Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7780/kjrs.2022.38.6.1.13

Physical Offset of UAVs Calibration Method for Multi-sensor Fusion  

Kim, Cheolwook (Image Engineering Research Center, 3DLabs Co. Ltd.)
Lim, Pyeong-chae (Image Engineering Research Center, 3DLabs Co. Ltd.)
Chi, Junhwa (Center of Remote Sensing and GIS, Korea Polar Research Institute)
Kim, Taejung (Department of Geoinformatic Engineering, Inha University)
Rhee, Sooahm (Image Engineering Research Center, 3DLabs Co. Ltd.)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Remote Sensing / v.38, no.6_1, 2022 , pp. 1125-1139 More about this Journal
Abstract
In an unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) system, a physical offset can be existed between the global positioning system/inertial measurement unit (GPS/IMU) sensor and the observation sensor such as a hyperspectral sensor, and a lidar sensor. As a result of the physical offset, a misalignment between each image can be occurred along with a flight direction. In particular, in a case of multi-sensor system, an observation sensor has to be replaced regularly to equip another observation sensor, and then, a high cost should be paid to acquire a calibration parameter. In this study, we establish a precise sensor model equation to apply for a multiple sensor in common and propose an independent physical offset estimation method. The proposed method consists of 3 steps. Firstly, we define an appropriate rotation matrix for our system, and an initial sensor model equation for direct-georeferencing. Next, an observation equation for the physical offset estimation is established by extracting a corresponding point between a ground control point and the observed data from a sensor. Finally, the physical offset is estimated based on the observed data, and the precise sensor model equation is established by applying the estimated parameters to the initial sensor model equation. 4 region's datasets(Jeon-ju, Incheon, Alaska, Norway) with a different latitude, longitude were compared to analyze the effects of the calibration parameter. We confirmed that a misalignment between images were adjusted after applying for the physical offset in the sensor model equation. An absolute position accuracy was analyzed in the Incheon dataset, compared to a ground control point. For the hyperspectral image, root mean square error (RMSE) for X, Y direction was calculated for 0.12 m, and for the point cloud, RMSE was calculated for 0.03 m. Furthermore, a relative position accuracy for a specific point between the adjusted point cloud and the hyperspectral images were also analyzed for 0.07 m, so we confirmed that a precise data mapping is available for an observation without a ground control point through the proposed estimation method, and we also confirmed a possibility of multi-sensor fusion. From this study, we expect that a flexible multi-sensor platform system can be operated through the independent parameter estimation method with an economic cost saving.
Keywords
Physical offset; Multi-sensor fusion; Hyperspectral sensor; LiDAR sensor;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 de Oliveira Junior, E.M. and D.R. dos Santos, 2019. Rigorous Calibration of UAV-Based LiDAR Systems with Refinement of the Boresight Angles Using a Point-to-Plane Approach, Sensors, 19(23): 5224. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19235224   DOI
2 Habib, A., T. Zhou, A. Masjedi, Z. Zhang, J.E. Flatt, and M. Crawford, 2018. Boresight calibration of GNSS/INS-assisted push-broom hyperspectral scanners on UAV platforms, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 11(5): 1734-1749. https://doi.org/10.1109/jstars.2018.2813263   DOI
3 Kim, J.I., C.U. Hyun, H. Han, and H.C. Kim, 2021. Digital surface model generation for drifting Arctic sea ice with low-textured surfaces based on drone images, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 172: 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.12.008   DOI
4 Li, Z., J. Tan, and H. Liu, 2019. Rigorous Boresight Self-Calibration of Mobile and UAV LiDAR Scanning Systems by Strip Adjustment, Remote Sensing, 11(4): 442. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11040442   DOI
5 Pio, R., 1966. Euler angle transformations, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 11(4): 707-715. https://doi.org/10.1109/tac.1966.1098430   DOI
6 Stuchlik, R., Z. Stachon, K. Laska, and P. Kubicek, 2015. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle-Efficient mapping tool available for recent research in polar regions, Czech Polar Reports, 5(2): 210-221. https://doi.org/10.5817/cpr2015-2-18   DOI
7 Mian, O., J. Lutes, G. Lipa, J.J. Hutton, E. Gavelle, and S. Borghini, 2015. Direct georeferencing on small unmanned aerial platforms for improved reliability and accuracy of mapping without the need for ground control points, The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 40(1): 397. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-xl-1-w4-397-2015   DOI
8 Keyetieu, R. and N. Seube, 2019. Automatic Data Selection and Boresight Adjustment of LiDAR Systems, Remote Sensing, 11(9): 1087. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11091087   DOI
9 Zeybek, M., 2021. Accuracy assessment of direct georeferencing UAV images with onboard global navigation satellite system and comparison of CORS/RTK surveying methods, Measurement Science and Technology, 32(6): 065402. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/abf25d   DOI