Main Article Content

Oluibukun Gbenga Ajayi
John Ajulo


Accurately estimating the volume of earthworks is very important in mining engineering and construction. This estimation can be difficult because of the morphological condition of the stockpiles, hence, devising simpler, yet accurate methods of stockpile volume estimation is still a research problem in mining. Two non-invasive survey methods were compared in this research: the conventional ground-based and UAV-approach, for the survey of a twin-stockpile of gravel using Leica TS06 Total Station and DJI Mavic Air UAV, respectively. About 128 images of the area were acquired at 50 m flying height and 75% overlap during the flight mission. The images were processed using Agisoft Metashape Pro; a digital photogrammetric software, and the DEM obtained was used for the volume estimation. The total station data was also processed in ArcGIS to generate a TIN-model from which the volume was also estimated. The volume estimated from the TIN-model was compared with the volume estimated from the UAV-based DEM, using the volume obtained from the mill-machine as the standard. The obtained result shows that while 2750 m³ was obtained as the cumulative volume from the mill machine, the UAV approach yielded 2686.252 m³ and the ground survey approach gave 2830.713 m³. The percentage difference between the two methods compared to the actual volume is 2.94% and −2.31%, respectively. These results, and the result of the processing time analysis show that UAV approach is both accurate and time economical, which attests to the potentials of low-cost UAVs to provide robust alternative to the time-consuming and rigorous ground survey approach.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite


  1. Ab Rahman A.A., Abdul-Maulud K.N., Mohd F.A., Jaafar O., Tahar K.N., 2017. Volumetric calculation using low cost unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) approach. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 270: 1–6. DOI 10.1088/1757-899X/270/1/012032.
  2. Agisoft, 2020. Configuration parameters. Online: (accessed November 1, 2020).
  3. Ajayi O.G., Palmer M., Salubi A.A., 2018. Modelling farmland topography for suitable site selection of dam construction using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 11: 220–230. DOI 10.1016/j.rsase.2018.07.007.
  4. Ajayi O.G., Salubi A.A., Angbas A.F., Odigure M.G., 2017. Generation of accurate digital elevation models from UAV acquired low percentage overlapping images. International Journal of Remote Sensing 8–10(38): 3113–3134.
  5. Akwaowo U.E., Aniekan E.E., Okon U., 2019. A comparative analysis of volumetric stockpile from UAV photogrammetry and total station data. SSRG International Journal of Geoinformatics and Geological Science 6(2).
  6. Arango C., Morales C.A., 2015. Comparison between multicopter UAV and total station for estimating stockpile volumes. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XL-1/W4.
  7. Baiocchi V., Dominici D., Mormile M., 2013. UAV application in post – seismic environment, The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XL-1/W2, 21–25. DOI 10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-1-W2-212013.
  8. Blistan P., Jacko S., Kovanič Ľ., Kondela J., Pukanská K., Bartoš K., 2020. TLS and SfM approach for bulk density determination of excavated heterogeneous raw materials. Minerals 10: 174. DOI 10.3390/min10020174
  9. Borgelt S.C., Harrison J.D., Sudduth K.A., Birrell S.J., 1996. Evaluation of GPS for applications in precision agriculture. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 12(6): 633–638.
  10. Bremer M., Sass O., 2012. Combining airborne and terrestrial laser scanning for quantifying erosion and deposition by a debris flow event. Geomorphology 138: 49–60.
  11. Ding G., Wu Q., Yao Y.D., 2015. Byzantine attack and defense in cognitive radio networks: A survey. IEEE communication survey and tutorials 17(3): 1342–1363.
  12. DJI, 2019. Mavic Air Specs. Online: (accessed November 1, 2020).
  13. Eisenbeiß H., 2009. UAV Photogrammetry. Institute of Geodesy and Photogrammetry (PhD Dissertation), ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
  14. Fitzpatrick B.P., 2015. Unmanned Aerial System for survey and mapping: cost comparison of UAS versus traditional methods of data acquisition (Masters Dissertation). Faculty of USC Graduate School, University of Southern California.
  15. Ioanna S., Apostolos T., 2015. The use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) in Agriculture. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture, Food and Environment, Kavala, Greece: 730–736.
  16. Kavanagh B., Glenn Bird S.J., 1996. Surveying: Principle and Application. 3rd Edition, Pearson.
  17. Kociuba W., 2017. Analysis of geomorphic changes and quantification of sediment budgets of a small Arctic valley with the application of repeat TLS surveys. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 61(2): 105–120.
  18. Kociuba W., 2020. Different paths for developing terrestrial LiDAR data for comparative analyses of topographic surface changes. Applied Sciences 10: 7409.
  19. Kovanič Ľ., Blistan P., Urban R., Štroner M., Blišťanová M., Bartoš K., Pukanská K., 2020. Analysis of the Suitability of High-Resolution DEM Obtained Using ALS and UAS (SfM) for the Identification of Changes and Monitoring the Development of Selected Geohazards in the Alpine Environment – A Case Study in High Tatras, Slovakia. Remote Sensing. 12(23): 3901.
  20. Lin L.S., 2004. Application of GPS RTK and total station systems on dynamic monitoring land use. Proceedings of the ISPRS Congress Istanbul, Turkey.
  21. Marco C., Aracena P., Chung W., 2012. Improving accuracy in earthwork volume estimation for proposed forest roads using a high-resolution digital elevation model. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering 33(1): 125–142.
  22. Nourbakhshbeidokhti S., Kinoshita A.M., Chin A., Florsheim J.L., 2019. A Workflow to Estimate Topographic and Volumetric Changes and Errors in Channel Sedimentation after Disturbance. Remote Sensing 11: 586. DOI 10.3390/rs11050586
  23. Pflipsen B., 2006. Volume Computation: A comparison of Total Station versus Laser Scanner. (Masters Dissertation). Department of Technology and Built Environment, University of Gävle, Sweden.
  24. Propeller, 2018. How stockpile volume measurement works in drone surveying with propeller. Online: (accessed September 5, 2019).
  25. Raeva P.L., Filipova S.L., Filipov D.G., 2016. Volume computation of a stockpile – A study case of comparing GPS and UAV measurement in an open pit quarry. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLI-B1, XXIII.
  26. Šašak J., Gallay M., Kaňuk J., Hofierka J., Minár J., 2019. Combined use of terrestrial laser scanning and UAV photogrammetry in mapping alpine terrain. Remote Sensing 11(18): 2154.
  27. Siebert S., Teizer J., 2014. Mobile 3D mapping for surveying earthwork projects using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) system. Automation in Construction 41: 1–14.
  28. Siriba D.N., Matara S.M., Musyoka S.M., 2015. Improvement of volume estimation of stockpile of earthworks using a concave hull-footprint. Micro Macro & Mezzo Geo Information 5: 11–24. UDC: 528.718.021.7:624.1.
  29. Stalin L.J., Gnanaprakasam R.P.C., 2017. Volume Calculation from UAV based DEM. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology 6(6): 126–128.
  30. Urban R., Štroner M., Blistan P., Kovanič Ľ., Patera M., Jacko S., Ďuriška I., Kelemen M., Szabo S., 2019. The suitability of UAS for mass movement monitoring caused by torrential rainfall – a study on the Talus Cones in the Alpine terrain in high Tatras, Slovakia. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 8: 317. DOI 10.3390/ijgi8080317.