Submitted:
28 April 2023
Posted:
04 May 2023
Read the latest preprint version here
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Algorithm Principle
2.1. Data Preprocessing
2.1. Slope Filter
2.1. Constructing a triangular grid and identifying violation points.
- (1)
- Calculating the normal vector of adjacent triangles in sequence by the calibration number of triangles(, Equation(2)), then substitute coordinates into (2) to get surface normal vector(, Equation(3)).
- (2)
- According to the angle between two planes is equal to the angle between normal vectors of two planes to obtain the angle between two triangles(, Equation(4)).
- (3)
- Judging the angle and longest side length of each triangle with threshold, if them are more than the threshold range, the selection of threshold angle and side length of 70°and 4 m can realize the extraction of most scene violation points, mark these triangles as violation triangles, if not, continue until judge all triangles.
- (4)
- Extracting the maximum value of each violation triangles as violation points.
2.4. Collinear judgment
2.5. Cluster Point Classification
- (1)
- Select a point from the regular violation point set T which judged by the collinear judgment as the cluster center point.
- (2)
- Do a neighbor point index based on KD-Tree for the original point cloud data.
- (3)
- Find the points within the distance threshold and add these points to the undetermined set P.
- (4)
- Check whether the number of points in p increases or height difference overrun,if is,repeated steps 2-3 until the number of points in P does not increase.
- (5)
- Output P set and removed P from Q.
- (6)
- Remove the points that are repeated with P from T to avoid repeated operations to increase the amount of calculation.
- (7)
- Check whether all the points in T had calculated and repeat steps 2-6 until there are unoperated points.
3. The Procedure of Experiment
3.1. Experimental Data and Evaluation Criteria
3.2. The Process of Triangulation Method Filter
- (1)
- There are several separate points in the same area, and the distance between them also within the distance threshold, this situation needs to remove, because it will be easy to remove the ground points between these separate points.
- (2)
- The points in the group may be due to the collinear situation of some forest points, because the forest is roughly uneven, and this is a reason why set an elevation value, these group may be composed of forest points that are misjudged as regular violation points and forest points close to them.
3.3. Data Comparison
4. Discussion
- (1)
- Clustering algorithm is still not perfect, can not adjusted the distance threshold by the point cloud distribution in the scene.
- (2)
- The filter effect is poor when the slope changes greatly on the discontinuous ground.
- (3)
- This method needs to construct a triangular grid for each point in the point cloud, so the processing speed of point cloud data with large scenes is relatively slow, and complex scenes require repeated operations.
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- Optimize the clustering algorithm and establish a clustering algorithm that can change the distance threshold with the point cloud density.
- (2)
- Optimize the process of triangular mesh establishment to reduce the time of grid establishment process, improve the operation rate and the efficiency of the algorithm.
- (3)
- Improve the algorithm structure, so that it can achieve good results when facing discontinuous areas with large slope changes.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| ISPRS | International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing |
| EMD | Empirical Mode Decomposition |
| SMRF | Simple Morphological Filter |
References
- Lv, D.; Ying, X.; Cui, Y.; et al. Research on the technology of LIDAR data processing[C]//2017 First International Conference on Electronics Instrumentation & Information Systems (EIIS). IEEE, 2017: 1-5.
- Sithole, G.; Vosselman, G. Report: ISPRS comparison of filters[J]. ISPRS commission III, working group, 2003, 3.
- Zou, Z.; Zou, J.; Hu, H. Comparative analysis of different airborne LiDAR point cloud filtering algorithms. Surveying geographic information 2021, 46, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haozhong H, Penghao S U, Ran W, et al. The feasibility study of DEM production based on dense matching point cloud[J]. Bulletin of Surveying and Mapping (9): 170. [CrossRef]
- Lin, X.; Zhang, J. Segmentation-based filtering of airborne LiDAR point clouds by progressive densification of terrain segments[J]. Remote Sensing 2014, 6, 1294–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Qi, J.; Wan, P.; et al. An easy-to-use airborne LiDAR data Filter method based on cloth simulation[J]. Remote sensing 2016, 8, 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vosselman, G. Slope based Filter of laser altimetry data[J]. International archives of photogrammetry and remote sensing 2000, 33, 935–942. [Google Scholar]
- Xiaoxiao, Z.; Cheng, W.; Xiaohuan, X.; et al. Adaptive threshold point cloud Filter method for multi-level moving surface fitting [J][J]. Journal of Surveying and Mapping 2018, 47, 153–160. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, W.; Li, Z.; Fu, Y.; et al. A Multi-scale Adaptive Slope Filter Algorithm for Point Cloud[J]. Journal of Wuhan University(Information Science Edition) 2022, 47, 438–446. [Google Scholar]
- Shahzad, M.; Zhu, X.X. Reconstructing 2-D/3-D building shapes from spaceborne tomographic SAR point clouds[C]//3rd ISPRS Commission Symposium on Photogrammetric Computer Vision (ISSN: 0031-868X). ISPRS, 2014, 40: 313-320.
