[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":199},["ShallowReactive",2],{"method-glennie2007rigorous":3},{"method":4,"reference":48,"equipment":66,"figures":110,"results":111},{"id":5,"label":6,"shortName":7,"title":8,"year":9,"era":10,"cluster":11,"scope":12,"keyIdeaZh":13,"keyIdeaEn":14,"fulltextStatus":15,"publicationStatus":16,"recommendation":17,"constructionRelevance":18,"validationEnvironment":19,"strengths":21,"limitations":26,"sensors":32,"platform":36,"estimator":40,"association":41,"timeModel":41,"deskew":41,"loopClosure":41,"globalOptimization":42,"mapRepresentation":41,"prior":43,"outputGeometry":44,"compute":41,"codeUrl":45,"codeLicense":46,"relatedVersions":47},"glennie2007rigorous","Glennie, 2007","Kinematic LiDAR error budget","Rigorous 3D error analysis of kinematic scanning LIDAR systems",2007,"classic","C13","evaluation_method_or_metric","作者把 LiDAR 直接地理定位方程式中的 14 個觀測量（GNSS 位置、IMU 姿態、視準角、掃描角與距離、槓桿臂）做一階展開，以 Jacobian 將典型誤差傳遞為點位的水平與垂直精度，並模擬定翼機、直升機與地面車載三種平台。定翼機的水平誤差主要來自 IMU 與視準角誤差，作者歸納其水平誤差至少約為垂直誤差的 5 倍；直升機（Q-240）以光束發散造成的掃描角誤差為主，水平與垂直誤差比約為 2 至 2.5；地面系統的比值約為 2，誤差預算以雷射掃描儀本身為主，姿態誤差貢獻低於 25%。模型再以定翼機地面控制點、直升機連結點閉合差與既有地面系統高程檢核比對，預測值與實測相近。GNSS 誤差未納入模型，需另行相加。","First-order propagation of 14 georeferencing error sources to per-point horizontal and vertical accuracy for fixed-wing, helicopter and ground-vehicle LiDAR; attitude (IMU plus boresight) errors dominate fixed-wing horizontal error, scanner angle error from beam divergence dominates the helicopter case with a Riegl Q-240, and scanner errors dominate ground systems; predictions agree with control-point, tie-point and ground-control checks.","full_text_reviewed","peer_reviewed_published","main_body","not_reported",[20],"independent_reference",[22,23,24,25],"Fixed-wing ALTMS validation: final RMSE 0.618 m horizontal and 0.086 m vertical versus model 0.553 m and 0.105 m (Table 6)","Helicopter tie-point misclosure 0.292 m horizontal and 0.089 m vertical versus model 0.250 m and 0.095 m (Table 7)","Ground system: model predicts 6 to 7 cm vertical including GPS error, observed RMS 0.059 m (Table 8 and text)","Shows which error sources dominate per platform, e.g. attitude errors give 60% to 75% of fixed-wing horizontal error (Fig. 4 text)",[27,28,29,30,31],"Assumes GNSS\u002FINS-based georeferencing; SLAM-derived trajectories without GNSS need a different trajectory error model (inference)","GNSS positioning errors are excluded from the model and must be added by the user (Positioning errors section)","Neglects incidence angle and terrain slope; beam footprint uncertainty fixed at one quarter of beam divergence (Laser scanner errors section)","Models single-return accuracy only, not DEM or surface accuracy (Conclusions)","Needs detailed a priori system information, which limits comparison with published studies (Comparison section)",[33,34,35],"LiDAR","GNSS","IMU",[37,38,39],"fixed-wing aircraft (Terrapoint ALTMS, 1000 m AGL, 16 flight lines over an airport target site)","helicopter (Riegl Q-140 with Honeywell HG1700 IMU, 100 m AGL, four directions)","ground-based vehicle system with Honeywell HG1700 IMU (results reproduced from Glennie et al. 2006)","first-order (Taylor) error propagation of the direct georeferencing equation with 14 observed parameters (GNSS position, IMU roll, pitch and yaw, three boresight angles, scan angle, range, three lever-arm components) through the Jacobians J, K, B and C","not_applicable","none","post-processed DGPS\u002FINS trajectory; assumed 1-sigma error magnitudes from