Innovations in Optical Geo-Characterization

Page 1
Innovations in Optical Geo-Characterization

Roman D. Hryciw
1
, M. ASCE, Junxing Zheng
2
, Hyon-Sohk Ohm
3
, Jia Li
4

1
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor;
romanh@umich.edu
2
Graduate Student Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor; junxing@umich.edu
3
Research Fellow, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor; hyonsohk@umich.edu
4
Assistant in Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor; lisajia@umich.edu

ABSTRACT: With exponential increases in digital camera resolution, the last 15
years have witnessed major advances in the use of image analysis in geotechnical
engineering. This paper highlights the history of photography and image analysis. It
includes a database of 100 recent references describing the use of image analysis in
four geotechnical areas: site characterization; earth mass characterization; particle
characterization; motion and deformation. Also described are the authors
development of image analysis systems for particle size and shape characterization.
They include the Translucent Segregation Table (TST), Sedimaging, the Vision Cone
Penetrometer (VisCPT), Stereophotography and In-situ Particle Tracking. Future
research will lead to the estimation of intrinsic soil properties based on detailed
assessment of particle size and shape distributions from images of both non-
contacting and three-dimensional assemblies of particles.
INTRODUCTION
If a picture is worth a thousand words, the 1820s invention of photography eclipsed
Guttenbergs 15
th
century printing press in terms of its significance to science, the arts
and mans ability to learn from the past in order to advance more prosperously into
the future. Analysis of photographic images naturally followed. By the 1850s war
photography was used to document battles and to plan for subsequent combat. Civil
engineers also soon availed themselves of images; aerial photography from balloons
was patented in the 1850s by Gaspar Felix Tournachon in France for mapmaking and
city planning. At about the same time, the 1851 Worlds Fair in London showcased
stereophotography.
The great civil engineering achievements of the next century were captured on film-
based photographs. Testimony to the significance of image analysis to civil
engineering was provided in the inaugural July, 1930 Volume 1, Number 1 i ssue of
ASCEs Civil Engineering magazine which featured on its front cover an aerial
97 Geo-Congress 2014 Keynote Lectures, GSP 235 ASCE 2014
Geo-Congress 2014 Keynote Lectures
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
Page 2
photograph of the Black Canyon of the Colorado River with the anticipated Boulder
(now Hoover) Dam sketched-in at its anticipated location. At the other end of the
image scale range, the early 1930s also saw the invention of the scanning electron
microscope (SEM) that soon allowed visual characterization of micron-sized clay
particles.
Many of todays image-based techniques utilized in geotechnical engineering were
already used at the time of the First International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering in 1936. Colored sand bands revealed dislocation patterns in
soil masses, movement direction of particles beneath loaded model footings behind
translucent walls was captured by long film exposures, flow lines identified by
fluorescent dyes were photographed and 800X micrographs of soil particles
revealed their shapes. However, absent digital cameras and computers, the image
interpretations in these studies were performed manually.
Manual analysis of images continued for another 60 years while image processing
methods were being developed in anticipation of digital cameras and personal
computers. The 1969 invention of the charge coupled device (CCD) by Willard Boyle
and George E. Smith of AT&T Bell Labs marked the beginning of digital
photography. However, it was not until the early 1990s when digital cameras became
commonplace that engineers could avail themselves of the technology. Widespread
image analysis would wait to until the mid-1990s when desktop computers became
powerful enough for the requisite digital computations and storage devices could
preserve the images. Driven by both commercial and recreational demands, the
2000s and early 2010s saw exponential advances in digital single lens reflex
(DSLR) camera resolutions at continuously decreasing costs. Geotechnical
engineering and earth sciences were particularly blessed with the availability of the
high resolutions that continue to improve yearly. Recent high resolution images of
Mars provide unprecedented insight to the geomorphology of the red planet and
image processing is allowing for interpretation of its composition and relief. NASA
recently combined 900 i mages taken with a 1200 pi xel x 1200 pi xel camera into a
one-billion pixel panoramic view in which the sizes and shapes of even gravel
particles can be determined. This paper, however, will focus on the advances in image
collection and analysis that is transforming the way common terrestrial geotechnical
tasks are performed today, with emphasis on l aboratory and in-situ soil
characterization.
IMAGE ANALYSIS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
Recent geotechnical and engineering geology literature is abundant on the topic of
image-based analysis. The authors have prepared Table 1 which summarizes recent
examples in a compact format. The table is organized by four areas with subsections:
1. Site Characterization: ground surface and stratigraphic analysis;
2. Mass Characterization: detection of fractures, defects, surfaces and fabric;
3. Particle Characterization: size, size distribution, shape and angularity;
4. Motion and Deformation: laboratory and field scales.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

