michigan technological university -...
TRANSCRIPT
Deliverable 3-A: Evaluation of the selected remote sensing techniques to assess the state of geotechnical assets and
performance validation with historic geotechnical data Rudiger Escobar Wolf, Thomas Oommen, El Hachemi Bouali, Rick Dobson, Colin
Brooks, and Stanley Vitton
Michigan Technological University USDOT Cooperative Agreement No. RITARS-14-H-MTU
Due on: April 15, 2016
Principal Investigator: Dr. Thomas Oommen, Assistant Professor Department of Geological and Mining Engineering and Sciences Michigan Technological University 1400 Townsend Drive Houghton, MI 49931 (906) 487-2045 [email protected] Program Manager: Caesar Singh, P.E. Director, University Grants Program/Program Manager OST-Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology U.S. Dept. of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, E35-336 Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-3252 [email protected]
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary 3
1. Remote sensing applications to measure geotechnical asset surface displacements 4
2. Description of techniques 5
2.1 InSAR 5
2.2 LiDAR 6
2.3 Digital photogrammetry 7
3. Description of test sites 7
3.1 M-10 Highway, Detroit, Michigan 8
3.2 Railroad corridor in Nevada 10
3.3 Trans Alaska Pipeline corridor 11
3.4 Laboratory scaled model setup 12
4. Description of the data 13
4.1 Historic data used in the project 14
4.1.1 InSAR 14
4.1.1 LiDAR 17
4.2 New data collected as part of the project 20
4.2.1 LiDAR 20
4.2.1 Photogrammetry 20
5. Data processing and results 23
5.1 Extracting relevant characteristics for geotechnical asset assessment 23
5.2 Measuring displacement of geotechnical assets 23
5.2.1 InSAR results for the Nevada test sites 25
5.2.2 LiDAR results for the Nevada test sites 30
5.2.3 Photogrammetry results for the Nevada test sites 33
5.2.4 InSAR results for the Michigan sites 35
5.2.5 Photogrammetry results for the M-10 highway site 38
5.2.6 InSAR results for the Alaska sites 40
5.2.7 Photogrammetry results for the Alaska sites 41
5.2.8 Photogrammetry results for the scaled model laboratory tests 45
6. Comparison of results with ground control data and inter-comparison of methods 49
6.1 InSAR results for the Nevada sites 49
6.2. Photogrammetry and LiDAR results for the Nevada sites 51
6.3 Photogrammetry and LiDAR results for the Alaska sites 55
7 Limitations and challenges of the methods 58
7.1 InSAR 58
7.2 LiDAR and digital photogrammetry 61
8. Conclusions and recommendations: what methods seem more appropriate for what
applications?
63
9. References 64
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 2
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ALOS Advanced Land Observing Satellite
ASI Italian Space Agency
CSA Canadian Space Agency
COSMO-SkyMed Constellation of small Satellites for the Mediterranean basin Observation
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DLR German Space Agency
DSLR Digital single-lens reflex
DSI Distributed Scatterer Interferometry
ENVISAT Environmental Satellite
ERS European Remote Sensing Satellite
ESA European Space Agency
FOV Field of view
GAM Geotechnical Asset Management
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
GPS Global Positioning System
ICP Iterative Closest Point
InSAR Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar
JAXA Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LOS Line of Sight
PALSAR Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar
PSI Persistent Scatterer Interferometry
RADARSAT-1 and 2 Radar Satellite 1 and 2
SHP Statistically Homogeneous Pixels
TIN Triangular Irregular Network
TerraSAR-X German radar earth observation satellite
TRE Tele-Rilevamento Europa
UAV Unmanned aerial vehicle
USDOT/OST-R US Department of Transportation, through the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology
VSM Vertical Support Members
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: DELIVERABLE 3-A
Overall Goal of this Deliverable: The strength and weaknesses of different remote sensing
methods are evaluated in the context of surface displacement measurements, applied to
geotechnical assets. Three remote sensing methods are evaluated: satellite InSAR, LiDAR
(terrestrial and aerial), and digital photogrammetry (terrestrial and aerial, both from UAVs and
from human piloted helicopters). Field site cases as well as scaled model laboratory tests are
performed, and the results of the different methods are compared with ground control data, and
between the methods’ results. The methods overall performance is evaluated for different surface
deformation measurement cases. A comparison between methods and with ground control points
is also presented, considering their precision, data point densities and ease of operation.
Recommendations on the applicability for monitoring and characterizing different geotechnical
assets are given at the end.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the US Department of Transportation, through the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (USDOT OST-R). The views, opinions,
findings, and conclusions reflected in this paper are the responsibility of the authors only and do
not represent the official policy or position of the USDOT OST-R, or any state or other entity.
Additional information regarding this project can be found at www.mtri.org/geoasset
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 4
1. Remote sensing applications to measure geotechnical asset surface displacements
The remote sensing techniques selected for assessing the state of geotechnical assets were chosen
primarily for three reasons: their ability to produce a precise three dimensional representation of
the surface of the assets, their ability to detect changes in the asset’s surface over time, or both.
The different technologies have different strengths and weaknesses, which will be analyzed and
discussed in this report, in the context of the information they provide about the geotechnical
assets’ health and performance, and the quality of that information.
InSAR, LiDAR and digital photogrammetry are applied to a series of study cases in different
field locations and laboratory scaled models. The results of the tests are evaluated for their
precision, data point density, ease of acquisition and potential costs. Different platforms are also
evaluated, including terrestrial static, terrestrial mobile, aerial (from unmanned aerial vehicles -
UAV- and helicopter), and satellite. Different platforms allow for different “field of view” (FOV)
scales, and data point densities, from very large scale FOV and low density data point collections
from satellite platforms, to very narrow FOV but high density of data points from terrestrial and
UAV platforms.
The applicability of each technology and method is also tested in relationship to the type of asset
being assessed. Retaining walls require different treatment, and are susceptible to different types
of remote sensing methods than rock or soil slopes, or permafrost induced subsidence. A similar
consideration also applies to the type of transportation corridor; the performance requirements of
geotechnical assets for railroads, roads, and pipelines, will all be different, as the effects of the
assets performance on the transportation system (e. g. Maximum allowable ground deformation
or the risk of being struck by rockfall) will vary. Drawing on the various field environments,
transportation systems, and asset types, we have compiled a series of study cases that show the
relative merits of each technology for the specific cases. Nevertheless, general conclusions can
be drawn from this series of study cases, and comparisons between systems can be made at a
general level.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 5
2. Description of techniques
Several remote sensing techniques were examined as part of the technology selection process in
this project. Some were not used in the end (e. g. panorama stitching photogrammetry and
thermal imagery of slopes), so that the analysis was limited in the end to three main
technologies: Satellite InSAR, Terrestrial LiDAR, and terrestrial and aerial digital
photogrammetry. This section gives a summarized overview of these technologies and their
applicability within the scope of the project.
2.1 InSAR
Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) is a remote sensing technique that utilizes
multiple radar images to measure the phase shift between acquisitions. Radar images can be
acquired from a terrestrial platform – either stationary or mounted on a mobile vehicle, from an
aircraft, or from a satellite (Cutrona, 1990; Zebker et al., 1994; Bürgmann et al., 2000); satellite-
based InSAR is the focus of this paper. Satellite-based InSAR is an active, side-looking radar
system that transmits and receives radar waves. Sensors attached to the satellite electronically
record incoming radar echoes as complex numbers in the form of where A is the amplitude of
the radar wave and f is the phase (Dzurisin & Lu, 2007). When multiple radar images are
processed as a stack, the phase shift (𝚫𝛟) can be calculated at the pixel-scale between a
reference image and all other acquired images. The change in distance between the satellite and
any given target pixel (𝚫d) can be calculated with the following relationship:
𝚫d = ½ 𝛌(𝚫𝛟/2𝛑)
…where 𝛌 is the radar wavelength, the ½-component is used to eliminate two-way travel time,
and the quotient of (𝚫𝛟 / 2𝛑) represents the phase shift in terms of multiples of 2𝛑, since the
phase takes a modulo-2𝛑 form. Notice if 𝚫𝛟 = 2𝛑, then 𝚫d = 𝛌/2, which is the maximum
allowable phase shift before the radar image pair is considered de-correlated at that pixel.
Two types of InSAR stacking techniques are utilized in this study: (1) persistent scatterer
interferometry (PSI) and (2) distributed scatterer interferometry (DSI). PSI requires pixels within
large radar image stacks (>20 images recommended) to exhibit consistently high coherence (g),
which is defined as the ratio of coherent (e.g., signal) and incoherent (e.g., noise) radar data
(Ferretti et al., 2000). Coherence values range from 0 (incoherent) to 1 (coherent), and are a
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 6
function of systemic spatial decorrelation, natural scene decorrelation, and additive noise (Askne
et al., 1999). The PSI algorithm requires a user-defined coherence threshold (gT) in which all
pixels that exhibit g < gT are ultimately excluded from 𝚫d calculations; the pixels with g ≥ gT are
referred to as persistent scatterers (PS) and are displayed as individual points. PSI treats each
pixel individually, whereas DSI searches radar stacks for statistically homogeneous pixels
(SHPs), groups them together, and then processes the SHP grouping as a whole (Ferretti et al.,
2011). This allows for Dd-calculations on pixels that, using PSI, would not be included in the
processing procedure but, since DSI creates a SHP grouping, one Dd measurement can be made
on the SHP group (an output of one distributed scatterer, DS, point is given for each SHP group).
DSI is capable of measuring ground deformation in both urban and vegetated regions, while PSI
is typically limited to urban areas, where anthropogenic structures create relatively stable points
over long periods of time (Ferretti et al., 2001; Ferretti et al., 2011). Both PSI and DSI are
capable of measuring line-of-sight (LOS) velocities as accurately as 1 mm/year (Crosetto et al.,
2010; Ferretti et al., 2011).
Please refer to previous deliverables for more information on InSAR data, sensors, and platforms
(Escobar-Wolf et al. 2014), how InSAR uses phase to calculate spatial deformation (Escobar-
Wolf et al. 2015), and examples of how ground deformation measures obtained via InSAR
processing techniques are displayed (Sawtell et al. 2015).
2.2 LiDAR
LiDAR is a surveying technology that allows to acquire the positions of millions of points from
natural or artificial surfaces. LiDAR precisions can be on the order of a few mm, to 1 - 2 cm,
over distances of hundreds of meters to a few kilometers (Shan and Toth, 2008). This allows for
very rapid and precise three-dimensional representations of the terrain to be built as point clouds,
or gridded surface, e. g. Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). Such surface representations can be
used for a multitude of applications, from surveying (Shan and Toth, 2008), to terrain changes
monitoring, including landslide and related phenomena monitoring (Jaboyedoff et al. 2012).
LiDAR techniques include different platforms from which the instrument can be deployed to
collect data, including terrestrial (the instrument is static, on the ground), mobile (driven on a
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 7
vehicle on the ground), or aerial (on an aircraft). Small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) platforms
have also been explored (Lin et al. 2011). Different platforms present different challenges, as the
co-registration of different point clouds and georeferencing, requires careful procedures to be
incorporated in the data collection and analysis (Shan and Toth, 2008).
