Concept of an Innovative Autonomous Unmanned System for Bathymetric Monitoring of Shallow Waterbodies (INNOBAT System)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Effects of a Lack of Bathymetric Monitoring of Shallow Waterbodies
1.2. Current State of Knowledge
- Abandoning the performance of hydroacoustic sounding in ultra-shallow waterbodies using classical manned vehicles. This is due to their excessively deep draft (a minimum of 1 m), while their typical minimum safe operational depth is at a 2 m isobath. This results in the emergence of extensive areas for which no actual measurement data have been collected.
- The existing methods for determining the bathymetry of waterbodies using high-resolution satellite images have a limited range of operation and can be applied only on medium depths with appropriate water transparency [28]. Moreover, as shown by the results of other studies [1,29], the accuracy of depth measurements using this method is unsatisfactory and amounts to 1–2 m (p = 0.95), therefore it may not meet the requirements provided for the most stringent IHO order—exclusive (horizontal position error ≤ 1 m (p = 0.95), vertical position error ≤ 0.15 m (p = 0.95)) [30].
- Incorrect bathymetric monitoring of shallow waterbodies can result in an adverse impact on the aquatic environment and humans. This was demonstrated using the example of three waterbodies: one adjacent to the Sopot pier [9,11], the deep formed due to the extension of the beach between Brzeźno and Jelitkowo in Gdańsk and the Nowy Świat navigable channel on the Vistula Spit.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Measurement Aspect
- The emergence of UAVs equipped inter alia with high-resolution aerial cameras (e.g., Zenmuse Z30 DJI) and precise navigation and positioning systems (e.g., D-RTK GNSS) has enabled the performance of photogrammetric surveys in the coastal zone.
- The emergence of USVs equipped inter alia with shallow-water miniature MultiBeam EchoSounders (MBESs) (e.g., Picotech PicoMB-120) and GNSS geodetic receivers (e.g., Trimble R10) has enabled the performance of hydrographic surveys in ultra-shallow waterbodies.
- The development of LiDAR technology has enabled the accurate and rapid surveying of three-dimensional coordinates of the terrain relief. Depending on the application, laser scanning can be divided into three types: airborne laser scanning (ALS), mobile laser scanning (MLS) and TLS. The former two of the above-listed scanning types can be used while performing geodetic and photogrammetric surveys in the coastal zone.
- Photogrammetric—which is aimed at determining the beach surface relief and the coastline course based on 3D land modelling using an UAV and TLS.
- In the period preceding the introduction of photogrammetry for the needs of geodesy and cartography, the determination of the terrain relief was carried out with the use of classical measurement techniques, which include levelling or tachymetry. Despite the high accuracy of the survey, these methods were characterized by a low (point) coverage of the terrain with measurements [36], as a result of which continuous surface approximations were made in the form of grid or triangulated irregular network (TIN) models [37]. Recently, there has been a rapid development related to the geospatial data acquisition using techniques of ALS, MLS and TLS, as well as aerial, low ceiling and satellite photogrammetry [31]. Thanks to the dense point clouds recorded in this way, it is possible to create three-dimensional models of the environment that accurately reflect the geometry of spatial objects [38]. Particularly noteworthy is the growing interest in UAVs equipped with compact or photogrammetric cameras for examining the terrain relief. Their growing popularity is mainly due to the relatively low cost of measurement equipment compared to e.g., LiDAR [39]. As a result, UAVs have found wide application in many fields of natural science such as: agriculture [40], archeology and architecture [41,42], emergency management [43], environmental monitoring [44], forestry [45], geodesy [46], geology [47], shallow water bathymetry [19,48] as well as traffic monitoring [49].
- Hydrographic—which is aimed at determining seabed relief. To this end, hydroacoustic sounding should be performed (in an optimal way in terms of the selection of research tools and measurement methods). As regards shallow waterbodies and those with high dynamics of hydromorphological changes, it appears reasonable to use a low-draft USV.
