman, Joseph; Rault, Claire

Date: 2016-12

Subject: Research management (Cw) ; Planning (Ep) ; Innovation (Ey) ; Maintenance practices (Fmb) ; Mathematical analysis (Uh) ; Geometry (Up) ; Statistical analysis (Us) ; Risk (Hk) ; Risk assessment (Hka) ; Alaska ; Asset management ; GIS ; Slope stability ; Laser scanning ; Lidar ; Mobile Mapping ; Risk-based ; Rockfall energy index ; Evaluate ; Highway

Type: Technical Report

Table of Contents: List of Figures ...................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ x Executive Summary ............................................................................................. xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 4 2.1 Landslide Hazards .................................................................................... 4 2.2 Unmanned Aircraft Systems Remote Sensing.......................................... 6 2.3 Structure From Motion (SfM) .................................................................. 7 2.4 Lidar terrain mapping ............................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 3 STUDY SITE/DATA .................................................................. 11 CHAPTER 4 METHODS ................................................................................ 13 4.1 Data Collection ............................................................................................. 13 4.1.1 Survey Control ..................................................................................... 14 4.1.2 TLS Surveys ........................................................................................ 16 4.1.3 UAS Imagery ....................................................................................... 17 4.1.4 Terrestrial Imagery Acquisition ........................................................... 19 4.2 Data Processing ............................................................................................ 20 4.2.1 Survey Control ..................................................................................... 20 4.2.2 TLS Processing .................................................................................... 20 4.2.3 SfM Processing .................................................................................... 21 4.2.4 Surface Generation .............................................................................. 22 4.3 Quality Evaluation ........................................................................................ 23 4.3.1 Completeness ....................................................................................... 23 4.3.2 Data Density/Resolution ...................................................................... 23 4.3.3 Accuracy Assessment .......................................................................... 23 4.3.2 Surface Morphology Analysis ............................................................. 24 4.2.6 Data Visualization ............................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS ................................................................................. 27 v 5.1 UTIC DSM evaluation.................................................................................. 27 5.1.1 Completeness evaluation ..................................................................... 28 5.1.2 Data Density Evaluation ...................................................................... 29 5.1.3 Accuracy Evaluation............................................................................ 30 5.2 Geomorphological Evaluation ...................................................................... 32 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 35 6.1 Evaluation of UAS efficiencies .................................................................... 35 6.2 DSM quality and completeness .................................................................... 37 6.3 Safety and operational considerations .......................................................... 37 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 40 7.1 Technology Transfer..................................................................................... 41 7.1.1 Publications ......................................................................................... 41 7.1.2 Presentations ........................................................................................ 42 7.1.3 Multi-media outreach .......................................................................... 43 6.4 Integration of UAS and TLS data ................................................................. 44 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 45

Abstract:

An assessment of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) concluded that current, off-the-shelf UAS aircraft and cameras can be effective for creating the digital surface models used to evaluate rock-slope stability and landslide risk along transportation corridors. The imagery collected with UAS can be processed using a photogrammetry technique called Structure-from-Motion (SfM) which generates a point cloud and surface model, similar to terrestrial laser scanning (TLS). We treated the TLS data as our control, or “truth,” because it is a mature and well-proven technology. The comparisons of the TLS surfaces and the SFM surfaces were impressive – if not comparable is many cases. Thus, the SfM surface models would be suitable for deriving slope morphology to generate rockfall activity indices (RAI) for landslide assessment provided the slopes. This research also revealed that UAS are a safer alternative to the deployment and operation of TLS operating on a road shoulder because UAS can be launched and recovered from a remote location and capable of imaging without flying directly over the road. However both the UAS and TLS approaches still require traditional survey control and photo targets to accurately geo-reference their respective DSM.

Show full item record