2.3 Digital photogrammetry
Photogrammetry has been established for over a century as a surveying method, but it has only
been recently, with the advent of high performance computers and efficient computer vision
algorithms, that digital photogrammetry is becoming a practical method for high precision terrain
surveying, comparable to LiDAR and traditional analog photogrammetry (Linder, 2013; Wolf
and Dewitt, 2000).
Digital photogrammetry methods applied in our research, use photographs taken with
commercial digital single-lens reflex cameras, which are processed with commercial
photogrammetric software, run on personal computers. This types of software have found a
variety of applications in geosciences (Westoby et al. 2012), and specifically in slope surface
monitoring (e. g. Lucier et al. 2013; Stumpf et al. 2015), to track changes due to mass wasting
processes. The primary output of these software tools is the form of three dimensional point
clouds, similar to the output of LiDAR methods; such point clouds can then be used to generate
other surface representations, like DEMs y triangular irregular network (TIN) surfaces.
The precision of the models reconstructed from digital photogrammetry depends strongly on the
availability and quality of ground control points. Ideally, a high density of precise ground control
points will be included in the photogrammetric processing, but practical and logistical limitations
may reduce the availability of such ground control points.
3. Description of test sites
Three different field sites were chosen to test the capabilities of remote sensing methods, to
detect geotechnical asset movement, and obtain other relevant assets’ information, e. g. a
representation of the assets’ surface for detailed modeling of the performance. A particular type
of transportation corridor, i. e. highway, railroad, or pipeline, is also represented at each site, and
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 8
in each case a different type of geotechnical asset is also evaluated, i. e. retaining walls, rock
slope, or permafrost soil slopes. The success in the application of the different remote sensing
techniques varied among sites and assets as will be described later in this report, and
comparisons between these results give us insight into the applicability of the different remote
sensing methods, to different environments and asset types.
In addition, a series of laboratory scaled experiments was also conducted, to test the capabilities
of two of the methods (digital photogrammetry and LiDAR) to detect and measure retaining wall
displacements.
3.1 M-10 Highway, Detroit, Michigan
The study site is located on the M-10 highway, near the junction with Meyers Road, in Detroit
Michigan (see figure 1). M-10 is a depressed highway at that location, and has three traffic lanes
in in each direction, confined by 16 feet tall, vertical cantilever retaining walls. Service drives
running parallel to the highway are located on top of the retaining walls and connect to the
nearby Meyers road. The walls are divided in 100 feet sections, which move independently in
response to loads and stresses.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 9
Figure 1. Upper panel, location of the retaining walls along M-10 highway, Detroit, Michigan.
(Taken from Cerminaro, 2014). Lower panel, picture of the retaining walls.
The retaining walls at the site have shown significant movement, up to 8 cm for some of the wall
sections, which led to their replacement at some locations. Smaller movements were also
observed by our monitoring during the duration of the test, in 2014. The exact mechanism of
failure and the type of movement was not clearly defined for the different sections. The
depressed highway and confining walls was built in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and the retaining
walls were designed as a mixed system, that used tension tie backs to reduce the size of the wall
footing, by increasing the wall’s stability to overturning (Jansson, 2013). Although the original
design called for tension steel cables for the tie backs, the construction record shows that solid
bars were used instead. It is believed that this departure from the original design and later
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 10
problems with the back-wall drainage system lead to the failure of the system, and the large
observed displacements. Further details on the site are given by Cerminaro (2014).
3.2 Railroad corridor in Nevada
This approximately 200 km2 study site includes 30 km of railroad corridor traveling through a
canyon system where slopes, steeply dipping toward the railroad tracks in many places, surround
the railroad transportation assets. The slopes are composed of volcanic rock (e.g., rhyolite, tuff,
and welded breccia); significant downslope displacements (e.g., on the cm scale) have been
measured across planes of weakness (faults, shear zones, and bedding planes) within these
highly-altered slopes. This study site has been described in detail by Bouali et al. (2016a).
A multiscale approach was undertaken when examining transportation and geotechnical assets.
The local scale focused on two particular slopes (Slope #1 and Slope #2 - Figure 2). Slope #1 is
currently active with rockfalls while Slope #2 shows signs of past instability with potential for
future rockfalls and topples. Slope #1 can be divided into two structural zones. The first is the
unstable block which, as its name suggests, has undergone the past complex movements (e.g.,
potentially rotational slide, rock falls, and rock topples). The unstable block is located between
the slope toe (adjacent to railroad tracks) and the main scarp (36.5 m above the tracks). The
stable block is the remainder of the slope area, upslope from the main scarp. Slope #2 has
evidence of many rockfalls and topples, but does not exhibit the deep-seated rotational sliding
that Slope #1 currently features. This may be due to the orientation of faults and bedding planes
in each slope. Bedding planes and faults within Slope #1 dip downslope (toward the railroad
tracks) while these zones of weakness dip perpendicular to the downslope direction in Slope #2.
The regional scale focused on the 30 km segment of railroad corridor in the search of optimal
methods of identifying, monitoring, and analyzing dynamic slopes. These slopes have been
examined in detail via fieldwork and remote sensing techniques (Bouali et al. 2016a; Bouali et
al. 2016b; Justice 2015) at both the local and regional scales.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 11
Figure 2 - Pictures taken in the field of Slope #1 (left) and Slope #2 (right).
3.3 Trans Alaska Pipeline corridor
Several sites along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System were selected to test the remote sensing
methods. The pipeline spans some 800 miles across many different types of terrain, including
steep slopes on permafrost soil. Six sites along the pipeline were initially explored as testing
cases, but the focus of the analysis was later restricted to only two locations, pipeline segments at
sites named Treasure Creek and Lost Creek. Preliminary analysis of a slope instability next to the
highway bridge over the Yukon River was also performed, but the lack of ground control points
prevented more in depth analysis of that dataset.
Both the Treasure Creek and Lost Creek sites (see figure 3) are located on steep hills, with local
slopes exceeding 20º in some places. The sites are on permafrost soil, which has shown
significant movements over time. The pipeline at these sites rests on a flexible structure that
allows some movement of the pipe, but can be negatively impacted if the movement is too much,
or if the slope collapse. Vertical support members (VSMs) support the pipe structure, and have
heat dissipators connected to the underground foundation, to minimize the permafrost thawing,
and potential soil destabilization. Slope movements in excess of 1 m were documented recently,
and slumping and cracks on the soil were observed during field visits. Misalignments of the
VSMs, both horizontally and vertically were also obvious in the field. The Lost Creek site is
partially located on an artificial cut and fill slope, which may contribute to its poor stability.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 12
Figure 3. Left panel shows a picture of a segment of the Treasure Creek field site in Alaska.
Notice the steep slope looking downwards. Right panel shows a photogrammetry point cloud
model for the Lost Creek field site in Alaska. Notice also the steep slope and complex pipeline
shape.
3.4 Laboratory scaled model setup
A series of test on laboratory scaled models was also conducted. The model setup consisted of a
pair of plywood boards to which texturized Styrofoam layers were added, to simulate the
concrete surfaces of retaining walls (see figure 4). The 4x8 feet boards were articulated at the
bottom to allow for tilting movement, to simulate retaining wall failure by outwards rotation. The
boards are also mounted on independent structures with wheels attached to them, to allow for
horizontal movements of the retaining walls to also be simulated. Other types of movement were
also possible for the boards setup, including rotation around the upper extreme, and flexure of
the boards (the Styrofoam layers), to simulate retaining wall foot rotation and flexure.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 13
Figure 4. Laboratory scaled model of retaining walls. Left panel shows the lateral view of the
setup and right panel shows the front view.
The mobility of the model setup allowed for data acquisition to be done both indoors, with
artificial light, and outdoors, with natural light. Control points were also attached to the setup,
and their positions were established through different methods, every time data were acquired,
details on such procedures will be discussed in the corresponding sections.
4. Description of the data
Several datasets, collected both before the project and as part of it, have been analyzed. Historic
datasets include data collected by institutions responsible for the geotechnical assets, and
transportation corridors in general, usually due to identified problems with such assets, e. g.
retaining wall, rock, or permafrost slope instabilities. In other cases historic dataset were of
general purpose character and not specifically collected for a particular transportation asset, as in
the case of InSAR satellite datasets. Before using the historic data, quality assessment and data
format conversion were necessary in some case. Details of these datasets and the procedures
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 14
used to prepare them for analysis are given in this section, together with examples of some of the
datasets.
4.1 Historic data used in the project
Historic data were limited to satellite InSAR and LiDAR datasets. InSAR datasets coverage
varied substantially for each site, depending on the type of satellite and the period of interest.
LiDAR datasets were usually of two types: terrestrial and aerial LiDAR, sometimes collected for
the specific purpose of monitoring the transportation assets. No historic digital photogrammetry
data were available, which is not surprising, given the relatively recent development of such
technology. Other dataset, that were used as ancillary data in some components of the project (e.
g. larger scale DEMs, geology coverage, etc.) are not considered in this report, their description
and more detailed references to documents describing their characteristics can be found in other
reports and deliverables produced in the project.
4.1.1 InSAR
InSAR is a remote sensing technique that has a great potential in assisting in GAM. Satellites
with modest ground resolution (30 m) and wavelength (C Band - 5.6 cm) were used for this
study, although radar image data from other satellites perform better under various situations. For
example, TerraSAR-X allows for approximately 1-meter resolution at a wavelength of 33 mm
and works well over urban areas, while ALOS PALSAR uses L-Band radar waves (wavelength
of 23.6 cm) which is able to penetrate vegetation and yield ground information. Table 1 lists all
historical, present, and upcoming satellite radar systems with applicable (In)SAR capabilities.
InSAR stacking techniques – PSI and SqueeSAR™, among others – have been shown to be
effective in asset condition assessment as a proxy to field work, which is more costly and time
consuming. Ground displacement and average velocity measurements for relatively large
geotechnical assets, such as those that are many pixels in area (in radar images, such as 25 m by
25 m for ERS-1/-2 and ENVISAT), can be acquired using InSAR. With the growing popularity
of InSAR, and the many more satellite missions scheduled, scientists have their choice of radar
wavelength (Table 1), depending on the application. There exist short wavelength (e.g., X Band)
datasets, which are good for high resolution ground monitoring in urban settings. Longer
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 15
wavelength datasets (e.g., L Band or longer) can be used to penetrate vegetation and also allows
for greater displacement measurements (up to double the wavelength). The many techniques of
InSAR – e.g., 2-4 pass interferometry for short-duration events, such as earthquakes, to stacking
interferometry techniques for long-term events, such as subsidence and landslide creep – lends
itself to be a useful tool that should be used for geotechnical asset management.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 16
Table 1 - List of historical, present, and future InSAR-compatible satellites.
Satellite Mission
Timespan
Revisit
Period
(days)
Ground
Resolution
(meters)
Radar
Band*
Organization Price Per Image
(US Dollars)**
Commercial Research
ERS-1 1991 - 2000 35 25 C European Space Agency
(ESA)
$212 - $354 FREE
JERS-1 1992 - 1998 44 18 L Japan Aerospace
Exploration Agency
(JAXA)
FREE
(limited)
ERS-2 1995 - 2011 35 25 C ESA $212 - $354 FREE
RADARSAT-1 1995 - 2013 24 10-100 C Canadian Space Agency
(CSA)
$3,047 - $3809 FREE
ENVISAT 2002 - 2013 35 25-150 C ESA $354 - $591 FREE
ALOS PALSAR 2006 - 2011 46 7-100 L JAXA $42 - $709 FREE
RADARSAT-2 2007 - 24 3-100 C CSA $3,047 - $7,110
COSMO-SkyMed 2007 - 16 1-100 X Italian Space Agency
(ASI)
$680 - $2,268
TerraSAR-X 2007 - 11 1-16 X German Aerospace
Center (DLR)
$875 - $7,972
TecSAR 2008 - 14 1-8 X Israel Aerospace
Industries
NA
Meteor-3M 2009 - 3 400-1,000 X RosHydroMet $30/$40 - ?
