Hassan Emami; Seyyed Ghasem Rostami
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) photogrammetry now provides a low-cost, fast, and effective approach to real-time acquisition of high resolution and digital geospatial information, as well as automatic 3D modeling of objects, for a variety of applications including topographical ...
Read More
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) photogrammetry now provides a low-cost, fast, and effective approach to real-time acquisition of high resolution and digital geospatial information, as well as automatic 3D modeling of objects, for a variety of applications including topographical mapping, 3D city modelling, orthophoto generation, and cultural heritage preservation. UASs are known by a variety of names and acronyms, including aerial robots or simply drones, with UAV and drone being the most commonly used terminology. Because of the versatility of their on-board Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) navigation systems and inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors, UASs open up new options for photogrammetric projects. In this research, the ability of four different state-of-the-art and professional drone-based software packages, including AgisoftMetashape, InphoUASmaster, Photomodeler UAS, and Pix4D Mapper, to generate a high density point cloud as well as a Digital Surface Model (DSM) and true orthoimage over barren, residential, green space, and uniform textured areas in urban and exurban areas is investigated.
Methodology
The following are the major processes in this study: image acquisition, point cloud, DSM, DEM generation, and accuracy assessment. Data planning and acquisition are the initial steps in commencing any project. The overlapping images are initially obtained using four data sets with distinct surface feature attributes and camera kinds with different shooting situations. The data sets that must be acquired include pictures taken with FC6310 (8.8 mm), NEX-5R (5.2 mm), and Canon IXUS 220HS (4.3 mm) cameras at varied flight heights and spatial resolutions ranging from 52 to 246 m. The four data sets, two of which are connected to Iran and two of which are related to other nations, were chosen from barren, residential, green space, and uniform texture areas. GPS coordinates for these photos must also be recorded using a GPS device. This is done to geo-reference the images for improved model accuracy. The calibration of the camera must also be addressed, and its characteristics and readings must be determined at the start of the project. The images will be calibrated first in order to determine camera pose estimate. The following stage is to compare survey measurements to model measurements in order to assess the overall correctness of the 3D model. The correctness of the point cloud, DSM, and 3D textured model is next evaluated. The accuracy evaluation evaluates the orientation correctness, and measurement uncertainties in the various modeling procedures. Finally, the various products of the mentioned software packages were statistically and qualitatively evaluated.
Results and discussion
The outcomes of this study demonstrate the ability of commercial photogrammetric software packages to do automatic 3D reconstruction of numerous attributes across urban and exurban regions using high quality aerial imagery. This assessment employs a variety of visual and geometric measurements to assess the quality of produced point clouds as well as the performance of the four software packages. According to the visual quality findings, AgisMesh software performs better in 3D modeling of all varieties of surfaces in all locations, but badly in the reconstruction of building edges in urban regions. Pix4D software, on the other hand, performs poorly in areas with uniform texture but excels at recognizing height changes and reconstructing building site boundaries. In terms of visual outcomes, the other software falls somewhere in the middle. In quantitative tests, they were tested first with checkpoints and then with randomly selected points in three distinct classes of urban and exurban regions. Check point findings revealed that the root mean square error (RMSE) in AgisMesh, UASmas, Pix4D, and PhUAS software packages was 2.82, 2.63, 5.84, and 3.03 cm, respectively. Furthermore, quantitative findings obtained by choosing random locations revealed that UASmas had an accuracy of 1.83, 1.20, and 2.74 cm, respectively, in three residential, barren, and green space zones. In addition to the 6.90, 2.96, and 7.24 cm accuracy of the PhUAS, the Pix4D was 4.72, 3.46, and 3.59 cm more accurate than AgisMesh software in the three stated classes. Table 1 displays the assessment findings based on the RMSE criterion.
