1. Monitoring of the shallow landslide using UAV
photogrammetry and geodetic measurements
RNDr. Jakub Miřijovský, Ph.D.
This presentation is co-financed by the
European Social Fund and the state
budget of the Czech Republic

2. Research aims

Monitoring of the shallow
landslide using modern
geoinformatics methods
and technologies


Spatial distribution and
volumes of the soil in the
landslide
Effect of precipitation on
the speed of movements
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc

3. Study area




An area with a high incidence of landslides
Flysh layers on the bedrock (claystone, sandstone, slate)
Shallow landslide is near the Halenkovice village
49° 10.202’ N, 17° 27.413’ E
Source: Český úřad zeměměřický a katastrální
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc

4. Shallow landslide in Halenkovice







Continual monitoring from March 2008
Max. lenght: 140 m
Max wide: 90 m
Area: 7 000 m2
Elevation difference: 35 m
Inclination: 10°-15°
First activity – March 2006
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc

5. Previous work



Continual monitoring from March 2008
by Lukáš Marek
Stabilization of the GCPs in the area
Few geodetic measurements
Photos: Lukáš Marek archive
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc

6. Current work - devices




Monitoring using UAV system
Hexacopter XL
Copter with six propellers
Advantages of UAV systems



Operability
Relatively cheap technology
Spatial resolution from 1 cm
Technical specifications - Hexakopter
Action range
1 km
Flight Altitude
5 - 500 m
Take off and landing
0m
Curb weight
1,5 kg
Speed flight
0 - 20 km/h
Autonomy
Up to 30 min.
Wind condition
0 - 30 km/h
Wingspan size
-
Engine
Electric
Payload
1,5 kg
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc

7. Current work – raw data

Two sets of images


April 2013
October 2013
April 2013
Number of images
Flying altitude (m)
Ground sample distance (cm)
Number of Ground control points
October 2013
52
83
2
23
Number of images
Flying altitude (m)
Ground sample distance (cm)
Number of Ground control points
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc
48
90
2
18

8. Current work – checking of the flight path
stability

Scheduled flight path and
real flight path


position
altitude
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc

9. Image processing – Software and methods

Image processing was done by SfM methods


Special case of the stereophotogrammetry (multiple views of the object)
Agisoft Photoscan professional software
1. Photos aligning
2. Dense point cloud
3. Classification of the point cloud
4. DSM creation – 2 900 000 vertices
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc

10. Image processing
April 2013
October 2013
Number of Tie points
Error of the image coordinates (pix)
Point density (points/m2)
The average error in Z (m)
The standard deviation (m)
RMSEZ (m)
195 431
0.660
1912
1.939 × 10-5
0.033
0.033
Number of Tie points
Error of the image coordinates (pix)
Point density (points/m2)
The average error in Z (m)
The standard deviation (m)
RMSEZ (m)
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc
184 131
0.807
1820
2.0 × 10-4
0.026
0.026

11. Results

Precise orthophoto from April and October
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc

12. Results

The precise 3D DSM
Volume: 8075 m3
Volume: 7862 m3
213 m3 difference
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc

13. Results
Point
1
2
5
6
9
10
11
12
16
17
19
20
21
22
24
25
27
28
6/2008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12/2008
4/2009
5/2009
3/2010
4/2011
0.118
0.064
0.056
0.103
×
0.111
0.042
0.079
0.159
×
0.040
0.015
0.003
0.028
×
0.055
0.067
0.069
0.045
×
0.371
0.066
×
0.095
0.083
0.119
×
0.120
0.079
0.157
2.665
0.093
0.027
0.070
0.070
0.033
0.030
×
0.056
0.049
0.011
0.017
0.033
0.024
0.014
0.037
0.056
0.030
0.078
0.020
0.039
0.259
0.043
0.088
0.152
0.071
0.053
0.038
0.024
0.013
0.104
0.023
0.054
0.090
6.739
5.941
7.169
×
0.144
0.065
0.101
0.062
0.057
0.131
×
×
0.074
0.033
0.132
5.841
×
4.527
×
×
×
×
1.533
×
×
6.053
10/2012
3/2013
0.035
0.036
1.169
0.422
4.521
0.331
0.067
0.080
5.399
0.194
0.019
0.033
3.131
0.022
0.127
0.160
0.085
0.329
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc
0.016
0.024
0.049
0.046
0.025
0.065
0.046
0.045
0.067
0.042
0.023
0.018
0.023
0.010
0.010
0.028
×
0.067
Sum
0.746
0.314
1.425
6.644
4.546
7.665
6.308
7.669
8.300
5.104
0.211
0.274
3.347
0.191
1.965
0.289
0.192
6.784

14. Results
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc

15. Conclusion

Monitoring of the shallow landslides can be easily done by UAV systems
and SfM methods.
High accuracy of the GCPs is very important.

Pros






Fast monitoring
Very precise method
3D DSM (DTM) model and orthophoto in one step
Relatively cheap technology
Cons



Vegetation limits the creation of a precise model (especially DTM)
Local law restrictions for aerial imaging using UAV
High requirements for computational time
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc

16. Thank you for your attention
jakub.mirijovsky@upol.cz
Second InDOG Doctoral Conference, 14th – 17th October 2013, Olomouc