RISAT-2 2009 - 14 1-8 X Indian Space Research
Organisation (ISRO)
NA (contact Antrix)
TanDEM-X 2010 - 11 1-16 X DLR NA $118
RISAT-1 2012 - 25 1-50 C ISRO NA (contact Antrix)
HJ-1C 2012 - 1 20 S NDRCC/SEPA of China NA
KOMPSAT-5 2013 - 28 1-20 X Korean Aerospace
Research Institute
(KARI)
NA
ALOS PALSAR-2 2014 - 14 1-100 L JAXA $1,257 - $4,191 FREE
Kondor-E1 2014 - 2-3 1-30 S NPO Mashinostroyenia NA
Sentinel-1A 2014 - 12 4-80 C ESA FREE
KOMPSAT-7 2014 - 14 1-20 X KARI NA
SAOCOM
Constellation
2015 - 8-16 10-100 L Comisión Nacional de
Actividades Espaciales
SEOSAR/Paz 2015 - 11 1-15 X Satélite Español de
Observación SAR
Will be publically available
Sentinal-1B 2016 - 6 4-80 C ESA Will be FREE
COSMO-SkyMed
2nd Generation
2016 - 1.5-10 1-35 X ASI Will be publically available
TerraSAR-NG 2017 - ~0.42 0.25-30 X DLR
RadarSat
Constellation
2018 - 3-12 3-100 C CSA
RISAT-1A 2019 - 12 1-50 C ISRO
BIOMASS 2020 - 25 50-60 P ESA
NISAR 2020 - L, S NASA & ISRO
DESDynI ? - 10 L NASA
SCLP ? - X, Ku NASA
*P Band (𝛌 = 69 cm); L Band (𝛌 = 23.6 cm); S Band (𝛌 = 9.6 cm); C Band (𝛌 = 5.6 cm); X
Band (𝛌 = 3.1 cm); Ku Band (𝛌 = 2 cm)
**US Dollar exchange rates (January 2015). NA = not available for commercial/educational
use. Prices and data availability listed for users in the United States.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 17
4.1.1 LiDAR
LiDAR datasets acquired prior to the project onset included both terrestrial (static) LiDAR data
collected in Nevada and Alaska, and aerial LiDAR datasets from Alaska and Michigan. Aerial
LiDAR dataset can have errors on the order of tens of centimeters, and data point densities vary
from less than one points per m2, to a few points per m2; for such large errors and relatively low
point densities, aerial LiDAR datasets can only be used to estimate large scale slope changes,
beyond the scale of those slopes considered in this project, for the sites for which they are
available. The aerial LiDAR is however very useful to generate intermediate resolution DEMs,
with pixel sizes on the order of one meter, which can be used in other components of the
transportation asset management process, e. g. in the asset performance rating (Escobar-Wolf et
al., 2015, Justice, 2015).
Terrestrial LiDAR data for the Nevada test site, includes 11 high density point clouds acquired
between 2011 and 2014 (see figure 5), provided by one of the project partners. The LiDAR point
clouds cover a rock slope, as described in section 3.2. Errors for these datasets are on the order of
1 to 2 cm, or less, and point densities are on the order of several hundreds to more than a
thousand points per m2 (see figure 6). The high precision and point densities allow these datasets
to be used to monitor relatively small slope movements and changes, and provide a high quality
dataset against which the digital photogrammetry datasets can also be compared.
Figure 5. Dates of LiDAR dataset acquisition for the Nevada test site, before the beginning of the
project, by one of the research partners.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 18
Figure 6. LiDAR point cloud surface densities for the Nevada test site. Most locations have
densities > 500 points per m2.
Terrestrial LiDAR data for Alaska include sections of the pipeline and the nearby terrain. Errors
for this dataset are also very small, on the order of one cm, judging by how well the points
reproduce the smooth surface of the pipeline (see figure 7). Point densities can also be very high
(several thousand points per meter), although the density varies across the dataset. The dataset
corresponds to a single date and therefore cannot be used to asses slope movement or terrain
changes, but it can be used as a standard, with which the photogrammetry data can be compared.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 19
Figure 7. Illustration of the high precision LiDAR dataset for the Lost Creek site provided by a
research partner. Upper panel shows the hillshade figure of the pipeline, notice the smooth
aspect and compare with other point cloud derived hillshade figures. The middle panel shows a
profile of the pipeline and the lower panel shows a close-up view of the upper section of that
profile, with the best fit circle that passes through it. Variations from the circle are less than 1
cm.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 20
4.2 New data collected as part of the project
New data were also collected as part of the project, either to augment partially existing dataset e.
g. LiDAR data from rock slope sites in Nevada; or as entirely new, independent datasets, as in
the case of all our digital photogrammetry dataset acquisitions. New data acquisitions included
the raw data collection, e. g. LiDAR point clouds and digital photographs, but the new data
acquisition process also involved acquiring ground control points information as the time of the
surveying data collection.
4.2.1 LiDAR
New terrestrial LiDAR point clouds were acquired at the rock slope test site in Nevada, at the
time other datasets (e. g. digital photogrammetry) were also acquired at that location, during the
May 2014 field campaign. Errors for the LiDAR point locations are estimated to be within 2 cm,
and point densities range between a few hundreds to more than a thousand points per m2. Several
overlapping scans, from different positions, were done to have complete coverage of the target
surfaces. Individual scans were combined through tie point and georeferenced to the same
coordinate system in which the historical LiDAR datasets were also referenced.
New LiDAR datasets were also collected for the scaled model laboratory setup, and several
building walls on the Michigan Tech Campus, together with photogrammetric data, as part of the
LiDAR- photogrammetry inter-comparison that were performed in earlier stages of the project.
4.2.1 Photogrammetry
Digital photogrammetry data were the most extensive dataset acquired during the project, with
acquisitions at all the sites (see table 2). Data acquisition for digital photogrammetry basically
consists of acquiring overlapping digital photographs (or video frames) of the surface to be
studied. Table 2 shows the acquisitions locations, the platforms used, the type of sensor, and the
dates of the acquisitions. Data were acquired from three platforms: terrestrial static (on foot),
terrestrial mobile (from a moving car), and aerial (both from UAVs and a helicopter). Sensors
used included, comercial digital single-lens reflex cameras, with optical lenses ranging between
35 and 55 mm and sensor size from 16 to 36 megapixels, used for the terrestrial static and aerial
data collections, and a professional cinematography camera for the terrestrial mobile and aerial
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 21
(helicopter) acquisition platforms. Give how extensive the dataset are, the analysis focused on
sites that seemed more promising and gave better initial results. Only the most relevant datasets
will be discussed in this deliverable.
Table 2. List of field sites where digital photogrammetric data were acquired between 2014 and
2015. The platform for the data acquisition is also indicated.
Site or location 2014 field work 2015 field work
Helicopter
or UAV
Terrestria
l
Mobile Helicopte
r or UAV
Terrestria
l
Mobile
Treasure Creek, Alaska x x x x x x
Lost Creek, Alaska x x x x
Dalton Highway landslide
site, Alaska
x x
Dalton Highway Yukon
Bridge, Alaska
x x
Delta Bridge, Alaska x
Glitter Gulch, Alaska x x x x x
Nevada test site, location 1 x x x x x x
Nevada test site, location 2 x x
Hill Street, Cincinnati, Ohio x x x x x x
Elboran Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio
x x x x x x
Laboratory scaled model
setup
x x
Michigan Tech Campus
walls
x
Images for photogrammetry were acquired in two field campaigns at the Nevada test site, in May
of 2014 and May-June of 2015. Acquisition platforms included UAVs, static terrestrial, and
mobile terrestrial. Between 200 and 800 images were captured at each location surveyed in the
Nevada test site, over a slope length of approximately 200 meters, and a slope height in excess of
100 meters. Ground control points were surveyed with a Trimble GeoExplorer GNSS receiver,
using the internal antenna and collecting data for 10 to 20 minutes, expecting < 10 cm
positioning errors. Control points were marked by black and white photogrammetric aerial
targets (see figure 8).
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 22
Figure 8. Aerial photogrammetry targets set up in the field during data collection, to locate
ground control points.
Photogrammetry data collection in Alaska involved several sites. Pipeline sections up to a mile in
length were imaged with DSLR cameras from both aerial (helicopter) and terrestrial (by foot) at
two locations (Treasure Creek and Lost Creek, see section 3.3 for a description). Aerial
(helicopter) data acquisition was also done for the two sites previously mentioned, as well as four
other sites, although the final analysis focuses only on the Treasure Creek and Lost Creek sites.
Up to 900 images were collected per site, representing several overlapping survey passes at each
location. Ground control points at these locations were tied to previous surveyed points,
identified by permanent survey marks, and for the purpose of photogrammetric identification of
the control points, a procedure similar to that described for the Nevada test site was also used in
Alaska, deploying black and white photogrammetric aerial targets.
Photogrammetric data for the M-10 Highway site in Detroit Michigan were collected using a
Nikon D5100 DSLR camera, with a 16 megapixel sensor, and a 35 to 55 mm lens. 20 to 25
pictures were taken for each 100 feet of wall section. Ground control surveying was provided by
the Michigan State Department of Transportation. Similar photogrammetric data were collected
at a scaled laboratory setup, as well as from several building walls at the Michigan Tech Campus,
together with LiDAR data collects.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 23
5. Data processing and results
5.1 Extracting relevant characteristics for geotechnical asset assessment
For the purpose of geotechnical asset management, the main relevant characteristics extracted
from the remote sensing datasets was the surface displacement and change measurements. Other
useful information, like high resolution DEMs, and which could be used as input for other types
of analysis as part of the geotechnical asset management process, are not discussed in detail in
this deliverable, as they have been described in detail somewhere else (e. g. Escobar-Wolf et al.,
2015, Justice, 2015). Here we will focus mainly on datasets used to extract deformation or
surface change information.
5.2 Measuring displacement of geotechnical assets
Displacement measurements through remote sensing methods always imply at least acquiring
data at two different times, and may involve data acquisitions at many different times (e. g. to
produce a time-series of data). Data acquired can be on the spatial location of points on the
surface of the asset, as it is the case for LiDAR and digital photogrammetry, or the data can be
about the relative distance to the instrument, as in the case of radar phase data used for InSAR.
In the case of spatial point locations, the displacement measurement comes from comparing the
positions of the same (or close to same) point on the asset’s surface, at the different times.
Changes in that position will give us the measurement of displacement of the surface over that
period of time, e. g. by subtracting the elevation values of two overlapping DEMs that were
generated from three dimensional point locations, at two different times.
It is important to realize that point location datasets (e. g. LiDAR or digital photogrammetry
point clouds) are only an incomplete representation, i. e. a sample, of the geometry of the actual
surface that we wish to monitor. As such, the point cloud will only be as representative of the real
surface, as the surface point density allows: sparse and less dense point clouds (or parts of a point
cloud) will represent the surface with less detail, and may miss important attributes of it (Shan
and Toth, 2008).