- Bathymetric surveys on shallow waterbodies which, in hydrographic terms, is a specific waterbody characterized by the presence of very small depths (of less than 1 m) and a great variability of the seabed relief. Hence, the conditions prevailing there can significantly hinder or even prevent the implementation of hydrographic operations [50]. In particular, this applies to manned hydrographic vessels that are too submerged in shallow waters and there is a possibility of damaging the expensive hydroacoustic equipment. For the above reasons, it appears that the use of USVs on shallow waterbodies is optimal [51]. Owing to their unprecedented functionalities, USVs are widely used in numerous measurement applications. These include, among others, autonomous navigation [52], environmental monitoring [53], geology [54], hydrographic surveys of inland and marine waters [55] with depths of less than 1 m [56], military and maritime security operations [57], submarine protection signals, transmission between air and underwater vehicles [58], as well as underwater photogrammetry [59].
- Depending on the unmanned vehicle’s size and displacement, it is the equipment that plays an important role. It is common to install single beam echo sounder (SBES) transducers, which are small-sized and usually require no use of motion reference units (MRUs), on vehicles of this type. Recently, it has also been possible to install, on a hydrographic drone, a miniature MBES whose swath width is usually 3 to 4 times the depth under the transducer head [60]. In addition to a depth measuring instrument, it is necessary to have a GNSS receiver for determining geographic coordinates for the measured depths. Additional devices that can be installed on USVs include LiDAR, radar, sonar, sound velocity profiler (SVP) and sound velocity sensor (SVS), underwater camera, etc. [61].
2.2. Data Fusion
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary Research
3.2. Concept of an Innovative Autonomous Unmanned System for Bathymetric Monitoring of Shallow Waterbodies (INNOBAT System)
4. Discussion
- A new methodology of acquiring hydrographic and photogrammetric data using two autonomous unmanned (aerial and surface) measurement platforms in the coastal zone.
- A prototype of an optoelectronic module dedicated for an UAV, which will allow photogrammetric surveys in the coastal zone to be conducted.
- A method for determining the depth of shallow waterbodies based on point clouds obtained in the image processing taken by UAV using a combination of multi-view stereo (MVS) and structure from motion (SfM) techniques. The method will take into account the need for eliminate errors caused by the refraction phenomenon in the water environment during the image processing and will meet the accuracy requirements set out for the most stringent IHO order—exclusive.
5. Conclusions
- Investors in construction projects at harbor basins and inland waterbodies.
- Hydrographic companies carrying out surveys on waterway sections, involved in the acquisition of measurement data.
- Public administration offices, including Geodesy Bureau of Marshal Offices, Hydrographic Office of the Polish Navy, Maritime Offices, National Water Management Authority and Port Boards.
- Adaptation of the Oder River Waterway to the parameters of class Va, along with construction of the Polish section of the Danube-Oder Canal and construction of the Silesian Canal.
- Upgrading of the upper canalized section of the Vistula River Waterway to the parameters of class Va and construction of dams in Niepołomice and Podwale.
- Lower and Middle Vistula River Cascade from Warsaw to Gdańsk.
- Upgrading of the other sections of the shipping lanes E-40 and E-70.
- Implementation of a harmonized RIS system on all waterways of international importance.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Measurement Equipment | Main Technical and Operating Parameters | Photograph |
---|---|---|
USV: HydroDron | Construction: floats from laminate and additional elements from stainless steel Dimensions: 4 m × 2 m × 1–1.4 m Draft: 0.25–0.5 m Weight: 300 kg Motor: 2× Torqeedo Cruise 4.0 RL Speed: measuring (3–4 kn), cruising (6 kn), max (14 kn) Autonomy: rechargeable batteries allowing to work up to 12 h at the measuring speed Communication: remote control up to 40 km, on-board data transmission up to 6 km | |
Sonar: 3DSS-DX-450 | Dimensions: 98 mm (diameter) × 568 mm (length) Weight: 8 kg Operating frequency: 450 kHz Horizontal beamwidth (two-way): 0.4° Vertical beamwidth (selectable): 15–125° Mechanical transducer tilt (fixed): 20° Electronic transmit tilt: −45° to 45° Max ping repetition rate: ~30 Hz Data output: range and amplitude (2D), range, angle and amplitude (3D) Max range: 200 m per side (2D), 100 m per side (3D) Max resolution: 1.67 cm (2D and 3D) Typical swath width: 10 to 20 times sonar altitude (2D), 6 to 14 times sonar altitude (3D) | |
