English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 75035/106099 (71%)
Visitors : 19428891      Online Users : 445
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/69890


    Title: 不同流向演算法與集流閥值對數值地型模型河川網路萃取之影響
    Authors: 詹進發
    Jan, Jihn-Fa
    Keywords: 數值地形模型;河川網路;流向演算法;集流閥值
    Digital Terrain Model, Stream Networks, Flow Direction Algorithms, Threshold Values
    Date: 2006.11
    Issue Date: 2014-09-12 16:24:12 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 一般傳統水系萃取透過人工測繪具寬度之河川網路,雖具一定準確性,但作業緩慢耗時。利用網格式數值地形模型萃取集水區河川網路,較人工測繪快速有效率,但其正確性因流向演算法與集流閥值設定而異。本研究以台北市雙溪流域為試區,使用 5 m 網格解析度數值地形模型,配合 6 種流向演算法與 12 等級集流閥值,進行河川網路自動化萃取,並對照 1/5,000 地形圖之河流線,輔以人工判釋,檢核其網格空間對位誤差。經整合演算結果發現,多流向演算法與無限流向演算法在 1 級河與 2級河部位造成誤授比率明顯高於其他演算法,並有斷流現象,但卻能有效凸顯下游外雙溪部份之河寬表現;集流閥值設定主要影響河川長度與支流數,對河寬影響不大,但其值增加則能有效降低多流向演算法之誤授率。整體而言,不同流向演算法主要差異在於河寬推估,河川中心線彼此間差異極小,但與人工測繪基準圖層仍普遍存在 1 至 8 個網格之河道對位誤差。綜合評估結果,特定的流向演算法因其在河川網路上下游表現之優劣不同,後續研究建議依坡度與級序分段採用不同之流向演算法整合運算,將有效提升水系萃取準確率。
    Traditionally, stream networks were delineated manually in hydrologic analysis. Though certain degree of accuracy can be achieved, the process requires large amount of time. In comparison, deriving stream networks from grid based digital terrain model (DTM) is more efficient than the manual process. However, the accuracy of the results varies with different flow direction algorithms and threshold values.This study selected the Shuangshi watershed as the study site in Taipei, and utilized digital terrain models with grid size 5m to derive stream networks automatically. Six different flow direction algorithms and twelve threshold values were applied in this study, and the resultant stream networks were manually compared to the stream networks found on 1/5,000 topographic map. The results indicate that: (1) The commission error is much higher in st 1 order stream and nd 2 order stream, and more effective on stream width when Multiple-flow direction algorithm and D-infinity flow direction algorithm were applied; (2) Different threshold values have more effective on the stream length, and the commission error decreases as the threshold value increases, where the effects on stream width are not prominent; (3) Overall, though the difference between flow direction algorithms is mainly in deriving the width of streams, and the extracted stream centerlines are similar, 1~8 grid-length bias remain existed when comparing to the stream networks shown on the topographic maps.The results obtained from the Shuangshi watershed show that the performance of flow direction algorithms is different when stream order changes. For accurate estimation of stream width, further investigations are needed.
    Relation: 地理研究, No.45, pp.73-92.
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[地政學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    3657.pdf1439KbAdobe PDF507View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback