2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.04.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

3D laser imaging for joint orientation analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
62
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
62
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In fact, although several authors have demonstrated the reliability of automatic and semi-automatic processing of imagery and 3-D point clouds for fracture mapping (Mah et al, 2011;Vöge et al, 2013;Assali et al, 2014;Vasuki et al, 2014), a complete manual approach was adopted in this analysis because in most cases the flat and regular morphology of quarry walls only allow photointerpretation of discontinuity traces. Moreover, final visual inspection and validation of outputs is always required, even when using codes for the semi-automatic extraction of joints .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, although several authors have demonstrated the reliability of automatic and semi-automatic processing of imagery and 3-D point clouds for fracture mapping (Mah et al, 2011;Vöge et al, 2013;Assali et al, 2014;Vasuki et al, 2014), a complete manual approach was adopted in this analysis because in most cases the flat and regular morphology of quarry walls only allow photointerpretation of discontinuity traces. Moreover, final visual inspection and validation of outputs is always required, even when using codes for the semi-automatic extraction of joints .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most methods currently conduct the analysis on simplified 2.5D surface models, for example by using triangulated irregular networks (TINs) (Riquelme et al, 2014). Specifically in geological applications, however, this implication of converting 3D point clouds into 2.5D data might lead to an unwanted loss in detail and accuracy, as the representation of overhangs and concavities is not supported (Mah et al, 2011). Mah et al (2011), in this context, present a workflow involving the transformation of the point cloud into a 3D triangular mesh.…”
Section: State Of the Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically in geological applications, however, this implication of converting 3D point clouds into 2.5D data might lead to an unwanted loss in detail and accuracy, as the representation of overhangs and concavities is not supported (Mah et al, 2011). Mah et al (2011), in this context, present a workflow involving the transformation of the point cloud into a 3D triangular mesh. Riquelme et al (2014) recently proposed a method using the 3D information of the point cloud itself by examining every point and its local neighbors, respectively.…”
Section: State Of the Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…numerous planar surfaces, may be determined manually at the survey site. In reference to Mah et al (2011), though, the assumption is adopted that planar orientations derived from TLS acquired point cloud data may be of higher accuracy than orientation values determined by manual field measurements. Against this background and in respect of the purpose of this study, a reasonable means of validating the results of the study is the use of reference planes manually designated in the point cloud.…”
Section: Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%