Conclusions
The findings of this study indicate the capacity of specialist drone-based photogrammetric software packages to automatically reconstruct 3D features from high quality aerial images over desolate, residential, green space, and uniform texture environments. In this study, all conditions and parameters in all software were regarded the same, and owing to the similarity of statistical parameters, number of points, and so on in various products, only the discrepancies and their differences were discussed in depth. Various visual and geometric parameters are utilized in this evaluation to analyze the quality of generated 3D point clouds, DSM, and true orthophoto. AgisMesh offers a simple and easy user interface in general and visual assessment, and it is possible to describe and execute data from any camera, even unknown models, without utilizing coordinate images by utilizing powerful processing methods. In contrast, the UASmas program has a highly complex user interface, and the user must be familiar with all of the concepts of photogrammetry as well as the camera parameters file, which is not readily set. It is possible to manually alter restricted processing results in Pix4D. As a result, faulty results are not obtained in regions with the same texture, while production points in other areas are of poor quality. When compared to the other three applications, PhUAS fared poorly aesthetically and geometrically. The user must enter many parameters or thresholds in the processing phases. Therefore, the user must be sufficiently informed of the specifics of photogrammetric and machine vision algorithms to understand that the quality of software output is largely reliant on these factors. Furthermore, check point findings revealed that theRMSE in AgisMesh, UASmas, Pix4D, and PhUAS software packages was 2.82, 2.63, 5.84, and 3.03 cm, respectively. Furthermore, quantitative findings obtained by picking random points revealed that UASmas has an accuracy of 3.51 cm, PhUAS has 10.45 cm, and Pix4D was 6.87 cm more accurate than AgisMesh in three residential, barren, and green space regions. Taking into account all of the benefits and evaluations of visual and geometric correctness, the performance and accuracy of AgisMesh, UASmas, Pix4D, and PhUAS may be ranked from one to four, accordingly.
Seyyed Ghasem Rostami; Hassan Emami
Abstract
Extended AbstractIntroductionVarious religions, including Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Chinese, have utilized lunar calendars for chronology. Methods for forecasting the first sighting of the new lunar crescent existed as early as the Babylonians, and maybe earlier. The Babylonians reasoned that the ...
Read More
Extended AbstractIntroductionVarious religions, including Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Chinese, have utilized lunar calendars for chronology. Methods for forecasting the first sighting of the new lunar crescent existed as early as the Babylonians, and maybe earlier. The Babylonians reasoned that the lunar crescent can be seen with the naked eye under two conditions at sunset. First, the moon is older than 24 hours, and the moon's lag time is greater than 48 minutes. Fotheringham and Maunder developed standards for the seeing of the crescent moon at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and Bruin used his own criteria in 1977. Schaefer recently addressed crescent visibility extensively and integrated weather conditions into his work. Yallop then utilized the same database that Shaffer developed in 1997, but he overhauled some of the observation records extensively. Furthermore, many Muslim astronomers had developed their own criteria and published them in their literature. Despite the fact that different study organizations have created different criteria, there are still mistakes in the best time to forecast the crescent moon sighting. The use of old and conventional observations in modeling is one of these limitations, as is the use of non-uniform and heterogeneous observations. The Yallop criterion, for example, forecasts the visibility of the crescent moon for older crescents pessimistically. The Odeh criterion, on the other hand, forecasts young crescents with optimism. New Iranian criteria, such as the phase and altitude criteria (Mirsaeed criterion) and the triangular model (Iran criterion), have been presented in Iran. The goal of these criteria is to find the best timing between sunset and the first sighting of the crescent moon. Bruin, Schaefer, and Yallop have spent the last four decades developing the notion of the best moment. Because, after sunset, the sky darkens and the conditions for seeing the narrow crescent improve, while the moon approaches the horizon and the conditions for viewing the crescent moon worsen. Because the thickness of the atmosphere along the horizon is 3.7 times more than that of the zenith, the moonlight travels a greater distance than it did just a few minutes before. As a result, the sky towards the horizon is red or orange, and the crescent is not visible in this part of the sky. Material and Methods The objective of this study is to verify the rate of sky darkening in various regions and its influence on modeling the crescent visibility parameters of the moon, as well as to identify the best time to find out. To that end, 268 observational reports gathered from different divisions of Iran during the previous 20 years (2000-2021) were used to model the lunar crescent sighting. The proposed models are based not only on an examination of 20-year data to provide all effective tidal frequencies of the moon (the minimum period of moon’s notation motion is 18.61 years), but also on the use of sky-changing parameters such as local darkening rate and local sun occultation epoch time, the effect of the moon's distance from Earth, and the altitude of the moon from the horizon. The darkening rate of the sky factor was confirmed using various parameters and variables such as each point's geodetic latitude. Furthermore, unlike prior studies, the proposed models are developed using categorized observational reports with the least amount of error and can forecast the crescent sighting time in the presence of the sun (daylight time). The statistical correlation between the waiting time of each observation and the effective parameters in the lunar crescent visibility was studied in the first step. Following that, the parameters with the highest correlation values were chosen as the key quantities for modeling. After that, 17 alternative mathematical models with 2, 3, 4, and 5 parameters were implemented and tested, and the coefficients of the final two models (two and five parameter models) were determined using the least squares method as the suggested models. Results As a simple model, the two-parameter model can forecast crescent visibility with an average root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 4.7 minutes. The five-parameter model, on the other hand, was a more full and accurate model than the prior model, which was tested in two separate situations. They were evaluated over data for perigee distances of moon orbit (less than 375 thousand km) and observations for apogee distances of moon orbit (distance more than 390 thousand km) in the first and second cases, respectively. The findings of the 5-parameter model revealed that the first and second forms of the model had an average RMSE of 3.6 and 4.0 minutes to forecast the best time to see the crescent moon with the naked eye, respectively. Conclusion The results revealed that the best period to observe the crescent moon is from 32 minutes after sunset to 12 minutes earlier than sunset owing to the angular separation of the moon from the sun (10 to 20 degrees) and the difference in the altitude of the moon from the sun (5 to 20 degrees). When a result, as the local darkening epoch time increases, so does the waiting epoch time. In other words, the lunar crescent appears earlier in the northern part of Iran than in the southern half.