UAV: DJI Matrice 600 PRO | Dimensions: 1668 mm × 1518 mm × 727 mm Weight (with 6× TB48S batteries): 10 kg Max takeoff weight: 15.5 kg Motor: DJI 6010 Speed: max descent (3 m/s), max ascent (5 m/s), wind resistance (8 m/s), max (65 km/h) Max service ceiling above sea level: 2.5–4.5 km Hovering time (with 6x TB48S batteries): no payload (38 min), 5.5 kg payload (18 min) Supported DJI gimbals: Ronin-MX, Zenmuse Z30, Zenmuse X5/X5R, Zenmuse X3, Zenmuse XT, Zenmuse Z15 Series HD Gimbal: Z15-A7, Z15-BMPCC, Z15-5D III, Z15-GH4 Battery: 6x TB48S Max transmission distance: 3.5–5 km | |
Camera: DJI Zenmuse Z30 | Dimensions: 152 mm × 137 mm × 61 mm Weight: 556 g Sensor: 1/2.8” CMOS, effective pixels: 2.13 Mpx Lens: 30× optical zoom, F1.6 (wide)–F4.7 (tele), zoom movement speed: 1.8–6.4 s, focus movement time: ∞—near: 1.1 s Field of view: 63.7° (wide)–2.3° (tele) ISO range: 100–25600 (photo), 100–6400 (video) Shutter speed: 1/30–1/6000 s Still photography modes: single shot, burst shooting: 3/5 frames, interval (2/3/4/7/10/15/20/30 s) Resolution: 1920 × 1080—Full HD (photo and video) Format: JPEG (photo), MP4, MOV (video) | |
GNSS/INS system: SBG Ellipse-D | Dimensions: 46 mm × 45 mm × 32 mm Weight: 65 g Heading: dual antenna GNSS Navigation: L1/L2 GNSS receiver Roll/pitch accuracy (RMS): 0.03° (PPK), 0.05° (RTK), 0.1° (SP) Heading accuracy (RMS): 0.1° (PPK), 0.2° (single and dual antenna) Velocity accuracy (RMS): 0.3 m/s Navigation accuracy (RMS): 1 cm + 1 ppm (RTK/PPK), 1 m (SBAS), 1.2 m (single point) | |
LiDAR: Velodyne Puck | Dimensions: 103.3 mm (diameter) × 71.7 mm (height) Weight: 830 g Channels: 16 Measurement range: 100 m Range accuracy: ±3 cm (typical) Field of view (vertical): +15.0° to −15.0° (30°) Angular resolution (vertical): 2.0° Field of view (horizontal): 360° Angular resolution (horizontal/azimuth): 0.1–0.4° Rotation rate: 5–20 Hz Laser wavelength: 903 nm 3D LiDAR data points generated: ~300,000 PPS (single return mode), ~600,000 PPS (dual return mode) |
References
- Yunus, A.P.; Dou, J.; Song, X.; Avtar, R. Improved bathymetric mapping of coastal and lake environments using Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 images. Sensors 2019, 19, 2788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cooper, J.; Navas, F. Natural bathymetric change as a control on century-scale shoreline behavior. Geology 2004, 32, 513–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, J.E.H. First wide-angle view of channelized turbidity currents links migrating cyclic steps to flow characteristics. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 11896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saylam, K.; Brown, R.A.; Hupp, J.R. Assessment of depth and turbidity with airborne Lidar bathymetry and multiband satellite imagery in shallow water bodies of the Alaskan North Slope. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2017, 58, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, D.P.; Ruiz, G.; Kvitek, R.; Iampietro, P.J. Semiannual patterns of erosion and deposition in upper Monterey Canyon from serial multibeam bathymetry. GSA Bull. 2005, 117, 1123–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brando, V.E.; Anstee, J.M.; Wettle, M.; Dekker, A.G.; Phinn, S.R.; Roelfsema, C. A physics based retrieval and quality assessment of bathymetry from suboptimal hyperspectral data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 755–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pacheco, A.; Horta, J.; Loureiro, C.; Ferreira, Ó. Retrieval of nearshore bathymetry from Landsat 8 images: A tool for coastal monitoring in shallow waters. Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 159, 102–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wlodarczyk-Sielicka, M.; Stateczny, A. Selection of SOM parameters for the needs of clusterization of data obtained by interferometric methods. In Proceedings of the 2015 16th International Radar Symposium (IRS 2015), Dresden, Germany, 24–26 June 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Specht, M.; Specht, C.; Mindykowski, J.; Dąbrowski, P.; Maśnicki, R.; Makar, A. Geospatial modeling of the tombolo phenomenon in Sopot using integrated geodetic and hydrographic measurement methods. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mohamed, A.S. 2D and 1D Numerical Model Simulations for the Effect of a Single Detached Breakwater on the Shore. Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Specht, C.; Lewicka, O.; Specht, M.; Dąbrowski, P.; Burdziakowski, P. Methodology for carrying out measurements of the tombolo geomorphic landform using unmanned aerial and surface vehicles near Sopot Pier, Poland. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tonina, D.; McKean, J.A.; Benjankar, R.M.; Wright, C.W.; Goode, J.R.; Chen, Q.; Reeder, W.J.; Carmichael, R.A.; Edmondson, M.R. Mapping river bathymetries: Evaluating topobathymetric LiDAR survey. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2019, 44, 507–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tysiac, P. Bringing bathymetry LiDAR to coastal zone assessment: A case study in the Southern Baltic. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lane, S.N.; Richards, K.S.; Chandler, J.H. Developments in monitoring and modelling small-scale river bed topography. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 1994, 19, 349–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westaway, R.M.; Lane, S.N.; Hicks, D.M. Remote sensing of clear-water, shallow, gravel-bed rivers using digital photogrammetry. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2001, 67, 1271–1282. [Google Scholar]
- Hogrefe, K.R.; Wright, D.J.; Hochberg, E.J. Derivation and integration of shallow-water bathymetry: Implications for coastal terrain modeling and subsequent analyses. Mar. Geod. 2008, 31, 299–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulawiak, M.; Chybicki, A. Application of Web-GIS and geovisual analytics to monitoring of seabed evolution in South Baltic Sea coastal areas. Mar. Geod. 2018, 41, 405–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warnasuriya, T.W.S.; Gunaalan, K.; Gunasekara, S.S. Google Earth: A new resource for shoreline change estimation—Case study from Jaffna Peninsula, Sri Lanka. Mar. Geod. 2018, 41, 546–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrafiotis, P.; Skarlatos, D.; Georgopoulos, A.; Karantzalos, K. Shallow water bathymetry mapping from UAV imagery based on machine learning. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2019, XLII-2/W10, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bagheri, O.; Ghodsian, M.; Saadatseresht, M. Reach scale application of UAV+SFM method in shallow rivers hyperspatial bathymetry. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2015, 40, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hashimoto, K.; Shimozono, T.; Matsuba, Y.; Okabe, T. Unmanned aerial vehicle depth inversion to monitor river-mouth bar dynamics. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holman, R.; Plant, N.; Holland, T. cBathy: A robust algorithm for estimating nearshore bathymetry. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2013, 118, 2595–2609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossi, L.; Mammi, I.; Pelliccia, F. UAV-derived multispectral bathymetry. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simarro, G.; Calvete, D.; Luque, P.; Orfila, A.; Ribas, F. UBathy: A new approach for bathymetric inversion from video imagery. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baptista, P.; Bastos, L.; Bernardes, C.; Cunha, T.; Dias, J. Monitoring sandy shores morphologies by DGPS—A practical tool to generate digital elevation models. J. Coast. Res. 2008, 24, 1516–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Specht, C.; Specht, M.; Cywiński, P.; Skóra, M.; Marchel, Ł.; Szychowski, P. A new method for determining the territorial sea baseline using an unmanned, hydrographic surface vessel. J. Coast. Res. 2019, 35, 925–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koljonen, S.; Huusko, A.; Mäki-Petäys, A.; Louhi, P.; Muotka, T. Assessing habitat suitability for juvenile Atlantic salmon in relation to in-stream restoration and discharge variability. Restor. Ecol. 2012, 21, 344–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasvi, A.; Salmela, J.; Lotsari, E.; Kumpula, T.; Lane, S.N. Comparison of remote sensing based approaches for mapping bathymetry of shallow, clear water rivers. Geomorphology 2019, 33, 180–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Knapp, D.E.; Schill, S.R.; Roelfsema, C.; Phinn, S.; Silman, M.; Mascaro, J.; Asner, G.P. Adaptive bathymetry estimation for shallow coastal waters using Planet Dove satellites. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 232, 111302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IHO. IHO Standards for Hydrographic Surveys, 6th ed.; IHO Publication No. 44; IHO: Monte Carlo, Monaco, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Burdziakowski, P. Increasing the geometrical and interpretation quality of unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry products using super-resolution algorithms. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Erena, M.; Atenza, J.F.; García-Galiano, S.; Domínguez, J.A.; Bernabé, J.M. Use of drones for the topo-bathymetric monitoring of the reservoirs of the Segura River Basin. Water 2019, 11, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nikolakopoulos, K.G.; Lampropoulou, P.; Fakiris, E.; Sardelianos, D.; Papatheodorou, G. Synergistic use of UAV and USV data and petrographic analyses for the investigation of beachrock formations: A case study from Syros Island, Aegean Sea, Greece. Minerals 2018, 8, 534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cao, B.; Fang, Y.; Jiang, Z.; Gao, L.; Hu, H. Shallow water bathymetry from Worldview-2 stereo imagery using two-media photogrammetry. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 2019, 52, 506–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- David, C.G.; Kohl, N.; Casella, E.; Rovere, A.; Ballesteros, P.; Schlurmann, T. Structure-from-motion on shallow reefs and beaches: Potential and limitations of consumer-grade drones to reconstruct topography and bathymetry. Coral Reefs 2021, 40, 835–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Q.; Sjogren, P.; Stephansson, O.; Jing, L. Measuring fracture orientation at exposed rock faces by using a non-reflector total station. Eng. Geol. 2001, 59, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, B.; Shi, W.; Li, Q. An integrated TIN and GRID method for constructing multi-resolution digital terrain models. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2005, 19, 1019–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Specht, C.; Dąbrowski, P.; Dumalski, A.; Hejbudzka, K. Modeling 3D objects for navigation purposes using laser scanning. TransNav Int. J. Mar. Navig. Saf. Sea Transp. 2016, 10, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fritz, A.; Kattenborn, T.; Koch, B. UAV-based photogrammetric point clouds—Tree stem mapping in open stands in comparison to terrestrial laser scanner point clouds. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2013, XL-1/W2, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bareth, G.; Bendig, J.; Tilly, N.; Hoffmeister, D.; Aasen, H.; Bolten, A. A comparison of UAV- and TLS-derived plant height for crop monitoring: Using polygon grids for the analysis of Crop Surface Models (CSMs). J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Geoinf. Sci. 2016, 2016, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jizhou, W.; Zongjian, L.; Chengming, L. Reconstruction of buildings from a single UAV image. In Proceedings of the 20th International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Congress (ISPRS 2004), Istanbul, Turkey, 12–23 July 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Saleri, R.; Cappellini, V.; Nony, N.; de Luca, L.; Pierrot-Deseilligny, M.; Bardiere, E.; Campi, M. UAV photogrammetry for archaeological survey: The theaters area of Pompeii. In Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (Digital Heritage 2013), Marseille, France, 28 October–1 November 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, Y.; Li, Y. UAV photogrammetry-based 3D road distress detection. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Šašak, J.; Gallay, M.; Kaňuk, J.; Hofierka, J.; Minár, J. Combined use of terrestrial laser scanning and UAV photogrammetry in mapping Alpine terrain. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wallace, L.O.; Lucieer, A.; Watson, C.S. Assessing the feasibility of UAV-based LiDAR for high resolution forest change detection. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2012, 39, 499–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zanutta, A.; Lambertini, A.; Vittuari, L. UAV photogrammetry and ground surveys as a mapping tool for quickly monitoring shoreline and beach changes. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruggles, S.; Clark, J.; Franke, K.W.; Wolfe, D.; Reimschiissel, B.; Martin, R.A.; Okeson, T.J.; Hedengren, J.D. Comparison of SfM computer vision point clouds of a landslide derived from multiple small UAV platforms and sensors to a TLS based model. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 2016, 4, 246–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrafiotis, P.; Karantzalos, K.; Georgopoulos, A.; Skarlatos, D. Learning from synthetic data: Enhancing refraction correction accuracy for airborne image-based bathymetric mapping of shallow coastal waters. J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Geoinf. Sci. 2021, 89, 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ro, K.; Oh, J.S.; Dong, L. Lessons learned: Application of small UAV for urban highway traffic monitoring. In Proceedings of the 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 8–11 January 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Specht, M.; Specht, C.; Wąż, M.; Naus, K.; Grządziel, A.; Iwen, D. Methodology for performing territorial sea baseline measurements in selected waterbodies of Poland. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Specht, M.; Specht, C.; Lasota, H.; Cywiński, P. Assessment of the steering precision of a hydrographic Unmanned Surface Vessel (USV) along sounding profiles using a low-cost multi-Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver supported autopilot. Sensors 2019, 19, 3939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naus, K.; Marchel, Ł. Use of a weighted ICP algorithm to precisely determine USV movement parameters. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, X.; Yuan, C. Unmanned surface vehicles: An overview of developments and challenges. Annu. Rev. Control 2016, 41, 71–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giordano, F.; Mattei, G.; Parente, C.; Peluso, F.; Santamaria, R. Integrating sensors into a marine drone for bathymetric 3D surveys in shallow waters. Sensors 2016, 16, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zwolak, K.; Wigley, R.; Bohan, A.; Zarayskaya, Y.; Bazhenova, E.; Dorshow, W.; Sumiyoshi, M.; Sattiabaruth, S.; Roperez, J.; Proctor, A.; et al. The autonomous underwater vehicle integrated with the unmanned surface vessel mapping the Southern Ionian Sea. The winning technology solution of the Shell Ocean Discovery XPRIZE. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Romano, A.; Duranti, P. Autonomous unmanned surface vessels for hydrographic measurement and environmental monitoring. In Proceedings of the FIG Working Week 2012, Rome, Italy, 6–10 May 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Strickland, J.D.; Devine, T. Unmanned surface vehicles: Realizations & applications. In Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on High Speed Marine Vehicles (HSMV 2017), Naples, Italy, 25–26 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, M.; Wen, Y.-Q. Design and analysis of collaborative unmanned surface-aerial vehicle cruise systems. J. Adv. Transport. 2019, 2019, 1323105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giordano, F.; Mattei, G.; Parente, C.; Peluso, F.; Santamaria, R. MicroVEGA (Micro Vessel for Geodetics Application): A marine drone for the acquisition of bathymetric data for GIS applications. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2015, XL-5-W5, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Popielarczyk, D.; Templin, T.; Ciećko, A.; Grunwald, G. Application of GNSS and SBES techniques to investigate the Lake Suskie bottom shape. In Proceedings of the 16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference (SGEM 2016), Albena, Bulgaria, 30 June–6 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Stateczny, A.; Kazimierski, W.; Burdziakowski, P.; Motyl, W.; Wisniewska, M. Shore construction detection by automotive radar for the needs of autonomous surface vehicle navigation. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khaleghi, B.; Khamis, A.; Karray, F.O.; Razavi, S.N. Multisensor data fusion: A review of the state-of-the-art. Inf. Fusion 2013, 14, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stateczny, A.; Błaszczak-Bąk, W.; Sobieraj-Żłobińska, A.; Motyl, W.; Wisniewska, M. Methodology for processing of 3D multibeam sonar big data for comparative navigation. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ribeiro, R.A.; Falcão, A.; Mora, A.; Fonseca, J.M. A fuzzy information fusion algorithm based on multi-criteria decision making. Knowl. Based Syst. 2014, 58, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, J.; Zhuang, D.; Huang, Y.; Fu, J. Advances in multi-sensor data fusion: Algorithms and applications. Sensors 2009, 9, 7771–7784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hsu, S.-L.; Gau, P.-W.; Wu, I.-L.; Jeng, J.-H. Region-based image fusion with artificial neural network. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2009, 53, 156–159. [Google Scholar]
- Torra, V.; Narukawa, Y. Modeling Decisions: Information Fusion and Aggregation Operators; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Dąbrowski, P.S.; Specht, C.; Specht, M.; Burdziakowski, P.; Makar, A.; Lewicka, O. Integration of multi-source geospatial data from GNSS receivers, terrestrial laser scanners, and unmanned aerial vehicles. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2021, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burdziakowski, P.; Specht, C.; Dabrowski, P.S.; Specht, M.; Lewicka, O.; Makar, A. Using UAV photogrammetry to analyse changes in the coastal zone based on the Sopot tombolo (salient) measurement project. Sensors 2020, 20, 4000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EP; Council of the European Union. Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32007L0002 (accessed on 24 August 2021).