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 24
Data point density is not the only important characteristic to consider when assessing the quality
of the point cloud, the accuracy of the point locations is also very important. Even a very high
density point cloud will not be very useful if the point locations show large errors. Errors can be
spatially correlated between nearby points, as tends to be the case for photogrammetric point
clouds, due to the nature of the information generation process; or the errors can have very little
spatial correlation, as it is the case for unbiased and well calibrated LiDAR datasets, as each
LiDAR point is the result of an individual measure of range and angles, and not the result of a
joint solution (i. E. bundle adjustment) of a large number of pixel locations. All these
considerations of the nature of location errors for the points in a point-cloud have to be taken into
account, when pairs of point-clouds are used to measure surface displacements or changes, and
should be reflected in the error estimates of the displacement field.
Although points in a point-cloud are treated as such, i. e. infinitesimal abstract entities that can
be described completely by the three spatial coordinates, the actual samples obtained by the
measuring method are finite, although very small, regions of that surface. Beam divergence for
LiDAR, and sensor instantaneous field of view for cameras, will determine how big the area of
the surface that will be sampled by each “point”, and which corresponds to an average, of the
properties of that surface over that small region, including the positional average (Shan and Toth,
2008).
Data point densities, point location errors and “point” size considerations are only relevant when
the scale of what we are trying to measure, e. g. the surface displacement, is of the same scale of
those effects. If the scale of the quantity of interest is much larger than the spacing between
points, the error locations, or the size of the “point”, these effects will not change the result in a
significant way. The required scale of the variable of interest, in our case the surface
displacement, is not always defined a priori, and it is sometimes more useful to invert the
reasoning and describe what is the methods resolution or data point density, estimated error, and
average size of “point” samples.
In the case of InSAR the situation is different, as the interferometric procedure directly produces
surface displacement measurements. Although initially InSAR processing produced very dense,
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 25
image like maps of displacement between two radar images (i. e. interferograms), such method
was restricted by very stringent constraints for the radar image pair. Such limitations included
interference from vegetation, problems with steep topography, surface displacements much
larger than the radar wavelength, etc. This resulted in many areas not being susceptible to
analysis. However, interferometric stacking and related techniques have allowed to extract
displacement information from datasets that otherwise would not yield meaningful
interferograms for analysis; however this comes at the cost of much sparser data point density. In
such cases, the discussion on data point density presented previously in this section, also applies
to the InSAR dataset.
In the following subsections we will present the results of our data collection campaigns, and the
results of our attempt to extract surface displacement information from them. The central role of
ground control points will be discussed where relevant, and the significance of errors and their
propagation to the displacement calculations will also be included.
5.2.1 InSAR results for the Nevada test sites
A total of 90 radar images between August 20, 1992 and August 15, 2010 were processed over
the study area. 40 images were acquired from the ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites and 50 images
from ENVISAT, which were equipped with C-Band SAR antennae operating at 5.331 GHz. All
images came from the same descending track which had a line-of-sight (LOS) in the N86°W
azimuth direction and an incidence angle centered at 23° from nadir. PSI processing was
performed by the project team at Michigan Technological University; the SqueeSAR™
algorithm, developed by Tele-Rilevamento Europa (TRE), was used for joint PSI-DSI processing
and was performed by TRE Canada.
For the purposes of this paper, displacement and velocity values may be positive or negative.
Positive values indicate a shortening of the distance between the satellite and the ground, and
shall be indicated as deformation toward the satellite. This may be due to uplift, accumulation of
sediments/soils, or even a large eastward displacement. Negative values indicate the opposite, an
increase of satellite-to-ground distance, and shall be indicated as deformation away from the
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 26
satellite. This may be due to subsidence, downslope movement, erosion, or a large westward
displacement. All measurements are made in the LOS direction.
PSI results are shown in Figure 9(a). PSI yields few PS points on the unstable block, probably
due to the strict high-coherence criteria, vegetation, and slope geometry. The available PS points
do show a similar trend to the ground-control data: the unstable block exhibits the most average
movement (-2.57 mm/year); slight average movement is measureable upslope from the main
scarp along the more stable block (-0.97 mm/year), and the adjacent slopes are basically stable
(north adjacent: -0.43 mm/year; south adjacent: -0.19 mm/year) with the only exception being
from locations of observable surface runoff (Runoff A: -3.50 mm/year; Runoff B: -0.86 mm/year
– Figure 9(b). The bridge is the only anthropogenic geotechnical asset with PS points; some
movement is measurable across the bridge. Figure 10 displays the results from the specialized
InSAR-stacking algorithm SqueeSAR™, which combines PSI with DSI and yields a result
containing both PS and DS points (Ferretti et al., 2011). A decrease in point density is apparent
across the local study area, but more importantly, this technique can resolve more points along
the unstable block, including on the geometrically-complex slope face where three DS points and
no PS points are available. SqueeSAR™ results in the same general trend, where the greatest
slope displacements occurs downslope from the main scarp and the adjacent slopes are more
stable (Figure 10). An unexpected result is the fact that zero PS and DS points were obtained
along the bridge or any other anthropogenic geotechnical asset, with the exception of one
relatively stable DS point near the tunnel entrance (-0.79 mm/year).
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 27
Figure 9 - (a) PSI results across Slope #1 and the surrounding area. (b) Study area divided into
regions based on velocity measurements. The red polygon outlines the unstable block. The
orange polygon outlines the (relatively) stable block. Adjacent slopes are outlined by green
polygons. Areas of surface runoff are located in the ovals - Runoff a (red) and Runoff B (yellow) -
and the downslope direction is indicated by respective arrows.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 28
Figure 10 - SqueeSAR™ results across Slope #1 and the surrounding area. Three DS points
obtained on the complex slope face are circled in red.
A look at the three DS points on the S-1 slope yields additional supporting evidence of slope
movement beginning in 2005. Displacement time-series of the three DS points are shown in
Figure 11. All three time-series indicate the unstable block was actually stable from 1992 to
approximately January 2005, which coincides with reports from railroad personnel. Post-2005,
the slope became unstable and has been moving ever since.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 29
Figure 11 - Displacement time-series for the three DS points on the slope face (Figure 10). Each
data point indicates the total displacement from the first acquisition (August 20, 1992). S-1 is
stable until January 2005 when displacement greater than 10 mm are observed.
40 ENVISAT radar images (July 13, 2003 to August 15, 2010), were processed using PSI over an
area of approximately 225 km2. The regional-scale study site includes 29 km of railway, 28
railroad bridges, five tunnels, and one small town. PSI results are shown in Figure 12.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 30
Figure 12 - Regional PSI results with landslide hazard identification. The average velocities of
13,446 PS points were measured over a 225 km2 area, including a 29 km stretch of railroad
corridor (black line). 13 potential hazard zones were identified (magenta polygons) using three
basic hazard criteria (see Section 6.1) that replicate criteria used from existing rockfall hazard
rating systems.
5.2.2 LiDAR results for the Nevada test sites
The use of LiDAR to monitor the movements of unstable slopes has been extensively
documented in the literature, for reviews on this see (Derron and Jaboyedoff, 2010; Jaboyedoff et
al. 2012). The main aim at using LiDAR data in our project was to have independent datasets
with which photogrammetric results could be compared, and in light of that we assess the
precision and quality of the LiDAR datasets. Our LiDAR results broadly agree with results
reported in the literature.
LiDAR datasets collected at 11 different dates between 2011 and 2014, for the same rock slope at
the Nevada test site were compared in a successive pairwise process, in which the differences
between every pair of successive datasets was estimated. The surface displacements were
estimated with two different methods. The first method consisted in generating DEMs from each
LiDAR point cloud, and subtracting the elevation values of one DEM (e. g. the later date one)
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 31
from the elevation values from the other DEM (e. g. the earlier date one). This gives the vertical
change in the surface, but doesn’t explicitly resolve the horizontal components of the movement.
Although it is possible to determine the horizontal component between both DEMs by image
cross correlation methods, as shown by Lucieer et al. (2013), we did not explore that option.
The second method consisted in applying an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm (Besl and
McKay, 1992; Chen and Medioni, 1992; Zhang, 1994) to small windows in both point clouds, to
fit one point cloud to the other. This allows to estimate how much the points in the window for
one cloud would have to be moved, to reach an optimal fit to the points in the window for the
other cloud, that movement would then be interpreted as surface displacement. Although initial
tests on synthetic data gave promising results, application to real data was less successful, as will
be described for the photogrammetry dataset analyzed for the Alaska field sites (section 5.2.7).
Other point-to-point and point-to-surface were also explored, but for the purpose of our
comparisons the DEM differences were judged to provide little additional information.
The point cloud positions seem to agree well between LiDAR point clouds from different dates,
for most of the overlapping areas, with the exceptions of parts of the surface that had obviously
changed or presented movement. Although initially some misregistration was apparent, after fine
tuning the relative positions of the point clouds, the differences in stable areas were small,
usually less than 10 cm (see figure 13). It is difficult to separate real surface changes from data
errors, because no independent ground control information is available to compare with over that
time interval. However, locally the noise level for the estimated surface displacements seemed to
be less than 10 cm, as this is the level at which the surface differences started to show random
variations resembling random noise. We estimate the minimum terrain movement that can be
resolved with certainty to be on the order of 20 cm, although that minimum could be less in areas
with high point densities and small noise levels.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 32
Figure 13. LiDAR profiles along the rock slope at the Nevada test site. The dataset shows a clear
change between June and November 2011, which seems transitional over June, August and
October, and probably corresponds to mass wasting in the area. Notice that detectable changes
are less than 10 cm, although in some areas the noise levels increases to around that value.
During the analyzed time period, the rock surface experienced changes of more than 2 meters,
and for large areas the change was more than 50 cm (see figure 14). Many of the changes
observed corresponded to single large (> 2 m diameter) rock blocks that mobilized during
rockfall events, and material deposition at the food of the slope. Slope deformation involving
small displacements of the rock mass was less obvious, although some areas show what appears
to be whole rock face deformation, the fact that the datasets needed some shifting of the point
clouds opens the possibility that some of these apparent surface deformations may be processing
artifacts. Unfortunately no independent ground control data are available to assess this
possibility.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 33
Figure 14. Differences of LiDAR point cloud positions perpendicular to the main rock slope face.
Notice the locations where large rock fragments detached from the slope and left a void (deep
blue patches). Talus aggradation is also evident at the foot of the rock slope.
5.2.3 Photogrammetry results for the Nevada test sites
Digital photogrammetric datasets collected from rock slopes in Nevada produced high density (>
1000 points per m2) point clouds, which can be used to produce high resolution (pixel size < 5
cm) DEMs (see figure 15). Data acquisitions by a camera operator on foot, walking along the
service road next to rock slope and having an upward looking perspective of the slope, produced
only partial data sets, for which occlusions and data shadows produced gaps in the resulting point
cloud. Data collected from the UAV platform however presented a much more complete
coverage of the terrain surface, with virtually no significant data gaps in the area of interest.
Photogrammetric processing was done using Agisoft Photoscan ® digital photogrammetric
software (Agisoft, 2016).