P
a
g
e

3

Table 1. Image Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering
Category/Reference Loc. Hard. Mat. Features of Interest Size Analysis Tools
1. Ground Surface Interpretation
Sjostrom et al. (2001) A S R River beds m Edge detection
Nyander et al. (2003) L LP S River beds mm Wavelet transformation
Turel and Frost (2012) A S S Landslides km Feature detection
2. Stratigraphic Analysis
Ehrlich et al. (1984) L M R Pore sizes mm Math. morphology
Francus (1998) L M, E S Particle size variations mm Filtering and segmentation
Ghalib et al. (2000) L, B C S Soil stratigraphy m-mm Image texture analysis
Nederbragt and Thurow (2001) L DC S Varves cm Smoothing
Hryciw et al. (2009) L C S Thin layers and seams m-mm Wavelet transformation
Shaffner et al. (2009) B D R Rock stratigraphy m Image mapping
3. Fractures, Defects and Surfaces
Bagde et al. (2002) L, S SC R Rock fractures cm-m Transform. & segmentation
Chen et al. (2004) L, S M R Rock surface mineralogy mm Segmentation
Take et al. (2007) A D G Wrinkles in geosynthetics cm-m Transform. & segmentation
Piuela et al. (2007) B M S Water migration pathways in clay m Wavelet transformation
Amarasiri et al. (2009) S P Pavement cracks mm Wards reflection
Benavente and Pina (2009) L SC R Rock surface cm Math. morphology
Mlynarczuk (2010) L LP R Rock surface m-mm Math. morphology
Adu-Gyamfi et al. (2011) S P Pavement cracks mm Multi-resolution image mining
Lee et al. (2013) L, S D R Tunnel liner cracks mm Image rectification
Location (camera): L=lab; A=aerial S=ground surface; B=below surface
Hardware: S=satellite; SC=scanner; D=DSLR; C=CCD; M=microscope with digital camera; E=SEM; LP=laser profilometer;
N=neutron imager; X=X-ray; LD=laser diffraction; DC=digital camera back; EN=endoscope
Material: S=soil; R=rock; P=pavement; G=geosynthetic

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

P
a
g
e

4

Table 1. (continued) Image Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering
4. Fabric
Bowman and Soga (2003) L M S Particle orientation and voids m-mm Segmentation
Hu et al. (2005) S M S Compacted clay m Transform. & morph. operation
Kim et al. (2012) L N S Pore water distribution m-mm 3D watershed segmentation
Kim et al. (2013) L X S Voids and particle sizes m-mm 3D watershed segmentation
Ohm and Hryciw (2014) L D S Soil fabric and particle orientation m-mm Wavelet transformation
5. Particle Size
Devaux et al. (1997) L C S Particle assembly m-mm Math. morphology
Shin and Hryciw (2004) L C S Particle assembly mm Wavelet transformation
Breul and Gourves (2006) L EN S Particle assembly mm Textural analysis
Amankwah and Aldrich (2011) L S, R Particle assembly mm Wavelet transformation
Zheng and Hryciw (2014) L D S, R Contacting particles on a flat surface mm Stereophotography
6. Particle Size Distribution
Raschke and Hryciw (1997) L C S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface m-mm Segmentation
Mora et al. (1998) L C S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm Segmentation
Ghalib and Hryciw (1999) L C S Contacting particles on a flat surface m-mm Watershed segmentation
Hubner et al. (2001) L C S, R Particles falling through water mm Single particle tracking
Aydilek et al. (2002) S M G Pores in geosynthetics m Threshold. & slicing
van den Berg et al. (2002) L M S Contacting particles on a flat surface m Digital cutting method
Banta et al. (2003) C S, R Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm Edge detect. and Fourier trans.
Fernlund (2005) L S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm Segmentation
Sanchidrian et al. (2006) B R Particle assembly cm-m Transform. & segmentation
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