- Vaníček, P.; Steeves, R.R. Transformation of coordinates between two horizontal geodetic datums. J. Geod. 1996, 70, 740–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronshtein, I.N.; Semendyayev, K.A.; Musiol, G.; Mühlig, H. Handbook of Mathematics, 6th ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hackeloeer, A.; Klasing, K.; Krisp, J.M.; Meng, L. Georeferencing: A review of methods and applications. Ann. GIS 2014, 20, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besl, P.J.; McKay, N.D. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1992, 14, 239–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z. Iterative point matching for registration of free-form curves and surfaces. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 1994, 13, 119–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arun, K.S.; Huang, T.S.; Blostein, S.D. Least-squares fitting of two 3-D point sets. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1987, 5, 698–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Woodget, A.S.; Carbonneau, P.E.; Visser, F.; Maddock, I.P. Quantifying submerged fluvial topography using hyperspatial resolution UAS imagery and structure from motion photogrammetry. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2015, 40, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marine Technology Ltd. HydroDron. Available online: https://marinetechnology.pl/hydrodron/ (accessed on 24 August 2021).
- Ping DSP Inc. 3DSS-DX-450. Available online: https://www.pingdsp.com/3DSS-DX-450 (accessed on 24 August 2021).
- SBG Systems. Ellipse-D. Available online: https://www.sbg-systems.com/products/ellipse-series/#ellipse-d_rtk_gnss_ins (accessed on 24 August 2021).
- SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. MATRICE 600 PRO Specs. Available online: https://www.dji.com/pl/matrice600-pro/info#specs (accessed on 24 August 2021).
- SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. ZENMUSE Z30 Specs. Available online: https://www.dji.com/pl/zenmuse-z30/info#specs (accessed on 24 August 2021).
- Velodyne Lidar. PUCK. Available online: https://velodynelidar.com/products/puck/ (accessed on 24 August 2021).
- Leica Geosystems. Leica Chiroptera 4X Bathymetric & Topographic LiDAR. Available online: https://leica-geosystems.com/es-es/products/airborne-systems/bathymetric-lidar-sensors/leica-chiroptera (accessed on 24 August 2021).
- Doron, M.; Babin, M.; Mangin, A.; Hembise, O. Estimation of light penetration, and horizontal and vertical visibility in oceanic and coastal waters from surface reflectance. J. Geophys. Res. 2007, 112, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stramska, M.; Świrgoń, M. Influence of atmospheric forcing and freshwater discharge on interannual variability of the vertical diffuse attenuation coefficient at 490 nm in the Baltic Sea. Remote Sens. Environ. 2014, 140, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Car, M.; Brčić, D.; Žuškin, S.; Svilicic, B. The navigator’s aspect of PNC before and after ECDIS implementation: Facts and potential implications towards navigation safety improvement. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristić, M.; Žuškin, S.; Brčić, D.; Valčić, S. Zone of confidence impact on cross track limit determination in ECDIS passage planning. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stateczny, A.; Gronska-Sledz, D.; Motyl, W. Precise bathymetry as a step towards producing bathymetric electronic navigational charts for comparative (terrain reference) navigation. J. Navig. 2019, 72, 1623–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wlodarczyk-Sielicka, M.; Stateczny, A. Clustering bathymetric data for electronic navigational charts. J. Navig. 2016, 69, 1143–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Specht, M.; Stateczny, A.; Specht, C.; Widźgowski, S.; Lewicka, O.; Wiśniewska, M. Concept of an Innovative Autonomous Unmanned System for Bathymetric Monitoring of Shallow Waterbodies (INNOBAT System). Energies 2021, 14, 5370. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175370
Specht M, Stateczny A, Specht C, Widźgowski S, Lewicka O, Wiśniewska M. Concept of an Innovative Autonomous Unmanned System for Bathymetric Monitoring of Shallow Waterbodies (INNOBAT System). Energies. 2021; 14(17):5370. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175370
Chicago/Turabian StyleSpecht, Mariusz, Andrzej Stateczny, Cezary Specht, Szymon Widźgowski, Oktawia Lewicka, and Marta Wiśniewska. 2021. "Concept of an Innovative Autonomous Unmanned System for Bathymetric Monitoring of Shallow Waterbodies (INNOBAT System)" Energies 14, no. 17: 5370. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175370
APA StyleSpecht, M., Stateczny, A., Specht, C., Widźgowski, S., Lewicka, O., & Wiśniewska, M. (2021). Concept of an Innovative Autonomous Unmanned System for Bathymetric Monitoring of Shallow Waterbodies (INNOBAT System). Energies, 14(17), 5370. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175370