specifications and experience (IMU attitude per Table 1, boresight per Table 2, 2 cm range, one quarter of beam divergence for footprint uncertainty, 2 cm lever arm); GNSS positioning error excluded from the model and added separately (2 cm)","expected horizontal and vertical accuracy",null,"not_verified",[],{"id":5,"kind":49,"shortName":7,"title":8,"authors":50,"year":9,"venue":52,"venueType":53,"publisher":54,"volumeIssuePages":55,"doi":56,"arxivId":45,"url":57,"firstPublicDate":58,"publicationStatus":16,"metadataStatus":59,"fulltextStatus":15,"era":10,"classicReason":60,"codeUrl":45,"cluster":11,"topics":61,"mdpi":62,"verification":63,"label":6,"fulltextRoute":64,"versionRead":65,"addedByCensus":62},"method",[51],"Craig Glennie","Journal of Applied Geodesy","journal","Walter de Gruyter","1(3), pages not_reported in Crossref","10.1515\u002Fjag.2007.017","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.1515\u002Fjag.2007.017","2007-01","metadata_partial","evaluation-calibration-uncertainty method: first-order error propagation through the kinematic LiDAR georeferencing equation, the basis of forward (model-driven) error budgets for mobile mapping.",[11],false,"confirmed","other","de Gruyter typeset article PDF, J. Applied Geodesy 1(3):147-157 (AutoPDF proof stamp 17\u002F8\u002F07 with placeholder DOI 'JAG.2007.aaa'), hosted as a 2009 short-course reprint by OpenTopography; not verified to be identical to the final version of record",[67,73,77,82,87,90,94,97,100,105],{"category":68,"model":69,"canonical":69,"role":70,"dataset":45,"specs":71,"locator":72},"lidar","Terrapoint ALTMS","method input","510-class IMU, 0.75 mrad beam divergence, 2 cm ranging error, optimization-based boresight; flown at 1000 m AGL","Comparison section: fixed wing system; Table 6",{"category":68,"model":74,"canonical":74,"role":70,"dataset":45,"specs":75,"locator":76},"Riegl Q-140","helicopter system with Honeywell HG1700 IMU; 100 m AGL, four directions, 115 tie points","Comparison section: helicopter system; Table 7",{"category":78,"model":79,"canonical":79,"role":70,"dataset":45,"specs":80,"locator":81},"imu","Honeywell HG1700","used in the helicopter validation system and the ground-based system; as Novatel SPAN (HG1700 AG58): 0.015 deg roll and pitch, 0.05 deg heading (Table 1)","Table 1; Comparison section",{"category":78,"model":83,"canonical":83,"role":84,"dataset":45,"specs":85,"locator":86},"Applanix 510","compared device","0.005 deg roll and pitch, 0.008 deg heading (typical post-processed)","Table 1",{"category":78,"model":88,"canonical":88,"role":84,"dataset":45,"specs":89,"locator":86},"Applanix 610","0.0025 deg roll and pitch, 0.005 deg heading (typical post-processed)",{"category":68,"model":91,"canonical":91,"role":84,"dataset":45,"specs":92,"locator":93},"Optech 3100","range error 0.02 m, angular resolution 0.001 deg, beam divergence 0.3 mrad, total angular error 0.0044 deg; used for fixed-wing simulations","Table 3",{"category":68,"model":95,"canonical":95,"role":84,"dataset":45,"specs":96,"locator":93},"Riegl Q-240","range error 0.02 m, angular resolution 0.005 deg, beam divergence 2.7 mrad, total angular error 0.039 deg; used for helicopter simulations",{"category":68,"model":98,"canonical":98,"role":84,"dataset":45,"specs":99,"locator":93},"Riegl Q-280","range error 0.02 m, angular resolution 0.0025 deg, beam divergence 0.5 mrad, total angular error 0.0076 deg; used for helicopter simulations",{"category":64,"model":101,"canonical":101,"role":102,"dataset":45,"specs":103,"locator":104},"ground