P
a
g
e

5

Arasan et al. (2011a) L D S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm Thresholding
Kumara et al. (2012) L D S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm-cm Segmentation
Hryciw and Ohm (2012) L D S Particle assembly m-mm Wavelet transformation
Ohm and Hryciw (2013) L D S Contacting particles on a flat surface mm-cm Watershed segmentation
7. Particle Shape and Angularity
Kuo et al. (1996) L C S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface m-mm Segmentation
Kuo and Freeman (2000) L, S C S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface m-mm Segmentation
Mora and Kwan (2000) L C S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm Fourier transformation
Bowman et al. (2001) L E S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface m-mm Fourier descriptors
Sukumaran and Ashmawy (2003) L M S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface m-mm Segmentation
Chandan et al. (2004) L C S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm Wavelet transformation
Wang et al. (2005) L M S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm Fourier transformation
Wettimuny and Penumadu (2004) L C S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface m-mm Fourier transformation
Mahmoud and Masad (2007) L M S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface m-mm Wavelet transformation
Tutumluer and Pan (2008) L C S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface m-mm Math. morphology
Matsushima et al. (2009) S X S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm Watershed segmentation
Gelinas and Vidal (2010) L M S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface m Watershed segmentation
Katagiri et al. (2010) S X S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm Not reported
Mahmoud et al. (2010) L M S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface m-mm Wavelet transformation
Arasan et al. (2011b) L, S D S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm Fractal dimension
Tafesse et al. (2012) L S Non-contacting particles on a flat surface mm Segmentation