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 34
Figure 15. Orthophotographs and corresponding hillshade image of a high resolution DEM
generated from digital photogrammetry at the Nevada test site.
Displacements or changes of the rock slope surface were estimated as explained in section 5.2.2.
For the DEM differences method DEMs were generated from the photogrammetric point clouds
with a 5 cm pixels size, in the same coordinates reference frame. Although data processing used
ground control points surveyed with a Trimble GeoExplorer GNSS receiver, for which we
expected < 10 cm errors, the resulting point clouds and DEMs showed very large (> 1 m)
differences between the 2014 and 2015 datasets, even in areas for which we were relatively sure
that no movement had occurred. This was also the case when the photogrammetric point clouds
were compared with the LiDAR point clouds, as discussed in the next section.
It is not clear what caused these discrepancies, but we suspect that our ground control point
network setup may not have been adequate for the level of precision we aimed for. Low accuracy
of the control point locations may be part of the problem, but a low number and oddly spatial
distribution can also contribute to the lack of overall precision in the geometry of the
photogrammetric point cloud. Because of this, the precision of the surface displacements
calculation results is compromised for this site. This is similar to issues we encountered at other
field sites, like those in Alaska, but contrasts with results we obtained in laboratory and field tests
when a dense enough network of high precision ground control points was established, as will be
discussed in the following section.
Most of the error seemed to vary slowly with distance, i. e. locally the errors seemed small,
which opens the possibility to apply large scale corrections to the whole dataset. A possible
workaround for this issue is to use additional post-hoc ground control points (e. g. from the
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 35
LiDAR point cloud) to “rescale” the photogrammetric point cloud, and then do the surface
comparison analysis. This could give a more or less realistic representation of the whole surface,
but it can be problematic if what we are trying to do is measure surface displacements or
changes, as it would be difficult, or impossible, to differentiate the resulting changes from
artifacts related to the data manipulation (e. g. rescaling the point cloud).
5.2.4 InSAR results for the Michigan sites
SAR imagery were processed over the entire urban metropolitan region of Detroit, Michigan in
order to examine the applicability of the PSI stacking technique toward the accomplishment of
two goals (Bouali et al., 2015). The first goal was to determine if PSI could obtain PS points on
vertical structures, such as retaining walls, along the M-10 Highway. The second goal was to
develop a methodology towards the determination of transportation asset condition from
displacement rate information.
50 ERS-1/-2 SAR images, acquired between 1992 and 2000, were processed. The PSI technique
yielded 64,256 PS points within 427 km2 (165 mi2), an average PS density of about 150 PS/km2
(Figure 16). The greatest measured subsidence (negative velocity) was approximately 4.2
mm/year and the greatest measured uplift (positive velocity) was approximately 4.0 mm/year,
over the span of nine years.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 36
Figure 16 - PSI results over the metropolitan Detroit, MI area. 64,256 PS points were obtained
over an area of 427 km2 (165 mi2).
The first goal - acquiring PS points on vertical structures - was unsuccessful. In general, PSI
could be useful in determining the horizontal component of motion on vertical structures. This
would require optimal orientation of both the satellite LOS and the strike of the retaining wall. If
properly aligned, radar waves can double bounce - first reflect off the horizontal pavement and
then reflect off the vertical retaining wall - and, assuming the pavement has not moved, any
detectable movement will belong to the retaining wall. Unfortunately in the case of the M-10
Highway retaining walls, the exposed side of the retaining walls were not oriented properly with
respect to the satellite LOS and, therefore, was the probable reason why no PS points were
obtained on these specific structures. However, many other structures in the metropolitan Detroit
area were detected using PSI.
The second goal - determining an asset’s condition via PSI processing results - was more
successful. Structures such as buildings, bridges, overpasses, and signs, among many other
assets, were detected (Figure 17). The myriad of PS points along some structures allowed for the
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 37
calculation of secondary products, such as differential velocity (Figure 18). Differential velocity
is the range of average velocity values measured along one asset, or put simply:
Differential Velocity = Maximum Velocity - Minimum Velocity
The differential velocity is calculated across each asset and is an indirect measurement of the
internal strain or variability of external forces being applied spatially across an asset. The same
concept can be applied to differential displacement (Figure 19). In general, differential
displacement and/or velocity calculations can give insight into the amount of deformation
occurring across/within an asset over a desirable length of time.
Figure 17 - A railroad overpass in the metropolitan Detroit, MI area with 32 PS points obtained
on the eastern bridge and 12 PS points obtained on the western bridge.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 38
Figure 18 - PSI results at the highway intersection of I-96 and M-39 in Michigan (left).
Differential velocity calculated for each PS point cluster (corresponding to an asset) at the
highway intersection (right).
Figure 19 - Differential velocity (left) and differential displacement (right) at the highway
intersection of I-96 and M-39. Both secondary products calculated from InSAR PSI results shown
in Figure 18.
5.2.5 Photogrammetry results for the M-10 highway site
Digital photogrammetry applied to the retaining walls along the M-10 highway site in Detroit,
Michigan, also produce high density point clouds (> 1000 points per m2), collected at three
different times in 2014. Due to the expected type of movement and the relative simple geometry
of the retaining walls (planar or quasi-planar) the analysis was focused on measuring surface
movements perpendicular to the retaining wall.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 39
Results show movements on the order of 2 cm perpendicular to the wall (see figure 20). There is
clearly also a significant amount of noise present, but assuming that the wall behaves as a rigid
plane, the noise can be averaged out and a much more precise measurement can be estimated.
Figure 20. Retaining wall displacement between March and June 2014, at the M-10 field site in
Detroit, Michigan.
Figure 21 shows an example of the residuals obtained from estimating the wall movement, for
both segments of retaining wall shown in figure 20. Although the residuals show a significant
dispersion around a mean value, following an approximate normal distribution, it is clear that
mean value is distinctly different from zero, implying a movement of both wall sections. The
right wall section shows a positive (towards the camera) and larger movement (green histogram
in figure 22), while the left section shows a smaller negative (away from the camera) movement
(blue histogram in figure 22). Whether both apparent movements are real with respect to the
actual surrounding terrain is difficult to tell, as no ground control points were placed on the wall
sections that showed such displacements.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 40
Figure 21. Differences in wall point (pixel) positions between March and June 2014, for a
retaining wall section at the M-10 test site. The blue histogram shows the distribution of
differences for the left section of retaining wall shown in figure 20, while the green histogram
show the distribution of differences for the right wall section in figure 20. Light blue and light
green vertical lines indicate the mean values for both distributions.
Although the absolute movement with respect to external ground control points cannot be
calculated, the relative movement between wall sections (2 to 3 cm) seems to be real, also
corroborated from field observations of the relative displacement of the concrete slabs. An
improvement on this method would be to include control points located on the moving walls,
which could also be surveyed with a high precision method, e. g. total station surveying, to
confirm that the observed movements are real.
5.2.6 InSAR results for the Alaska sites
InSAR stacking results from the Trans Alaska Pipeline were unsuccessful (Bouali et al., 2014).
Coherence maps show abundant areas of low coherence along the Treasure Creek segment of the
pipeline (Figure 22). There may be three external factors contributing to the extensive low
coherence: geometry of the pipeline, orientation of the pipeline, and vegetation. Geometry may
play a role because the pipeline - a long, thin, linear structure - does not occupy a lot of space
within one SAR image pixel, which in this case were obtained from ERS-1/-2 and ENVISAT;
each pixel was 400 m2 (20 x 20 m). The pipeline probably took up 15% of the pixel area (if we
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 41
assume the pipeline is centered within the pixel, 20 m in length, and 3 m wide). The remaining
85% of the pixel composed of a dirt road and vegetation, which mainly results in noise. The
orientation of the pipeline may also be problematic. For this specific, case where satellite
acquisitions were in the descending direction (north to south), the transmit radar waves would
need to reflect off the east side of the pipeline for optimal radar return. Unfortunately, vegetation
was adjacent to the east side of the pipeline and the dirt road was adjacent to the west side of the
pipeline, meaning the likelihood of a double bounce reflection off the road and pipeline was
minimal and, instead, more complex reflections from the vegetation-road-pipeline system would
need to occur. Vegetation, of course, reduces the coherence within a pixel due to volumetric
scattering properties of tall, dense trees surrounding the pipeline.
Figure 22 - InSAR coherence maps over Treasure Creek site along the Trans Alaska Pipeline.
5.2.7 Photogrammetry results for the Alaska sites
Photogrammetry results from test sites along the Trans Alaska Pipeline included very extensive
point clouds that stretched over more than 1000 meters, with high point densities (> 1000 points
per m2). Comparison of point clouds from data gathered in 2014 and 2015 showed some large
distortions (> 1 m) that were not believed to represent real surface movement, but artifacts due to
the data processing and errors inherent to it. Data processing included ground control points
provided by one of the project partners, however the point densities may not have been high
enough to produce precise enough point locations. Remediation measures were taken to improve
the quality of the point cloud locations, including rescaling one point cloud to better match the
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 42
other, reprocessing smaller sections of the pipeline individually to avoid long scale artifacts, and
using tie points from one point cloud as control points to generate the second point cloud. Some
of these measures improved the results, but it is unclear whether they may have also introduced
artifacts, and produced false apparent ground displacement.
Ground displacement was estimated by the DEM differences and ICP methods, as described in
section 5.2.2 for LiDAR point clouds. Elevation value differences from DEMs generated from
the point clouds suggests that movements in excess of 10 cm happened in some parts of the
hillslope on which the pipeline is located at the Lost Creek site (see figure 23).
Figure 22. The left panel shows an orthophotography of a section of the pipeline and adjacent
workpad at Lost Creek, generated from the digital photogrammetry. The right panel show the
vertical change in DEM elevations between our data acquisitions from 2014 and 2015 at the
same location.
The ICP method also produced similar displacements in the vertical and the horizontal (see
figure 23).
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 43
Figure 23. Surface displacement measured from the 2014 and 2015 digital photogrammetry
point clouds generated for the Lost Creek field site. The upper panel shows the point cloud
model of the pipeline and adjacent workpad. The lower panel shows the point cloud with
displacement vectors superimposed as blue arrows.
Points on the pipeline can be compared to points on the adjacent workpad, to estimate the
relative movement of the pipeline with respect to the workpad surface (e. g. the pipeline
subsiding or being ejected out of the ground). Figure 24 shows two parallel longitudinal
elevation change profiles, one runs along the pipeline top, and the other one runs on the adjacent
workpad. The pipeline show many discontinuities due to the difficulty in some instance to
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 44
resolve the very uniform and reflective surface by the digital photogrammetry. Despite the local
variations and differences, both profiles show a similar trend, as one would expect if both moved
together.
Figure 24. Longitudinal elevation change profiles along the pipeline top and along the adjacent
workpad. Notice the similar trend for both.
Using the workpad elevation changes it is possible to estimate the relative movement of the
pipelines with respect to the workpad (figure 25). The results however are very noisy, and it is
unclear whether they represent actual movements of the pipeline with respect to the terrain
surface. It is possible that most, if not all the variability seen corresponds to changes in the soil
surface layer covering the workpad, however long wavelength variations are also apparent. It is
unclear whether such long wavelength features are real or not. A fourth order polynomial curve
fitter to the data helps visualize the long wavelength component of the apparent relative
movement.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 45
Figure 25. Relative vertical movement of the pipeline top with respect to the adjacent workpad
Such results should be interpreted with caution, as there are no independent ground control
measurements for the displacement, and some of the steps that were taken to improve the data
may have introduced some artifacts (see section 6.3 for a detailed discussion on this). If our
conclusions from comparing the data with LiDAR point clouds are correct the observed
displacements may not be real. More work is necessary to guarantee that the method can resolve
such surface displacements. Better ground control is required for this, as explained in the next
subsection for the case of the laboratory tests.