targets (8 reflective horizontal and 8 vertical-only)","reference or ground truth","established at an airport calibration site; horizontal positions digitized from 1 m intensity rasters","Comparison section: fixed wing system",{"category":106,"model":107,"canonical":107,"role":70,"dataset":45,"specs":108,"locator":109},"gnss","GPS base station (model not reported)","less than 1 km from the test area; 2 cm GPS error added to model predictions","Comparison section",[],{"totalRows":112,"groupCount":113,"groups":114,"others":198},5,3,[115,149,174],{"slug":116,"group":117,"sourceId":5,"sourceLabel":6,"table":118,"selfRows":119,"metrics":120,"seqs":124,"entrants":131,"cells":135,"outcomes":143,"locators":144,"hardware":145,"wordings":146,"notes":147},"glennie2007rigorous-table-6","glennie2007rigorous:Table 6","Table 6",2,[121],{"label":122,"unit":123,"statistic":18,"alignment":42},"Expected errors (model)","m",[125,129],{"dataset":126,"sequence":127,"environment":128},"Terrapoint production test, early 2006","Horizontal","airport calibration site, airborne",{"dataset":126,"sequence":130,"environment":128},"Vertical",[132],{"name":133,"methodId":5,"linkable":134,"proposed":134,"self":134},"1st-order error model (expected)",true,[136,140],[137,137,137,138,139,137,139,139,137],0,0.553,-1,[137,137,141,142,139,137,139,139,137],1,0.105,[],[118],[],[],[148],"ALTMS fixed-wing LiDAR at 1000 m AGL, 16 flight lines over 16 airport targets; vertical from TIN of ground returns, horizontal from digitized 1 m intensity raster; Final RMSE accounts for half-pixel digitization error; model expectation includes 2 cm GPS error",{"slug":150,"group":151,"sourceId":5,"sourceLabel":6,"table":152,"selfRows":119,"metrics":153,"seqs":156,"entrants":161,"cells":163,"outcomes":168,"locators":169,"hardware":170,"wordings":171,"notes":172},"glennie2007rigorous-table-7","glennie2007rigorous:Table 7","Table 7",[154],{"label":155,"unit":123,"statistic":18,"alignment":42},"Expected error (1st-order model)",[157,160],{"dataset":158,"sequence":127,"environment":159},"Terrapoint helicopter boresight adjustment","calibration site, helicopter",{"dataset":158,"sequence":130,"environment":159},[162],{"name":133,"methodId":5,"linkable":134,"proposed":134,"self":134},[164,166],[137,137,137,165,139,137,139,139,137],0.25,[137,137,141,167,139,137,139,139,137],0.095,[],[152],[],[],[173],"Helicopter system (Riegl Q-140, Honeywell HG1700) at 100 m AGL over a calibration site flown in four directions; RMS misclosure of 115 tie points after least-squares boresighting versus model expectation",{"slug":175,"group":176,"sourceId":5,"sourceLabel":6,"table":177,"selfRows":141,"metrics":178,"seqs":182,"entrants":186,"cells":188,"outcomes":190,"locators":192,"hardware":194,"wordings":195,"notes":196},"glennie2007rigorous-text-comparison-ground-based-system","glennie2007rigorous:Text Comparison: Ground based system","Text Comparison: Ground based system",[179],{"label":180,"unit":181,"statistic":18,"alignment":42},"expected vertical accuracy from the error analysis","cm",[183],{"dataset":184,"sequence":130,"environment":185},"Glennie et al. 2006 ground system test","area with dense ground control, ground vehicle",[187],{"name":133,"methodId":5,"linkable":134,"proposed":134,"self":134},[189],[137,137,137,45,137,137,139,139,137],[191],"4 to 5 cm without GPS error; 6 to 7 cm after adding 2 cm GPS error",[193],"Comparison section: ground based system",[],[],[197],"Model prediction for the ground system of Table 8",[],1790510662881]