Seyyed Ghasem Rostami; Aliakbar Yahyaabadi
Abstract
Introduction In recent years, studies in seismology have mainly focused on temporal and spatial analysis of earthquakes. This is important for crisis management due to a variety of reasons, including the necessity to estimate the magnitude and the occurrence time of the main aftershock in a given periodafter ...
Read More
Introduction In recent years, studies in seismology have mainly focused on temporal and spatial analysis of earthquakes. This is important for crisis management due to a variety of reasons, including the necessity to estimate the magnitude and the occurrence time of the main aftershock in a given periodafter the mainshock.The present study seeks to identify the relationship between the magnitude and the occurrence time of the main aftershock in the first few hours after the mainshockusing the aftershock classification patterns. Various workshave been performed to model aftershocks of whichthe last centurystudies have yielded good results. However, providing a comprehensive description of how energy is released from seismic sources during an earthquakein different regionsis not easy. As a result, modeling of aftershocks is very complex and a precise model has not yet been provided for estimatingfeatures of the main aftershocks. Material and Methods During the preliminary investigation, magnitude of the mainshock and the number of aftershocks in the initial 12 hours were identified as two important parameters affecting the magnitude and the occurrence time of the main aftershock. However, this simple model lacks sufficient accuracy (accuracy of 0.5 in magnitude estimation and 5.8 hours in the estimation of the main aftershock occurrence time). Therefore, a polynomial function with higher number ofparameterswas used in the present study to reach a more accurate modeling. A linear polynomial model with 15 different parameters was introduced. These parameters includemagnitude of the mainshock, number of aftershocks during the initial time period, and in half and quarter of the period, and the number of aftershocks and mean temporal interval between aftershocks occurringin classes of 2.5 to 3.5, 3.5 to 4.5, 4.5 to 5.5 and greater than 5.5 Richter. The initial time period refers to the minimum number of hours needed after the mainshockto collect information about the aftershocks. Coefficients of occurrence time and magnitude of the main aftershock were calculated in the two proposed modelsusing 32 earthquake events and the least square method. These earthquakeshad occurred with a magnitude of greater than 5.6 from 2006 to 2020.In order to select the best model using the least mean square error (MSE), several models have been considered with a change in their initial time period (using for classification of the aftershocks) and secondary time period(the time duration at which the features of the main aftershock are estimated). Results Based on the mean square error, three models were introduced to estimate features of the main aftershock in short, mid and long-term. These models can be used to estimate features of the main aftershocks occurring 2, 8 and 20 days after the main shock, respectively. The short-term prediction model use aftershocks occurring during the first hour after the main shock to predict the magnitude of the main aftershock with a precision of 0.21 (MN) and its occurrence time with a precision of 3.1 hours. Mid-term prediction model also useaftershocks occurring during the first 3hoursafter the main shock to predict the magnitude of the main aftershock with a precision of 0.23 (MN) and the occurrence time with a precision of 19.3 hours. Finally, the long-term prediction model use aftershocks occurring during the first9hoursafter the main shock to predict the magnitude of the main aftershock with a precision of 0.22 (MN) and the occurrence time with a precision of 38.5 hours. Conclusion To evaluate errorsof the proposed models, information collected from 9 recent earthquakes in Iran and Turkey was used. Magnitude and occurrence time of the main aftershock ineach selected earthquake were calculated using short, mid and long term prediction models. Results demonstrate that these models can predict the magnitude of the main aftershock with an average error of 0.18 (MN). They also can predict the occurrence time of the main aftershock with an average error of 18.1 hours. It is worth noting that the proposed models havepredicted themagnitudeof these recentnine earthquakes with a mean error less than their accuracy estimated using the 32 earthquake events.