5.2.8 Photogrammetry results for the scaled model laboratory tests
Both LiDAR and digital photogrammetry data were acquired for the scaled model of retaining
walls in the laboratory setup, producing high density (> 10,000 points per m2) point clouds. High
precision ground control points were also established for the setup, allowing to test the precision
and quality of the data. Displacements up to 12 cm were tested, including complex deformations
(e. g. flexural deformation) of the boards simulating the retaining walls. Digital photogrammetric
processing was done with two software packages, Photoscan (Agisoft, 2016), and Pix4D Mapper
(Pix4D, 2016).
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 46
Figure 26 shows the resulting displacement maps for one of the tested scenarios. The figure
shows a comparison between the Photoscan and Pix4D results, and it can be seen that differences
between the outputs of both software packages are small.
Figure 26. Comparison of displacements measured with two different photogrammetric
software packages. The test setup consists of two boards (1.25 x 2 m) next to each other, for
which the relative positions were changed, simulating different scenarios of retaining wall
movement. Displacements are shown as a color scale and iso-displacement contours, both in
centimeters. The left panel shows the results obtained with software Photoscan, and the right
panel shows the results obtained with software Pix4D. Although some differences are apparent,
the results generally agree within 1 to 2 cm.
For errors produced by photogrammetric processing of a stereo-pair of images (Wolf and Dewitt,
2000), it is possible to show that the error in the direction of the line of sight (or depth resolution)
increases as a function of the squared value of the distance to the surface (see figure 27). This
means that the precision can quickly degrade with distance, but this can be somewhat mitigated
increasing the “base distance” (the distance between locations at which the images are taken),
and increasing the focal length of the camera lens. For multi-view digital photogrammetry the
errors can also be reduced by increasing the number of images that overlap at a single location.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 47
Figure 27. Reduction in depth resolving power of a classic stereoscopic photogrammetric system,
using the camera, lens and distances of our laboratory experiments. The minimum depth that can
be resolved increases with the square of the distance to the surface.
When compared with the ground control data, the displacements estimated from the
photogrammetric dataset match closely the displacement measured at the control points, with
errors typically less than 2 cm, and less than 3.5 cm in all the tested cases. Figure 28 shows the
displacements values of the ground control points for several experiments, measured with high
precision total station instruments, compared with measurements of those control points obtained
from the photogrammetric point clouds.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 48
Figure 28. Displacements (upper panel) and displacement errors (lower panel) for several test
scenarios of the laboratory setup discussed in the text.
The results of the laboratory scaled model show that under ideal conditions high precision results
are possible. Unfortunately we cannot establish a similar certainty about the data quality for our
other field tests, given that we don’t have independently measured surface displacements.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 49
6. Comparison of results with ground control data and inter-comparison of methods
6.1 InSAR results for the Nevada sites
Results from InSAR stacking procedures are able to replicate field observations and LiDAR data
– at the very least to the extent of where ground displacement is occurring – so we then applied
the PSI technique as a reconnaissance method on the regional-scale.
The regional-scale PSI analysis was performed to establish the potential for InSAR to be used as
a tool for preventative asset management. The 13 hazard zones shown in Figure 12 were
identified using remote sensing datasets – a digital elevation model (DEM) derived from the
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission in 2000 and the ENVISAT radar images described above –
based on three criteria.
Slope Height. The slope height is a geometric factor that measures the vertical distance between
toe of the slope and the highest point. A slope height of 15.25 m was used as the minimum
threshold. Compared to previous rockfall hazard rating systems, a slope of this height would
receive a medium hazard score for this rating criterion (Pierson et al., 1990).
Slope Distance. The slope distance is another geometric factor that measures the horizontal
distance between the edge of the railroad tracks and the highest point of the slope. A maximum
threshold of 30.5 m was used. The slope distance criterion is a simplified version of the ditch
effectiveness variable used in many rockfall hazard rating systems (Pierson et al., 1990).
Displacement Rate. The displacement rate is an average velocity measurement calculated by the
PSI technique. A displacement rate criterion that covers such a long timeframe has not been
widely used in previous rockfall hazard rating systems. Most rating systems record slope
movements after single landslide events or attempt to measure the frequency of rocks falling into
roadways (Pierson et al., 1990; ODOT, 2001; Liang, 2007). Most of the PS points along the
railroad corridor are not moving significantly, as 92.57% (12,447 of 13,446 points) are within ±
2 mm/year. Therefore, slopes with PS points measuring 2mm/year or more of downslope (AFS)
velocity were considered potentially hazardous.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 50
The 13 hazard zones identified in Figure 12 are all slopes that are at least 15.25 m tall, with the
highest point of the slope within 30.5 m from the railroad tracks, and exhibiting at least 2
mm/year of downslope (AFS) movement. Although these criteria are quite basic compared to the
criteria used in many existing rockfall hazard rating systems (Pierson et al., 1990; Lowell &
Morin, 2000; ODOT, 2001; Pack & Boie, 2002; Maerz et al., 2005; MacDonald, 2006; Liang,
2007; Mauldon et al., 2007; NYSDOT, 2007; Huang et al., 2009), two advantages can be
immediately established: (1) this approach is quantitative as opposed to qualitative, and (2)
hazard zones, that pose a potential risk to the railroad corridor, were identified using remote
sensing datasets and required no field work.
It is quite difficult to quantitatively compare satellite-based InSAR results to terrestrial LiDAR
and terrestrial/aerial optical photogrammetry results. This is mostly due to data acquisition and
view angles: each remote sensing technique measures deformation rates in its respective LOS
direction. Satellite-based platforms measure deformation in the near-vertical vector, terrestrial
platforms in the near-horizontal, and aerial platforms somewhere in between. Therefore, the
apparent magnitude of ground deformation will not be equivalent if measured simultaneously by
all three techniques. For example, horizontal creep of slope will be more visible to terrestrial
LiDAR/optical/InSAR platforms, less so to aerial LiDAR/optical platforms, and almost
undetectable to satellite-based InSAR platforms. Another quantitative difficulty arises in spatial
resolution. In general, spatial resolution becomes coarser the farther away the sensor is from the
target (this statement is highly simplified). In the case of the Nevada site, the ground resolution
for satellite-based InSAR is 20 m, while for the terrestrial LiDAR it is on the cm scale. It is
difficult to directly compare results when one technique (LiDAR) yields about 4,000,000 data
points for every one InSAR data point.
InSAR has been more successfully compared to permanent terrestrial stations that measure
ground deformation (e.g., continuous GPS), which measure three-dimensional deformation rates.
These robust ground-confirmation techniques eliminate the LOS problem because deformation
vectors may be calculated for any LOS direction and, therefore, can be directly compared to
InSAR results.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 51
Although there are limitations to the quantitative comparison of satellite-based InSAR to
terrestrial- or aerial-based techniques, qualitative comparisons are definitely appropriate. In the
case of the Nevada site, for example, areas of historic landslide movement that were identified
using InSAR were later examined and confirmed by field crews (Bouali et al., 2016a; Bouali et
al., 2016b).
6.2. Photogrammetry and LiDAR results for the Nevada sites
Digital photogrammetric and LiDAR point cloud datasets acquired at the same time for the
Nevada test site can be compared, as has been mentioned in sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. Locally, the
LiDAR and photogrammetry point clouds are overall very similar, and the differences for
datasets collected at the same time are relatively small (see figure 29).
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 52
Figure 29. Comparison between LiDAR and digital photogrammetry point clouds. The upper
left panel shows a hillshade image derived from a LiDAR dataset of a rock surface at the
Nevada test site. The upper right panel shows the hillshade image derived from a digital
photogrammetry point cloud for the same rock slope. Both the LiDAR and the digital
photogrammetry datasets were acquired at the same time. The lower panel shows the
differences between both datasets, which commonly fall within 10 to 20 cm of each other.
At relatively small scales of 10 to 20 meters point clouds can be made to fit relatively well,
usually within 10 cm of each other (see figure 30), comparable to what can be accomplished
between LiDAR point clouds.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 53
Figure 30. Distribution of differences between LiDAR and digital photogrammetry datasets,
covering the area shown in figure 29.
Figure 31 shows a profile across part of the rock slope (the area shown in figure 29) and it is
apparent that over the scale of the profile (~ 20 m) the datasets can be made to match closely
(within 10 - 20 cm). Over the scale of the profile (~ 19 m) there is little scale change and the
datasets seem to agree overall relatively well.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 54
Figure 31. Comparison of LiDAR and digital photogrammetry datasets for the area shown in
figures 29 and 30. The upper panel shows the profiles derived from each dataset, along a rock
surface at the Nevada test site. The lower panel shows the differences between both profiles.
However for larger distances the photogrammetric point clouds do not properly scale with the
LiDAR point clouds. Over the 125 m distance across the entire rock outcrop cumulative
differences between photogrammetric and LiDAR point clouds amounted to > 1 meter (up to 1.2
meters in the cases we measured), and typically amounted to 1% of the distance between
measured points, whereas differences in LiDAR point clouds from different acquisitions and
instruments over distance up to 200 m were usually within 20 cm (0.1 %). Although it is possible
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 55
that the error could be attributed to the LiDAR dataset, the agreement within ~ 20 cm between
LiDAR point clouds from different times, acquired by different teams, with different
instruments, and from different surveying positions, makes a strong case for the relative
reliability of those datasets, which further agrees with the LiDAR results reported in the
literature (Derron and Jaboyedoff, 2010; Jaboyedoff et al. 2012). Other physical constraints, like
the unlikely scenario that the rail tracks next to the rock slope would have expanded
longitudinally more than 1 meter over the 125 meters that the point clouds run parallel to the
track, further suggest that it was the photogrammetric dataset which had the large errors.
The apparently large cumulative errors in the photogrammetry point clouds may be related to the
location of control points, or perhaps more importantly, their density. The implications for
measuring terrain deformation are not clear, but no clear surface displacement signal could be
observed above the potentially high error levels of > 1 m, if displacements smaller than this
happened they would not be discernible from the error or artifacts induced to try to mitigate the
errors. Unfortunately this preclude us to make further conclusions about the specific case study
at the Nevada test site.
6.3 Photogrammetry and LiDAR results for the Alaska sites
Photogrammetry and LiDAR data for the Alaska sites do not allow for a direct comparison of the
deformation measurements, as the LiDAR dataset corresponds to only one time, which did not
coincide with our digital photogrammetry data acquisition. These datasets however were used to
assess the precision and quality of the photogrammetric point clouds. Aerial LiDAR data with a
~ 2 points per m2 density for the Treasure Creek site, and high resolution terrestrial LiDAR for
the Lost Creek site, provided by a project partner, were used in the analysis (see figure 32).
Comparing the one time LiDAR data with our point clouds yields similar results to those from
comparing LiDAR and digital photogrammetry point clouds for the Nevada test site.