- Zhu, X.X.; Shahzad, M. Facade reconstruction using multiview spaceborne TomoSAR point clouds[J]. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 2013, 52, 3541–3552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Z.; Liu, H.; Shi, H.; et al. KD-Tree-Based Euclidean Clustering for Tomographic SAR Point Cloud Extraction and Segmentation[J]. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez, A.; Laio, A. Clustering by fast search and find of density peaks[J]. science 2014, 344, 1492–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Wu, H.; Lichti, D.; et al. Extraction of indoor objects based on the exponential function density clustering model[J]. Information Sciences 2022, 607, 1111–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, S.; Salvaggio, C. Aerial 3D building detection and modeling from airborne LiDAR point clouds[J]. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 2013, 6, 1440–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamal, A.; Wibisono, A.; Wicaksono, S.B.; et al. Automatic LIDAR building segmentation based on DGCNN and euclidean clustering[J]. Journal of Big Data 2020, 7, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Kang, R.; Lu, R. 3D reconstruction and measurement of surface defects in prefabricated elements using point clouds[J]. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 2020, 34, 04020033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caumon, G.; Collon-Drouaillet, P.; Le Carlier de Veslud, C.; et al. Surface-based 3D modeling of geological structures[J]. Mathematical geosciences 2009, 41, 927–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, E.; Frawley, W.; Swimm, R. Individual differences in collinearity judgment as a function of angular position[J]. Perception & psychophysics 2000, 62, 1440–1458. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, J.; Stoter, J.; Peters, R.; et al. City3D: Large-scale building reconstruction from airborne LiDAR point clouds[J]. Remote Sensing 2022, 14, 2254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albano, R. Investigation on roof segmentation for 3D building reconstruction from aerial LIDAR point clouds[J]. Applied Sciences 2019, 9, 4674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, N.E. Review of empirical mode decomposition[C]//Wavelet Applications VIII. SPIE, 2001, 4391: 71-80.
- Pingel, T.J.; Clarke, K.C.; McBride, W.A. An improved simple morphological filter for the terrain classification of airborne LIDAR data[J]. ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing 2013, 77, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfeifer, N.; Reiter, T.; Briese, C.; et al. Interpolation of high quality ground models from laser scanner data in forested areas[J]. International archives of Photogrammetry and Remote sensing 1999, 32, 31–36. [Google Scholar]
- Sohn, G.; Dowman, I.J. Terrain surface reconstruction by the use of tetrahedron model with the MDL criterion[C]//International Archives of Photogrammetry Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. Natural Resources Canada 2002, 34, 336–344. [Google Scholar]
- Elmqvist, M. Automatic ground modeling using laser radar data[J]. Master's thesis LiTH-ISY-EX-3061, Linkoping University, 2000.
- Roggero, M. Airborne laser scanning-clustering in raw data[J]. International Archives of Photogrammetry Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 2001, 34, 227–232. [Google Scholar]
- Brovelli, M.A.; Cannata, M.; Longoni, U.M. Managing and processing LIDAR data within GRASS[C]//Proceedings of the GRASS users conference. 2002, 29: 1-29.
