UTAS undergraduate and Honours project presentations David Cromarty Elyse Alender Anna Hill Martin Gray Daniel Dear
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
UTAS undergraduate and Honours project presentations David Cromarty Elyse Alender Anna Hill Martin Gray Daniel Dear
Satellite Altimeter Calibration Using an Integrated GPS/INS Buoy David Cromarty Bachelor of Surveying and Spatial Sciences
Satellite Altimetry
Current NASA/CNES
Missions
1. Jason - 1
2. Jason - 2
Image Sources: NASA JPL, Watson (2011)
Mean sea level time series
GPS Buoy Altimetry Calibration
GPS Only Tightly coupled GPS/INS
Output Parameters: Output Parameters:
Latitude Latitude
Longitude Longitude
Ellipsoidal Height Ellipsoidal Height
Pitch
Roll
Yaw
Conclusion • GPS observations are difficult in a complex dynamic environment. • Loss of satellite lock affects the smoothed solution considerably. • GPS/INS buoy has the potential to improve sea surface height observations.
Blue on the Red Planet An investigation into the formation and composition of gully features within Hale Crater, Mars, and the presence of water. Elyse Allender Bachelor of Surveying and Spatial Sciences with Honours
Study Site: Hale Crater
Gully Characteristics
Alcove
Flow Channel
Debris ApronData Collection Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) – operated by NASA, launched 2005 Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars (CRISM) Spectral resolution = 544 image bands Spatial resolution = 18 m per image pixel. Ground coverage = 10 km by 10 km. High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) Spatial resolution = 0.3 m per image pixel. Ground coverage = 6km swath width.
Data Processing
N
Raw signature
Processed signatureSummary Products
N
BD2290
Indicative of Fe/Mg
phyllosilicates (clays)
N
BD2500
Indicative of carbonatesBrowse Product MAF
NHiRISE Image HiRISE DEM: 17 m resolution
Data Combination and Interpretation
N
Browse Product: TRU
R: 0.600 µm
G: 0.530 µm
B: 0.440 µm
NN
R: SINDEX
G: BD2100
B: BD1900
Browse Product: HYD
NN
R: OLINDEX2
G: LCPINDEX
B: HCPINDEX
Browse Product: MAF
NMacquarie Island Tide Gauge Calibration Anna R. Hill Bachelor of Surveying and Spatial Sciences (Honours)
Background • At Macquarie Island it is known that sea-level is rising and that this is exacerbated by land level subsidence...tide gauge calibration • MSL rise has severe implications for the natural environment (extreme events and socio-economic impacts) Watson et al (2010) Scott Johnson, 2009
Macquarie Island
In Situ Methodology Watson et al (2008)
Results SSHBuoy = α SSHTG + β
Results
SSHBuoy = α *SSHTG + β + γ *e(ν*STDTG)
Parameter Watson et al (2008) Current
scale (α) 0.9879 ± 0.0011 0.9885 ± 0.0010
offset (β) 0.0611 ± 0.0056 0.0442 ± 0.0035
γ -0.0117 ± 0.0022 -0.0034 ± 0.0003
ν 9.88 ± 0.64 14.26 ± 0.39Thank You
• Dr Christopher Watson
• Henk Brolsma (AAD)
• Roger Handsworth
Questions
• arhill0@utas.edu.auAbsolute Spatial Accuracy of the Cadastral Index within the LIST Martin Gray Bachelor of Surveying and Spatial Sciences
The LIST
Cadastre • Digitised from 1:5,000 and 1:25,000 topographic map series • Later updated with survey data
Project Aims • Investigate the expected spatial accuracy of the LIST • Show how the accuracy has increased over time • Why the errors are present
Development of the Cadastre
±5-12m
Digitised from 1:5,000 and Upgraded with survey title
1:25,000 map series information
±5m
±0.1-5m
Introduction of Survey Act
Current Cadastre
2002Types of Cadastres • Graphical – Visual way of representing the cadastre only – Accuracy between ±0.1m and ±5m • Numerical – Bearing and distance information along lines – Least Squares adjustments – Accuracy
Case Studies • Glebe Hill • Acton Park • White Beach
Different Accuracies in the LIST
Coordination of Boundaries • Glebe Hill – Average difference – 0.040m • Acton Park – Average difference – 0.607m • White Beach – Average difference – 1.543m
Results Summary • Accuracy of each parcel was found to better than stated by the LIST • Glebe Hill had better accuracy than EPU • Acton Park was found to have a simplified boundary causing one large difference in coordinates. • White beach accuracy was better than expected also.
Acton Park
Acton Park
Acton Park
Glebe Hill
Acton Park
White Beach
Conclusion • The older a property is, the greater the uncertainty • The Surveyors Act 2002 caused a significant increase in accuracy • Introduction of Digital Lodgement and Digital Numerical Cadastral Database will further improve the accuracy
Laser Scanning vs. Photogrammetry for Mapping Rock Faces Daniel Dear Bachelor of Surveying and Spatial Sciences
Introduction • White rock quarry, Leslievale, Kingborough • Lester Franks • Aim to compare: 1. Accuracy 2. Operational differences 3. Future prospects 4. Mapping geology
Laser Scanner
Photogrammetry
Left Right
5mPhotogrammetry
Together3D Model
Profile ‘A’
1m Grid Slices
1 Profiles
44.5
44.3
44.1
Upper
43.9 overhang
South from 5242000N (m)
43.7
43.5
5normal
43.3 Recess converge
Lower overhang
43.1 5norm_conv
2normal
42.9 Smooth section
laser
42.7
42.5
261 262 263 Height (m) 264 265 2662 Operational Differences
Laser Photogrammetry
• Faster in processing • Faster in the field
• More expensive • Always needs accurate
• Can be vehicle mounted ground control
with RTK – GPS position • Higher resolution
• Textured3 Future prospects
• Laser
– Faster
– Lighter
– Auto render image
– Multi-spectral
– Higher resolution
• Photogrammetry
– Faster processors
– GPS built-in
– Gyro built-in4 Volumes
2.156
2.154
• Potential over- 2.152
estimations up to 30m3 2.15
m^3
2.148
• Laser not the smallest 2.146
as expected. 2.144
– 7m3 2.142
– Due to lower resolution 2.14
2.1384 Mapping Geology
SUMMARY FINDINGS
1. More images, more 4. Near future shows gap
accurate narrowing
2. Shorter baseline, more 5. Lower resolution over-
accurate estimates volume
3. Laser faster in office, 6. 3D models great for
slower in field geological feature
studyYou can also read