Large discrepancies up to 16.7 meters in magnitude were observed for the longest (1698 m
length) segments of data acquired along the Treasure Creek pipeline section, when compared
with and aerial LiDAR dataset. Vertical deviations were > 10 meters in some locations (see
figure 32). This discrepancy corresponds to a relative cumulative error of 0.98%, similar to the ~
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 56
1% error seen at the Nevada test site. Such discrepancies which were both in the horizontal and
vertical directions (see figure 32), and it seem extremely unlikely that they would be actual
surface displacement, but rather artifacts of the data. Discrepancies between the 2014 and 2015
digital photogrammetry datasets were also of similar magnitude (up to 11 meters) and therefore
support the notion that the effect is not an error of the LiDAR dataset against which the
photogrammetry data were compared, but an error of the photogrammetric point clouds.
Figure 32. Comparison of LiDAR and digital photogrammetry data along the pipeline and
workpad at the Treasure Creek field site. The upper panel shows the longitudinal profiles for
both datasets, and the lower panel shows their differences.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 57
Extending the dataset to such extreme lengths may seem overambitious and begs the question of
whether it may not be realistic to expect good results over such long distances, but it may still be
useful to apply the method over shorter distances, especially in areas that may show significant
movement on the steeper segments of the hillslope. Measurements over shorter distance on the
steepest part of the hillside unfortunately gave a similar range of relative errors; over a distance
of 444.8 m on the steep hillslope and down to the stable part of the terrain we found
discrepancies up to 2.66 m, equivalent to a 0.6 % error, which although smaller than the ~ 1 %
relative error seen in other cases, is still much too large to measure the expected sub-meter
surface displacements. Further evidence for an error accumulation for digital photogrammetry
datasets comes from comparing the distances between VSMs along the Treasure Creek segment
of pipeline. Figure 33 shows the correlation between distance among 47 VSMs (all possible pair
combinations) and the differences of those distances, as measured from the digital
photogrammetry datasets in 2014 and 2015. If errors were independent from distance (i. e. error
did not accumulate) there would be no correlation. Figure 33 also shows that the error pattern
can be de-trended, but applying that fix to the data may also erase real surface movement
signatures, defeating the purpose of measuring terrain displacement.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 58
Figure 33. Correlation between errors and distances for all pairwise combinations of 47 VSM
locations along the pipeline at the Treasure Creek field site. Upper left panel shows the
correlation between errors and distance, with the best fit (least squares) line through the data.
The upper right panel shows the percent error distribution around - 1 %, which corresponds to
the slope of the correlation plot on the upper left panel. The lower left panel shows the
correlation between errors and distances after the data have been rescaled by the relative
error factor (1 %), and the lower right panel shows the relative errors after applying the
correction.
Better ground control point networks, especially with a higher point density, for both the
processing of the digital photogrammetric point clouds, and as independent dataset to assess the
actual movement are needed to further develop the method at sites like those surveyed in Alaska.
7 Limitations and challenges of the methods
7.1 InSAR
Six limitations that may directly affect the efficacy of InSAR, especially towards asset
management, are listed below. Other limitations - such as atmospheric delay effects,
decorrelation due to water moisture variability, and poor data coverage in some areas (e.g.,
InSAR stacking techniques require at least 20 SAR images from a repeat orbit and the minimum
image requirement may not be met in some regions for specific satellites) - are not discussed
below as these are inherent in the procedure, but are well-documented and discussed extensively
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 59
in other literature (Ferretti et al. 2000; Ferretti et al. 2001; Dzurisin & Lu 2007; Crosetto et al.
2010; Ferretti et al. 2011; Escobar-Wolf et al. 2014). The first five limitations can affect asset
management efforts at an asset-by-asset scale; the final limitation discusses the steep learning
curve for users inexperienced with slant-range radar techniques.
● Pixel (Spatial) Resolution. Historical (archival) datasets from the 1990s and early 2000s
were acquired at a pretty coarse resolution. Depending on the acquisition mode, ERS-1
(1992-2000), ERS-2 (1995-2011), ENVISAT (2003-2011) could achieve a ground
resolution of ~25 m, JERS-1 (1992-1998) could achieve a resolution of ~18 m,
RADARSAT-1 (1995-2013) could achieve a resolution of ~10 m, and ALOS PALSAR
(2006-2011) could achieve a resolution of ~7 m. In terms of asset management
applications, the obvious problem with these datasets is that relatively small assets, such
as retaining walls or drainage systems, could not be differentiated from one another (if
grouped together) or from its surroundings. There have been drastic improvements in
ground resolution with currently-deployed satellites: Sentinel-1 (2014-present) can
achieve 4-m resolution, RADARSAT-2 (2007-present) can achieve a resolution of ~3 m,
and Cosmo-SkyMed (2007-present), TerraSAR-X (2007-present), KOMPSAT-5 (2013-
present), and ALOS PALSAR-2 (2014-present) all have 1-m resolution capabilities.
Many upcoming satellites boast similar high-resolution capabilities, with the TerraSAR-
NG (2017-?) claiming 25 cm as its highest resolution.
● Revisitation Period. Revisit period, or the amount of time between acquisitions over the
same area from the same track, is important because the greater the amount of time
between acquisitions (aka lower temporal resolution), the likelihood that more ‘change’
has occurred is greater. This leads to a higher chance of decorrelation between images.
Historic satellites had large revisit periods: 24 days for RADARSAT-1; 35 days for ERS-
1, ERS-2, and ENVISAT; 44 days for JERS-1; 46 days for ALOS PALSAR. Present
satellites are sometimes better: 11 days for TerraSAR-X; 12 days for Sentinel-1; 14 days
for ALOS PALSAR-2; 16 days for Cosmo-SkyMed; 24 days for RADARSAT-2; 28 days
for KOMPSAT-5. But futures missions plan to shave the re-visitation period down to less
than 1 week (Sentinel-1 in constellation and Cosmo-SkyMed 2nd Generation) and, in the
case of the TerraSAR-NG constellation, to ~10 hours.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 60
● LOS Direction. All displacement rate measurements are made in the slant-range, in the
LOS direction, which generally varies with an incidence angle of 20°-35° from nadir
(depending on the satellite). With a slant-range view comes image distortions in areas
with topographic relief. Foreshortening will occur when the radar beam reaches the base
of a tall feature before it reaches the top. Layover will occur when the radar beam reaches
the top of a tall features before it reaches the bottom. Both distortions – foreshortening
and layover – result in some sort of shadow zone in the radar image. Shadow zones have
no radar information, so any assets located in shadow zones will be unmanageable by
radar interferometry.
● Vegetation. Assets covered in vegetation (e.g., slopes and embankments) may be difficult
to monitor because vegetation scatters radar waves in a random fashion. Relatively short
radar wavelengths (X and C Band) tend to yield a noisy phase component over successive
acquisitions and, therefore, radar interferometry does not work well. Longer wavelengths
(S, L, and P Band), however, can penetrate vegetation and are more capable of yielding
usable results on vegetation-covered assets.
● Upper Limit on Measureable Displacement Rates. Depending on the interferometric
technique coupled with the wavelength of the radar acquisition system, there may be an
upper limit on measureable displacement rates. For example, C Band radar systems
cannot detect movements that are too quick while using interferometric stacking methods,
and have difficulty measuring rates greater than 4-5 cm/year (Crosetto et al., 2010).
● Steep Learning Curve for Processing and Interpretation. The processing of slant-
range, satellite-based synthetic aperture radar data and the interpretation of the results
may be difficult for users who have not had proper training. Many training sessions and
tutorials have been offered with descriptions like “The large number of processing steps
can steepen the learning curve to the point of preventing use of radar imagery for
researchers new to the field” (Osmanoglu, 2014). The learning curve has even been
discussed in the acknowledgements section of a thesis: “I would like to thank Dr.
Rosenblad… He has been extremely patient during the steep learning curve required for
this work…” (Jenkins, 2013).
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 61
7.2 LiDAR and digital photogrammetry
The tests conducted in this study focus mainly on comparing digital photogrammetry to
terrestrial and aerial LiDAR, and consider LiDAR as a standard against which the
photogrammetric data are compared. Limitations on the applications of LiDAR have been
extensively documented in the literature, from the general considerations of the method, e. g.
Shan and Toth (2008), to specific applications to slope stability and landslide problems, e. g.
Derron and Jaboyedoff, 2010; Jaboyedoff et al. (2012). Our results broadly agree with those
studies.
None of the field sites we surveyed seems to have moved excessively during the time over which
we conducted the study, and in many cases no surface movement could be detected above the
noise level of the LiDAR instrument. LiDAR data from Nevada collected prior to the project and
analyzed as part of it, show that displacements on the order of 10 cm could easily be resolved by
the LiDAR dataset, but it may be difficult to resolve movements much smaller than that (< 2 - 3
cm).
Terrestrial LiDAR is currently the only platform that provides high enough precision to detect
small surface movements, but in steep areas, terrestrial LiDAR may require a large field effort to
cover an entire slope. Comparable high precision UAV based LiDAR systems are not yet
available, but may become available in the future, and would fill this gap. Although at close
range LiDAR point clouds can produce very high surface point densities (> 10,000 points per
m2), as points diverge and become more sparse with distance, the point densities can drop below
100 points per m2, which may still be a very high density, compared to other methods, but may
be insufficient for reconstructing the surface with enough detail to detect cm scale movements.
Considerations of LiDAR equipment cost and operation have also been considered somewhere
else (Escobar-Wolf et al., 2015) and can become a limiting when operation with marginal
budgets.
Digital photogrammetry limitations are less well documented and still being investigated by the
scientific and academic community. Results from this study show an overall lower performance
of digital photogrammetry, defined in terms of its precision to measure surface displacements,
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 62
when compared with LiDAR, under the conditions that were tested in the field. Errors larger than
20 cm were common in field tests, and seem to scale with the size of the surveyed area, remained
roughly around 1% of the distance between points in a surveyed area. Errors of such magnitude
will prevent measuring all but the most extreme (meter scale) surface displacements.
However, laboratory scaled model tests show that optical photogrammetry may have the
potential to produce results that are comparable in precision and overall quality than LiDAR,
under adequate control conditions. Incorporating a high density of precise ground control points
can improve the quality of the digital photogrammetry results. This however is not a trivial task,
as establishing such high density ground control networks can involve intensive and expensive
surveying efforts, and could lead to the question of why using digital photogrammetry in the first
place, if traditional surveying methods (e. g. surveying of the ground control points using a total
station) have to be used to establish the ground control. One obvious answer to that challenge is
that digital photogrammetry could have the potential to produce very high density point clouds,
that cannot be produced through some of the methods used to establish the ground control.
It may have become apparent that LiDAR and digital photogrammetry seem to overlap quite
extensively in their applications to assess and monitor geotechnical assets surfaces. But each
method has strengths and weaknesses that do not overlap. Although terrestrial LiDAR can
produce very precise point clouds, the equipment tends to be more cumbersome and expensive to
acquire and operate, compared with the equipment used for digital photogrammetry. The quality
of digital photogrammetry end products (e. g. surface displacement measurements) seems to be
very sensitive to the precision and density of ground control points, and seems therefore to not be
as independent of a method for surveying as LiDAR is. However, digital photogrammetry is a
still developing and evolving field, which may see many improvements in the near future.
