Früher|Nächster

Full-waveform LiDAR echo decomposition method

  • role： First author第一作者
  • Affiliation：

    State Key Laboratory of Precision Measurement Technology and Instruments, Department of Precision Instrument, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

  • Email：lhp15@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn
  • Introduction：李洪鹏，1992年生，男，硕士研究生，研究方向为激光雷达及其波形分析。E-mail：lhp15@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn
Hongpeng LI1,  
  • Affiliation：

    Satellite Surveying and Mapping Application Center, NASG, Beijing 100048, China

Guoyuan LI2,  
  • Affiliation：

    College of Physics, Optoelectronics and Energy, Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, China

Zhijian CAI3,  
  • role： Corresponding author通信作者
  • Affiliation：

    State Key Laboratory of Precision Measurement Technology and Instruments, Department of Precision Instrument, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

  • Email：guanhaowu@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn
  • Introduction：吴冠豪，1981年生，男，副教授，研究方向为激光雷达及光频梳测量。E-mail：guanhaowu@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn
Guanhao WU1*

Resümee

The echoes of full-waveform light detection and ranging (LiDAR) contain information on the targets such as distances and properties. To access such information, we demonstrate an echo decomposition method based on soft-thresholding Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD-soft) filter, Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) optimization, and a method to estimate the initial parameters consisting of a variety of waveforms. This method decomposes raw full-waveform echoes into independent Gaussian pulses and derives their function expressions. Distances and properties of the targets can be extracted from the parameters of these Gaussian pulses. First, EMD-soft is used to filter the noise of raw echoes and estimate the amount of noise. Then, initial parameters for follow-up optimization are estimated through peak and inflection points of the filtered echoes by a given process. Lastly, after these initial parameters are input, LM optimization is applied to optimize the parameters, and function expressions of Gaussian pulses can be obtained through the parameters. Finally, information on the targets can be accurately extracted. Simulations and experiments are carried out to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. Simulated waveforms are generated by adding Gaussian white noise into a waveform consisting of several independent Gaussian pulses. Decomposition experiments of these simulated waveforms indicate that the decomposition error of this method is around 0.1 ns, which means 15 mm in ranging error. In actual experiments, a laboratory-built full-waveform LiDAR experimental system is utilized to generate and obtain echoes. Decomposition experiments of these real waveforms also show that the ranging error of this method is less than 0.1 m. Compared with two other Gaussian decomposition methods in decomposing the same echoes mentioned above, this method shows enhanced decomposition success rate and accuracy. The proposed method realizes high success rate and accuracy decomposition. It can provide reliable data for the subsequent analysis and will play an important role in many fields, such as remote sensing and mapping. Compared with other decomposition methods, the EMD-soft we used does not have a threshold of filter frequency, that is, it will be effective in any frequency, unlike some other filters that will make mistakes when close to their thresholds. In addition, EMD-soft does not need a given kernel function or parameter, which means it is a more generic method to deal with various LiDAR echoes. LM optimization is one of the most popular algorithms for optimizing LiDAR echoes, but requiring high-accuracy initial parameters is a big problem for the algorithm. Sometimes if the initial parameters do not have enough accuracy, the algorithm may converge to a local minimum instead of a global minimum and lead to a wrong fitting. Thus, in this method, a special process is realized in the section on evaluating initial parameters and enhancing the optimization effect from another way. Echo decomposition is the foundation of echo analysis. We will try to extract more properties of targets from the decomposed waveforms and build the functional relationship of these properties with the parameters of waveforms in future work.

Schlüsselwort

full-waveform LiDAR;echo decomposition;Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD);LM (Levenberg–Marquardt) optimization

