Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
15arspc Submission 149

15arspc Submission 149

Ratings: (0)|Views: 219 |Likes:
Published by reneebartolo

More info:

Published by: reneebartolo on Oct 10, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/22/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
ASSESSMENT OF ADEQUACY OF DEM LEVEL-1 AS ASUBSTITUTE FOR DEM LEVEL-2 FOR RADIOMETRICCORRECTION OF SATELLITE IMAGERY FOR NATIONAL LANDCOVER MAPPING OF SAUDI ARABIA
A. I. ALOMRAN § and M. J. MCCULLAGH
Ф
 
§ General Commission for Survey, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaPhone number: +966-555205816Email:alomranali@hotmail.com
Ф School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
 Phone number: +44 (0)1332-874103Email:michael.mccullagh@nottingham.ac.uk
Abstract
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has not yet had a full (national) land covermapping. The very limited areas in Saudi Arabia covered by the 30m resolutionDEM level-2 that is compatible with the fine and medium resolution (SPOT andTM) imagery makes it unreliable as a topographic source. The validity of thelower spatial resolution (100m) DEM level-1 of full coverage of the Kingdom asa substitute is tested for that purpose. Radiometric (atmospheric andtopographic) correction of satellite imagery for the desert bare soil study area isachieved by using Radiance and two Reflectance (Chavez (1996) COST andRadiative Transfer Code in ATCOR-3) based techniques, implementing fourLambertian and non-Lambertian topographic correction models. The resultsshow that the adequacy of DEM level-1 decreases with increase of terrain slopeand DEM level-1 can be an adequate alternative to DEM level-2 for areas of flatto gently sloping (0º to 5º). The optimum performance of DEM level-1 will be onsun-facing slopes in phase angles 46º to 90º and its worst performance in thesun-facing-away slopes in phase angles 136º to 180º. Moreover, for betterperformance of topographic correction using DEM level-1 for high sun angleimages in flat to moderate terrain (0º to 25º), C-correction should be used asthe optimum model, followed by Minnaert and last by Cosine. But for ruggedterrain (steeper than 25º), the Cosine should be used, followed by C-correctionand last by Minnaert. Using low sun angle imagery in flat to gentle terrain (0º to5º), C-correction is the optimum, Minnaert comes as second and Cosine is thelast. For moderate to rugged terrain (steeper than 5º), C-correction should beused, followed by Cosine and last by Minnaert. Results also demonstratespreference of using fine resolution and high sun angle imagery with DEM level-1.
1. Introduction
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (about two million square kilometres area) hasnot yet had a full (national) land cover mapping survey. To perform accurateland cover classification, satellite imagery must be radiometrically corrected foratmospheric and topographic effects. Correction for those effects requires anaccurate DEM that is compatible with the satellite image resolution, such that
 
2
derived slope and aspect will match image pixel in size and location. The verylimited areas in Saudi Arabia covered by the 30m resolution DEM level-2 that iscompatible with the fine and medium resolution (SPOT and TM) imageryreceived by King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) inRiyadh makes it unreliable as a topographic source. DEM level-1 of fullcoverage of the Kingdom as a substitute makes testing its validity for thatpurpose essential. If DEM level-1 is substitutable then land cover mapping forthe Kingdom using DEM level-1 instead of level-2 for radiometric correction canbe carried out on an immediate operational basis. To reach this goal, twoquestions are to be answered. The first is to what extent in terms of terrainslope and orientation is DEM level-1 an adequate alternative to DEM level-2 inradiometric correction and consequently in land cover mapping? The second iswhat is the optimum combination of temporal (sun angle) selections, sensorimages and radiometric correction techniques that leads to the bestperformance of DEM level-1? Thus, performance of DEM level-1 against level-2is tested under the effect of the variable image sun angles and resolutions:SPOT-XI (representing finer resolutions and higher sun elevation angles), TM8-5 (representing coarser resolutions and higher sun angles) and TM16-1(representing coarser resolutions and lower sun angles) acquired on 14-5-2001,8-5-2001 and 16-1-2001, respectively, at sun zenith angles at the imageacquisition times of 17.4º, 26º and 54º, respectively, and at sun azimuth anglesof 118.7º, 102º, and 145º, respectively. For same purpose, finding the optimumtechniques for radiometric correction of atmospheric and topographic effects isinvestigated by comparing three different atmospheric correction basedtechniques: Radiance, Chavez (1996) COST simplified reflectance andATCOR-3 accurate reflectance compiled using Radiative Transfer Code (RTC),and four different simplified topographic and anisotropic correction methods:Lambert (Cosine) and non-Lambert Minnaert, C-correction and Cicone and
Malila’s (1972) Modified Lambert.
 
2. Radiometric Correction Techniques used in this Study
Before radiometric (atmospheric and topographic) corrections, all satelliteimages involved in this study were ortho-rectified. Slope and aspect valuesused for topographic correction were derived from the DEM level-1 and level-2using Erdas Imagine© software (its algorithm is similar to the widely usedSharpnak and Akin (1969) and Evans (1980) algorithms). Programs werewritten by the authors to perform all the radiometric corrections of image data,except for ATCOR3 Lambert correction. Minnaert and C topographic correctionof the satellite images were performed using single (global) K and Ccoefficients.
2.1 Radiance based radiometric correction
The atmospheric effect was corrected by removing path radiance from apparent(i.e., at satellite) radiance using the Chavez (1988) improved Dark ObjectSubtraction (DOS) method. The main disadvantages of the improved DOSmethod are its low accuracy and its correction only for additive scatteringeffects (due to path radiance) and the assumption of full upward and downwardtransmission.
 
3
The Lambertian (Cosine) topographic correction model has the followingformula:
 )cos( LL
=
 where
cos(i)
is the cosine of the incidence angle between the sun and thenormal vector to the surface, calculated as follows:
cos(i) = cos( 
 
 ) cos( 
 
 ) + sin( 
 
 ) sin( 
 
 ) cos( 
Φ
Φ
 )
where
is illumination (incidence) angle;
 
is the sun zenith angle;
 
is terrainslope angle;
Φ
is terrain aspect angle; and
 
Φ
is the sun azimuth angle;
L
is the normalised radiance (i.e., corrected for topographic effect) that wouldbe measured when
=
(exitance angle) = 0; and
L
is the radiance at tiltedsurface (i.e., uncorrected).Developed by Smith et al. (1980), the Backward Radiance CorrectionTransformation (BRCT) employing the Minnaert law (Minnaert, 1941) can bedescribed as:
 )cos  )cos  LL
1
ـ 
=
 where
is the Minnaert coefficient, and e is terrain slope angle.In similar fashion to Minnaert, the C-correction is used for topographic andanisotropic correction. The formula of this model is:
 ) )cos(   )
θ 
cos( LL
++=
 where
θ 
is the sun zenith angle.The Modified Lambertian model (Cicone and Malila, 1977) can be described as:
RI 
LL
=
 where
RI 
is the relative inolation factor and can be computed as follows:
 )cos(  )
Φ
cos(  )sin(  )
θ 
tan( 
RI 
+=
 Where
Φ
is the phase angle (difference between sun azimuth and terrainaspect).
2.2 Simplified reflectance based radiometric correction
This technique, which is supposedly correct for atmospheric effects moreaccurately than the previously discussed radiance based technique, isimplemented using the Chavez (1996) COST model, in which atmosphericdownward transmittance is approximated by the cosine of the sun zenith angle,and upward transmittance is assumed 1.0 (full transmittance).

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->