Possible advances in the near future may include onboard, or camera integrated RTK GPS
systems, which may reduce the dependence on external surveying procedures to establish ground
control for the digital photogrammetry method. Optical photogrammetry may be viewed as an
alternative to LiDAR under some circumstances, but cannot be considered a substitute for it at
this point.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 63
8. Conclusions and recommendations: what methods seem more appropriate for what
applications?
Measuring the surface displacement of geotechnical assets using remote sensing methods is
possible over a wide range of displacement values, and over a wide variety of asset types and
sizes. Different methods can be applied to different assets, targeting different displacement
expectations. Extensive assets that may show very little displacement (only a few mm/year)
leading up to severe or even catastrophic failure, may be suitable to be monitored with satellite
InSAR methods. InSAR works well in urban regions where anthropogenic structures (e.g.,
buildings, bridges, and other three-dimensional surfaces) consistently reflect adequate radar
waves over long periods of time (e.g., 5+ years). High point densities (>200 PS points/km2) are
attainable in urban regions. However, in rural regions, where vegetation cover and complex
topography cover and shape much of the ground surface, InSAR does not perform as well.
Relatively low point densities (10-50 PS points/km2) may be a result and a limiting constraint for
InSAR, when detailed information of the displacement field is needed.
Assets that have been defined over a more reduced area, perhaps after an initial screening
process, in some cases involving InSAR measurements of surface displacements, can be
monitored with finer scale remote sensing methods, like LiDAR and digital photogrammetry. If
relatively high precision is needed to resolve displacements of less than a few centimeters,
terrestrial LiDAR may be the method of choice. Costs, both as an initial investment and longer
term operation, or subcontracting costs, may be a limiting factor for LiDAR. Access to the site,
especially in steep terrain, may also be challenging for terrestrial LiDAR operation, and may
increase the cost, of an already expensive method.
If surveying capabilities are available to establish good ground control points (assuming the asset
and surrounding terrain also allows for it), digital photogrammetry may be the best option, at a
fraction of the cost of LiDAR, but always considering the cost of the ground control surveying. If
less precision is required due to large movements or changes in the asset’s surface (or
applications other than precise surface movement monitoring, e. g. generating high resolution
DEMs), digital photogrammetry, even without high precision ground control, may be an option.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 64
In general, for the purpose of geotechnical asset management, different methods may be applied
at different steps in the process. Understanding the advantages and limitations of each will ensure
an optimal use of them. Furthermore, as digital photogrammetry improves and perhaps
technological advances allow it to become more independent of ground control surveying
procedures, it may become a more versatile and widely used method for precise surface
displacement analysis.
9. References
Askne, J.I.H., P.B.G. Dammert, and G. Smith, “Understanding ERS InSAR coherence of boreal
forests.” Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 1999, Vol. 4 (1999): 2111-2114.
Agisoft, L. L. C., and Agisoft. PhotoScan User Manual. "Professional Edition." Version 1.2.
(2016): Agisoft LLC.
Besl, Paul J., and Neil D. McKay. "Method for registration of 3-D shapes." Robotics-DL
tentative. International Society for Optics and Photonics, (1992): 586-606.
Bouali, El Hachemi, Rüdiger Escobar-Wolf, and Thomas Oommen, “Interferometric Synthetic
Aperture Radar Applied to Geotechnical Asset Management in Transportation Environments.”
(2014) AEG 57th Annual Meeting, Sept 21-27, Scottsdale, AZ.
Bouali, El Hachemi, Thomas Oommen, and Rüdiger Escobar-Wolf, “Can we extract information
regarding transportation asset condition from satellite-based radar interferometric data?” (2015)
AEG 58th Annual Meeting, Sept 20-26, Pittsburgh, PA.
Bouali, El Hachemi, Thomas Oommen, and Rüdiger Escobar-Wolf, “Interferometric Stacking
toward Geohazard Identification and Geotechnical Asset Monitoring” Journal of Infrastructure
Systems, (2016a): 12 p. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000281.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 65
Bouali, El Hachemi, Thomas Oommen, Stanley Vitton, Rüdiger Escobar-Wolf, and Colin
Brooks, “Remotely-sensed imagery and field data used for a Rockfall Hazard Rating System”
(2016b): under review.
Bürgmann, R., P.A. Rosen, and E.J. Fielding. “Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry to
Measure Earth’s Surface Topography and its Deformation.” Annual Review of Earth and
Planetary Sciences, Vol. 28, (2000): 169-209.
Cerminaro, Daniel J. "Implementation of photogrammetry to improve proactive assessment of
retaining walls along transportation corridors." MS Thesis. Michigan Technological University.
(2014). 68 pp.
Chen, Yang, and Gérard Medioni. "Object modelling by registration of multiple range images."
Image and vision computing 10.3 (1992): 145-155.
Crosetto, M., O. Monserrat, R. Iglesias, and B. Crippa, “Persistent scatterer interferometry:
Potential, limits and initial C- and X-band comparison.” Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing, Vol. 76, No. 9 (2010): 1061-1069.
Cutrona, L.J., “Synthetic aperture radar” in Radar Handbook, second edition, Chapter 21, ed. M.
Skolnik, McGraw-Hill, New York (1990).
Derron, M-H., and M. Jaboyedoff. "Preface" LIDAR and DEM techniques for landslides
monitoring and characterization"." Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 10.9 (2010):
1877-1879.
Dzurisin, D. and Z. Lu, “Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar” in Volcano Deformation:
Geodetic Monitoring Techniques, Chapter 5, ed. D. Dzurisin, Springer-Praxis Publishing Ltd.,
United Kingdom (2007).
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 66
Escobar-Wolf, Rüdiger, El Hachemi Bouali, Samantha Justice, Daniel Cerminaro, Thomas
Oommen, and Stanley Vitton, “Performance rating of geotechnical assets using remotely
measured displacement.” Deliverables 4-A & 4-B USDOT Project RITARS-14-H-MTU, (2015):
48 p.
Escobar-Wolf, Rüdiger, El Hachemi Bouali, Thomas Oommen, Daniel Cerminaro, Keith
Cunningham, Richard Dobson, and Colin Brooks, “Candidate Remote Sensing Techniques for
the Different Transportation Environments, Requirements, Platforms, and Optimal Data Fusion
Methods for Assessing the State of Geotechnical Assets.” Deliverable 2-A USDOT Project
RITARS-14-H-MTU, (2014): 46 p.
Ferretti, A., A. Fumagalli, F. Novali, C. Prati, F. Rocca, and A. Rucci, “A New Algorithm for
Processing Interferometric Data-Stacks: SqueeSAR.” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, Vol. 49, No. 9 (2011): 3460-3470.
Ferretti, A., C. Prati, and F. Rocca, “Nonlinear subsidence rate estimation using permanent
scatterers in differential SAR interferometry.” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, Vol. 38, No. 5 (2000): 2202-2212.
Ferretti, A., C. Prati, and F. Rocca, “Permanent Scatterers in SAR Interferometry.” IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 39, No. 1 (2001): 8-20.
Huang, S.L., M.M. Darrow, and P. Calvin. “Unstable Slope Management Program: Background
Research and Program Inception, Phase I Final Report.” Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (2009).
Jaboyedoff, Michel, et al. "Use of LIDAR in landslide investigations: a review." Natural hazards
61.1 (2012): 5-28.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 67
Jansson, P. O. (2013). “Preliminary Findings of Retaining Wall Investigation, W2 of 82-22-12
Northbound M-10 North of Schaefer Highway, City of Detroit”. Michigan Department of
Transportation (MDOT), Southfield, MI.
Jenkins, W.S. “Evaluation of Ground-Based Interferometric Radar for Civil Engineering
Applications.” Master’s Thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia (2013): 152 p.
Justice, Samantha M. “Application of a Hazard Rating System for Rock Slopes along a
Transportation Corridor using Remote Sensing”, Master’s report, Michigan Technological
University (2015): 86 p.
Liang, R.Y. “Landslide Hazard Rating Matrix and Database.” Federal Highway Administration,
Publication No. FHWA/OH-2007/18 (2007).
Lin, Yi, Juha Hyyppä, and Anttoni Jaakkola. "Mini-UAV-borne LIDAR for fine-scale mapping."
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, IEEE 8.3 (2011): 426-430.
Linder, Wilfried. Digital photogrammetry: theory and applications. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2013.
Lowell, S. and P. Morin. “Unstable slope management - Washington state.” Transportation
Research News 207 (2000): 11-15.
Lucieer, Arko, Steven de Jong, and Darren Turner. "Mapping landslide displacements using
Structure from Motion (SfM) and image correlation of multi-temporal UAV photography."
Progress in Physical Geography (2013): 0309133313515293.
MacDonald, D.B. “Unstable Slopes on I-90 Snoqualmie Pass: Re-assessment and
Recommendations.” Washington Department of Transportation (2006).
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 68
Maerz, N.H., A. Youssef, and T.W. Fennessey. “New risk-consequence rockfall hazard rating
system for Missouri highways using digital image analysis.” Environmental and Engineering
Geoscience, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2005): 229-249.
Mauldon, M. E. Drumm, W.M. Dunne, V. Bateman, B. Rose, and M. Kim. “Rockfall
Management System for Tennessee.” Tennessee Department of Transportation (2007).
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). “Rock Slope Rating Procedure -
Geotechnical Engineering Manual.” New York State Department of Transportation, GEM-15
(2007).
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). “Landslide and Rockfall Pilot Study (Final
Report).” Oregon Department of Transportation Geo-Hydro Section (2001).
Osmanoglu, B. “Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry.” Tutorial for Young Scientists offered
at the ISPRS TC VII Mid-term Symposium, September 29-October 2 (2014).
Pack, R.T. and K. Boie. “Utah Rockfall Hazard Inventory, Phase I.” Utah Department of
Transportation, Research Division, UT-03.01 (2002).
Pierson, L.A., S.A. Davis, and R. Van Vickle. “Rockfall Hazard Rating System Implementation
Manual.” Oregon Department of Transportation, Publication No. FHWA-OR-EG-90-01 (1990).
Sawtell, Reid, Rüdiger Escobar-Wolf, El Hachemi Bouali, Thomas Oommen, Richard Dobson,
and Colin Brooks, “A Review and Demonstration of the Geotechnical Asset Management
Decisions Support System (GAMDSS).” Deliverables 5-A & 5-B USDOT Project RITARS-14-
H-MTU, (2015) 18 p.
Shan, Jie, and Charles K. Toth, eds. Topographic laser ranging and scanning: principles and
processing. CRC press, 2008. 600 p.
Deliverable 3-A RITARS-14-H-MTU 69
Stumpf, André, et al. "Ground-based multi-view photogrammetry for the monitoring of landslide
deformation and erosion." Geomorphology 231 (2015): 130-145.
Westoby, M. J., et al. "‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for
geoscience applications." Geomorphology 179 (2012): 300-314.
Wolf, Paul R., and Bon A. Dewitt. Elements of Photogrammetry: with applications in GIS. Vol.
3. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000. 696 pp.
Zhang, Zhengyou. "Iterative point matching for registration of free-form curves and surfaces."
International journal of computer vision 13.2 (1994): 119-152.
Zebker, H.A., C.L. Werner, P.A. Rosen, and S. Hensley, “Accuracy of Topographic Maps
Derived from ERS-1 Interferometric Radar.” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing. Vol. 32, No. 4, (1994): 823-836.