References

  1. 1.
    Boudraa A O, Cexus J C and Saidi Z. 2013. EMD-based signal noise reduction. International Journal of Signal Processing, 1(1): 33–37
  2. 2.
    Bye I J, North P R J, Los S O, Kljun N, Rosette J A B, Hopkinson C, Chasmer L and Mahoney C. 2017. Estimating forest canopy parameters from satellite waveform LiDAR by inversion of the FLIGHT three-dimensional radiative transfer model. Remote Sensing of Environment, 188: 177–189
  3. 3.
    Dempster A P, Laird N M and Rubin D B. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39(1): 1–38
  4. 4.
    Duong H V. 2010. Processing and application of ICESat large footprint full waveform laser range data. Delft: Delft University of Technology
  5. 5.
    Hofton M A, Minster J B and Blair J B. 2000. Decomposition of laser altimeter waveforms. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote sensing, 38(4): 1989–1996
  6. 6.
    Hovi A and Korpela I. 2014. Real and simulated waveform-recording LiDAR data in juvenile boreal forest vegetation. Remote Sensing of Environment, 140: 665–678
  7. 7.
    Huang N E, Shen Z, Long S R, Wu M C, Shih H H , Zheng Q N, Yen N C, Tung C C and Liu H H. 1998. The empirical mode decomposition and the Hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and non-stationary time series analysis. Proceedings: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 454(1971): 903–995
  8. 8.
    Jutzi B and Stilla U. 2006. Range determination with waveform recording laser systems using a Wiener Filter. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 61(2): 95–107
  9. 9.
    Koenig K and Höfle B. 2016. Full-waveform airborne laser scanning in vegetation studies—a review of point cloud and waveform features for tree species classification. Forests, 7(9): 198
  10. 10.
    Kotchenova S Y, Shabanov N V, Knyazikhin Y, Davis A B, Dubayah R and Myneni B R. 2003. Modeling lidar waveforms with time-dependent stochastic radiative transfer theory for remote estimations of forest structure. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108(D15): 4484
  11. 11.
    Li D, Xu L J and Li X L. 2017. Full-waveform LiDAR echo decomposition based on wavelet decomposition and particle swarm optimization. Measurement Science and Technology, 28(4): 045205
  12. 12.
    Li D, Xu L J, Li X L and Wu D. 2014. A novel full-waveform LiDAR echo decomposition method and simulation verification//Proceedings of 2014 IEEE International Conference on Imaging Systems and Techniques. Santorini, Greece: IEEE, 184–189 [DOI: 10.1109/IST.2014.6958470]
  13. 13.
    Li X L, Xu L J, Tian X R and Kong D M. 2012. Terrain slope estimation within footprint from ICESat/GLAS waveform: model and method. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 6(1): 063534
  14. 14.
    Ma H C, Zhou W W, Zhang L and Wang S Y. 2017. Decomposition of small-footprint full waveform LiDAR data based on generalized Gaussian model and grouping LM optimization. Measurement Science and Technology, 28(4): 045203
  15. 15.
    Mahoney C, Kljun N, Los S O, Chasmer L, Hacker J M, Hopkinson C, North P R J, Rosette J A B and van Gorsel E. 2014. Slope Estimation from ICESat/GLAS. Remote Sensing, 6(10): 10051–10069
  16. 16.
    Mallet C and Bretar F. 2009. Full-waveform topographic lidar: State-of-the-art. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 64(1): 1–16
  17. 17.
    Marquardt D W. 1963. An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear Parameters. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 11(2): 431–441
  18. 18.
    Pan Z G, Glennie C, Hartzell P, Fernandez-Diaz J C, Legleiter C and Overstreet B. 2015. Performance assessment of high resolution airborne full waveform LiDAR for shallow river bathymetry. Remote Sensing, 7(5): 5133–5159
  19. 19.
    Qin Y C, Vu T T and Ban Y F. 2012. Toward an optimal algorithm for LiDAR waveform decomposition. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 9(3): 482–486
  20. 20.
    Shi J C, Menenti M and Lindenbergh R. 2013. Parameterization of surface roughness based on ICESat/GLAS full waveforms: a case study on the tibetan plateau. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 14(4): 1278–1292
  21. 21.
    Soederman U, Persson A, Toepel J and Ahlberg S. 2005. On analysis and visualization of full-waveform airborne laser scanner data. Proceedings of SPIE 5791, Laser Radar Technology and Applications X, Orlando, Florida, United States: SPIE, 184–192 [DOI: 10.1117/12.604655]
  22. 22.
    van Leeuwen M, Hilker T, Coops N C, Frazer G, Wulder M A, Newnham G J and Culvenor D S. 2011. Assessment of standing wood and fiber quality using ground and airborne laser scanning: a review. Forest Ecology and Management, 261(9): 1467–1478
  23. 23.
    Wagner W, Ullrich A, Ducic V, Melzer T and Studnicka N. 2006. Gaussian decomposition and calibration of a novel small-footprint full-waveform digitising airborne laser scanner. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 60(2): 100–112
  24. 24.
    Xu L J, Li D and Li X L. 2016. A high success rate full-waveform lidar echo decomposition method. Measurement Science and Technology, 27(1): 015205
  25. 25.
    Zhou Z R, Hua D X, Wang Y F, Yan Q, Li S C, Li Y and Wang H W. 2013. Improvement of the signal to noise ratio of Lidar echo signal based on wavelet de-noising technique. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 51(8): 961–966

Lesen Sie die ganze Passage

The above content is generated by Large Model Translation. The translated content is for reference only. We do not assume any commercial or legal responsibilty for any consequences arising from the use of our website