Performance Comparison of Filtering Algorithms for High-Density Airborne LiDAR Point Clouds over Complex LandScapes

被引:42
作者
Chen, Chuanfa [1 ,2 ]
Guo, Jiaojiao [1 ,2 ]
Wu, Huiming [1 ,2 ]
Li, Yanyan [1 ,2 ]
Shi, Bo [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Shandong Univ Sci & Technol, Key Lab Geomat & Digital Technol Shandong Prov, Qingdao 266590, Peoples R China
[2] Shandong Univ Sci & Technol, Coll Geodesy & Geomat, Qingdao 266590, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
filtering; LiDAR; interpolation; slope; morphology; PROGRESSIVE TIN DENSIFICATION; BARE-EARTH EXTRACTION; MORPHOLOGICAL FILTER; URBAN AREAS; CLASSIFICATION; SEGMENTATION; INTERPOLATION; MODELS; SLOPE;
D O I
10.3390/rs13142663
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology has become the mainstream data source in geosciences and environmental sciences. Point cloud filtering is a prerequisite for almost all LiDAR-based applications. However, it is challenging to select a suitable filtering algorithm for handling high-density point clouds over complex landscapes. Therefore, to determine an appropriate filter on a specific environment, this paper comparatively assessed the performance of five representative filtering algorithms on six study sites with different terrain characteristics, where three plots are located in urban areas and three in forest areas. The representative filtering methods include simple morphological filter (SMRF), multiresolution hierarchical filter (MHF), slope-based filter (SBF), progressive TIN densification (PTD) and segmentation-based filter (SegBF). Results demonstrate that SMRF performs the best in urban areas, and compared to MHF, SBF, PTD and SegBF, the total error of SMRF is reduced by 1.38%, 48.21%, 48.25% and 31.03%, respectively. MHF outperforms the others in forest areas, and compared to SMRF, SBF, PTD and SegBF, the total error of MHF is reduced by 1.98%, 35.87%, 45.11% and 9.42%, respectively. Moreover, both SMRF and MHF keep a good balance between type I and II errors, which makes the produced DEMs much similar to the references. Overall, SMRF and MHF are recommended for urban and forest areas, respectively, and MHF averagely performs slightly better than SMRF on all areas with respect to kappa coefficient.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 66 条
[1]  
Abdullah A.F., 2009, Proceedings of the International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, P30
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2005, SCI INT ARCH PHOTOGR
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2000, INT ARCH PHOTOGRAMM
[4]   Peak-bagging and cartographic misrepresentations: a call to correction [J].
Apollo, Michal ;
Mostowska, Joanna ;
Maciuk, Kamil ;
Wengel, Yana ;
Jones, Thomas E. ;
Cheer, Joseph M. .
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM, 2021, 24 (14) :1970-1975
[5]   A comparison between photogrammetry and laser scanning [J].
Baltsavias, EP .
ISPRS JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND REMOTE SENSING, 1999, 54 (2-3) :83-94
[6]   Generation of digital terrain model for forest areas using a new particle swarm optimization on LiDAR data [J].
Bigdeli, Behnaz ;
Gomroki, Masoomeh ;
Pahlavani, Parham .
SURVEY REVIEW, 2020, 52 (371) :115-125
[7]   Combining airborne and terrestrial laser scanning for quantifying erosion and deposition by a debris flow event [J].
Bremer, Magnus ;
Sass, Oliver .
GEOMORPHOLOGY, 2012, 138 (01) :49-60
[8]   Feature selection for airborne LiDAR data filtering: a mutual information method with Parzon window optimization [J].
Cai, Zhan ;
Ma, Hongchao ;
Zhang, Liang .
GISCIENCE & REMOTE SENSING, 2020, 57 (03) :323-337
[9]   The effectiveness of airborne LiDAR data in the recognition of channel-bed morphology [J].
Cavalli, Marco ;
Tarolli, Paolo ;
Marchi, Lorenzo ;
Fontana, Giancarlo Dalla .
CATENA, 2008, 73 (03) :249-260
[10]   Filtering airborne LiDAR point clouds based on a scale-irrelevant and terrain-adaptive approach [J].
Chen, Chuanfa ;
Chang, Bingtao ;
Li, Yanyan ;
Shi, Bo .
MEASUREMENT, 2021, 171