- Wack, R.; Wimmer, A. Digital terrain models from airborne laserscanner data-a grid based approach[J]. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2002, 34, 293–296. [Google Scholar]









































| Reference Data | Filtered data | Reference Data | |
| The point of ground | The point of non-ground | ||
| The point of ground | a | b | e = a + b |
| The point of non-ground | c | d | f = c + d |
| The point after Filter | g = a + c | h = b + d | n = a + b + c + d |
| Filter approach | Type I error | Type II error | Total Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| EMD Filter[22] | 3. 5 | 33. 2 | 15. 4 |
| SMRF Filter[23] | 2. 4 | 35. 4 | 15. 8 |
| Segmentation-Based Filtering[5] | 1. 66 | 1. 64 | 1. 65 |
| Slope Filter[7] | 8. 5 | 23. 8 | 14. 7 |
| Cloth Simulation Filter[6] | 4. 57 | 2. 61 | 3. 77 |
| Our | 0. 76 | 0. 39 | 0. 55 |
| Sample | Type I error | Type II error | Total Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-1 | 10.76 | 3.86 | 7. 82 |
| 1-2 | 4.68 | 2.32 | 2. 81 |
| 2-1 | 2.70 | 1.57 | 2. 45 |
| 2-2 | 2.10 | 0. 72 | 1. 94 |
| 2-3 | 3.32 | 2.14 | 2. 76 |
| 2-4 | 5.26 | 5.15 | 5. 23 |
| 3-1 | 1.90 | 1.87 | 1. 88 |
| 4-1 | 10.64 | 0. 98 | 5. 80 |
| 4-2 | 3.76 | 0.26 | 1. 29 |
| 5-1 | 5.74 | 2.93 | 5. 13 |
| 5-2 | 2.14 | 4.91 | 2. 43 |
| 5-3 | 2.41 | 23. 47 | 3. 26 |
| 5-4 | 5.72 | 5.15 | 5. 41 |
| 6-1 | 1.05 | 31.76 | 2. 57 |
| 7-1 | 1.77 | 25.59 | 4. 46 |
| average | 4.26 | 7.51 | 3. 68 |
| Site | Sample | Axelsson [5] |
Pfeifer [24] |
Sohn [25] |
Elmqvist [26] |
Roggero [27] |
Brovelli [28] |
Sithole [2] |
Wack [29] |
Wang [9] |
Zhu [8] |
Our |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urban | 1-1 | 10. 76 | 17. 35 | 20. 49 | 22. 40 | 20. 80 | 36. 96 | 23. 25 | 24. 02 | 17. 74 | 14. 87 | 7. 82 |
| 1-2 | 3. 25 | 4. 50 | 8. 39 | 8. 18 | 6. 61 | 16. 28 | 10. 21 | 6. 61 | 5. 34 | 3. 14 | 2. 81 | |
| 2-1 | 4. 25 | 2. 57 | 8. 8 | 8. 53 | 9. 84 | 9. 30 | 7. 76 | 4. 55 | 4. 90 | 3. 63 | 2. 45 | |
| 2-2 | 3. 63 | 6. 71 | 7. 54 | 8. 93 | 23. 78 | 22. 28 | 20. 86 | 7. 51 | 8. 17 | 5. 92 | 1. 94 | |
| 2-3 | 4. 00 | 8. 22 | 9. 84 | 12. 28 | 23. 20 | 27. 80 | 22. 71 | 10. 97 | 8. 50 | 12. 34 | 2. 76 | |
| 2-4 | 4. 42 | 8. 64 | 13. 33 | 13. 83 | 23. 25 | 36. 06 | 25. 28 | 11. 53 | 8. 75 | 8. 36 | 5. 23 | |
| 3-1 | 4. 78 | 1. 80 | 6. 39 | 5. 34 | 2. 14 | 12. 92 | 3. 15 | 2. 21 | 4. 93 | 4. 74 | 1. 88 | |
| 4-1 | 13. 91 | 10. 75 | 11. 27 | 8. 76 | 12. 21 | 17. 03 | 23. 67 | 9. 01 | 7. 91 | 11. 44 | 5. 80 | |
| 4-2 | 1. 62 | 2. 64 | 1. 78 | 3. 68 | 4. 30 | 6. 38 | 3. 85 | 3. 54 | 3. 48 | 3. 30 | 1. 29 | |
| Rural | 5-1 | 2. 72 | 3. 71 | 9. 31 | 21. 31 | 3. 01 | 22. 81 | 7. 02 | 11. 45 | 7. 05 | 4. 61 | 5. 13 |
| 5-2 | 3. 07 | 19. 64 | 12. 04 | 57. 95 | 9. 78 | 45. 56 | 27. 53 | 23. 83 | 6. 10 | 4. 89 | 2. 43 | |
| 5-3 | 8. 91 | 12. 60 | 20. 19 | 48. 45 | 17. 29 | 52. 81 | 37. 07 | 27. 24 | 4. 33 | 7. 71 | 3. 26 | |
| 5-4 | 3. 23 | 5. 47 | 5. 68 | 21. 26 | 4. 96 | 23. 89 | 6. 33 | 7. 63 | 5. 57 | 3. 90 | 5. 41 | |
| 6-1 | 2. 08 | 6. 91 | 2. 99 | 35. 87 | 18. 99 | 21. 68 | 21. 63 | 13. 47 | 3. 26 | 2. 01 | 2. 57 | |
| 7-1 | 1. 63 | 8. 85 | 2. 20 | 34. 22 | 5. 11 | 34. 98 | 21. 83 | 16. 97 | 7. 56 | 4. 21 | 4. 46 | |
| average | 4. 82 | 8. 02 | 9. 35 | 20. 73 | 12. 34 | 25. 78 | 17. 48 | 12. 04 | 6. 91 | 6. 34 | 3. 68 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).