• Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
  • Vol. 59, Issue 4, 0428004 (2022)
Zhenyang Hui*, Haiying Hu, Na Li, and Zhuoxuan Li
Author Affiliations
  • Faculty of Geomatics, East China University of Technology, Nanchang , Jiangxi 330013, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/LOP202259.0428004 Cite this Article Set citation alerts
    Zhenyang Hui, Haiying Hu, Na Li, Zhuoxuan Li. Airborne LiDAR Point Cloud Filtering Method Based on Multiconstrained Connected Graph Segmentation[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2022, 59(4): 0428004 Copy Citation Text show less
    Flow chart of point cloud filtering
    Fig. 1. Flow chart of point cloud filtering
    Diagram of verticality
    Fig. 2. Diagram of verticality
    Diagram of height difference constraint and distance condition constraint
    Fig. 3. Diagram of height difference constraint and distance condition constraint
    Diagram of connected graph. (a) Connected graphs without constraints; (b) connected graphs with constraints
    Fig. 4. Diagram of connected graph. (a) Connected graphs without constraints; (b) connected graphs with constraints
    Two dimensional grid diagram of seed points
    Fig. 5. Two dimensional grid diagram of seed points
    Add new ground seed points to the blank grid
    Fig. 6. Add new ground seed points to the blank grid
    Diagram of distance from point to fitted plane
    Fig. 7. Diagram of distance from point to fitted plane
    Point cloud data filtering results. (a) DSM of raw data; (b) true DEM; (c) DEM of the filtering results of the proposed method; (d) error distribution of filtering results of the proposed method
    Fig. 8. Point cloud data filtering results. (a) DSM of raw data; (b) true DEM; (c) DEM of the filtering results of the proposed method; (d) error distribution of filtering results of the proposed method
    Comparison of total errors of the five methods
    Fig. 9. Comparison of total errors of the five methods
    Comparison of mean values of the three kinds of error of the five methods
    Fig. 10. Comparison of mean values of the three kinds of error of the five methods
    Average total errors of different verticality thresholds
    Fig. 11. Average total errors of different verticality thresholds
    Average total errors of different height difference thresholds
    Fig. 12. Average total errors of different height difference thresholds
    Average total errors of different distance thresholds
    Fig. 13. Average total errors of different distance thresholds
    EnvironmentSiteSampleFeature
    City111Hillsides, low vegetation, buildings
    12Hillsides, buildings
    221Large buildings, bridges
    22Irregular structure
    23Large irregular structure
    24Steep sides
    331Complex building complex
    441Blank data
    42Train tracks and trains
    Country551Steep sides, low vegetation, blank data
    52
    53
    54
    661Roads, buildings, data gaps
    771Bridges, roads, an underground passage
    Table 1. 15 groups of point cloud data and their characteristics
    CategoryFiltering result
    Number of ground pointsNumber of object points
    Reference resultNumber of ground pointsab
    Number of object pointscd
    Table 2. Error matrix
    SampleT1 /%T2 /%Ttotal /%ckappa
    Average5.729.295.440.81
    Sample 1126.7413.2621.040.58
    Sample 127.921.394.760.90
    Sample 212.712.942.760.92
    Sample 223.2115.607.030.83
    Sample 238.004.336.270.87
    Sample 246.1010.067.150.82
    Sample 310.371.851.050.98
    Sample 411.014.632.750.94
    Sample 4211.100.433.550.91
    Sample 511.336.732.420.92
    Sample 523.0917.354.410.75
    Sample 536.3619.346.840.44
    Sample 542.463.913.240.94
    Sample 613.477.513.570.56
    Sample 711.9330.034.810.72
    Table 3. Filtering error of 15 experiment data of the proposed method
    Zhenyang Hui, Haiying Hu, Na Li, Zhuoxuan Li. Airborne LiDAR Point Cloud Filtering Method Based on Multiconstrained Connected Graph Segmentation[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2022, 59(4): 0428004
    Download Citation