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

P
a
g
e

6

8. Laboratory Scale Motion and Deformation
Alshibli and Sture (1999) L S Shear band formation mm Feature point detect. & tracking
Guler et al. (1999) L S Particle tracking mm-cm 2D image correlation
Sadek et al. (2003) L G Soil mass deformation mm-cm 2D image correlation
Liu and Iskander (2004) L D S Soil mass deformation mm-cm 2D image correlation
Medina-Cetina and
Rechenmacher (2006)
L D S
Soil mass deformation
mm-cm 3D image correlation
Sachan et al. (2006) L D S Soil mass deformation mm-cm 2D image correlation
Westgate and DeJong (2006) L D S Particle tracking mm-cm Particle image velocimetry
Sobhan et al. (2008) L D P Soil mass deformation mm-cm 2D image correlation
9. Field Scale Motion and Deformation
Hattori et al. (2003) B D R Tunnel lining m Feature points tracking
Hervas et al. (2003) S S Landslide km Change detect. & thresholding
Collins and Sitar (2005) S SC S Slopes m Image correlation
Guler et al. (2005) S C G Geotextiles mm Image correlation
Leu and Chang (2005) B R Tunnel faces m Feature points tracking
Ohnishi et al. (2006) S C S Slopes m Image rectification
Su et al. (2006) B SC S Excavation m Image correlation
Kemeny et al. (2008) S SC R Slopes m Image correlation
Quiones-Rozo et al. (2008) B SC S Excavation m Close-range photogrammetry
Wang et al. (2009) L, S D R Tunnel liner m Image rectification
Aksoy and Ercanoglu (2012) A S S Landslide km Multi-resolution segmentation
Allan and Priest (2012) S SC S Landslide M Image correlation
Conte and Coffman (2012) S D S Slopes M Image correlation
Suncar et al. (2013) A S S Landslide movement Km Image correlation
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 7
In keeping with the theme of GeoCongress 2014, the focus of this paper is on t he
characterization of soils in-situ and in the laboratory. The authors expertise in this
area (or lack of it in other areas) further narrows the paper to image-based
characterization of soil particles, their size distributions, particle shape and soil
particle tracking.
Recent reports by Masad et al. (2007), Hryciw and Ohm (2012) and Rajagopal
(2012) are excellent companions to the present paper as they detail commercial
image-based systems for particle characterization. Two noteworthy systems are the
Aggregate Image Measurement System (AIMS) (Fletcher et al. 2003) and the
University of Illinois Aggregate Image Analyzer (UIAIA) (Rao and Tutumluer 2000).
The technical, economic and environmental shortcomings of sieving for grain size
analysis are documented by Ohm et al. (2013). They clearly point to the inevitable
adoption of image based techniques for soil characterization.
MAJOR HURDLES FOR IMAGE ANALYSIS OF SOILS
Unlike the medical, pharmaceutical, manufacturing and food processing industries
where image analysis has been employed since the early 1990s for diagnostic
characterization or product quality control, earth materials have lagged behind in the
use of digital image analysis. The reason is clear: whereas biological cells, pills and
farm produce are relatively uniform in size and shape, particles of earth range over
many orders of magnitude in size, from micron-sized clay to meter-sized boulders. As
such, no camera can capture an image of, and no image analysis software can analyze
the full range of particle sizes in typical soils. Even though pixel resolutions of
common commercial cameras (e.g. Nikon, Canon, etc.) have doubled every 3 years
since 1999 and are now approaching 40 megapixels, size and shape analysis of even
relatively uniform soil specimens spanning two orders of magnitude in diameter
requires even higher resolution cameras.

FIG. 1. Soil images: a) 3D assembly, b) 2D non-contacting, c) thresholded binary.
In addition to camera resolution issues, for soils containing particles spanning two
orders of magnitude, a problem also exists in capturing an image which is
representative of the soil so that the grain size distribution is accurately determined.
Fig. 1 shows two extreme situations: Fig. 1(a) is a typical soil image as it would exist
in-situ in a three dimensional assembly of multi-sized particles. Because only some of
the particles are in full frontal view while others are obstructed by foreground
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 8
particles, no traditional image analysis method can yet accurately determine the
particle size distribution from such an image. Fig. 1(b) shows the same soil particles
spread out on a flat surface and not in contact with each other. Elementary image
analysis techniques such as thresholding and conversion to a binary image as shown
in Fig. 1(c) can yield a size and 2D shape of every particle. However, the preparation
of a sufficiently large specimen to be statistically valid in which all of the particles are
detached and in camera view is practically impossible. In summary, Fig. 1 shows one
image that cant be analyzed and a second that cant be prepared. The solution to this
dilemma comes in the form of two novel laboratory systems for preparing soils for
image capture and original image analysis software geared to soils.
THE TRANSLUCENT SEGREGATION TABLE (TST)
Referring again to Fig. 1(b), four obstacles had to be overcome to using the flat
surface approach to preparing the specimen, capturing an image and analyzing it.
Recognizing that every particle in such a system must be individually analyzed (i.e. a
deterministic analysis), the approach is presently realistic only for coarse-grained
sands (diameter > 2 mm) and gravels so that the total number of particles would be
manageable. Secondly, to avoid having smaller particles obstructed from view by
larger particles, a nominal amount of segregation of the particles by size is needed.
The Translucent Segregation Table (TST) shown in Figs. 2(a) to 2(c) was therefore
developed by Ohm and Hryciw (2013). It is a 36 i n. x 36 in. (91 cm x 91 cm)
translucent backlit plate which tilts upwards 35 degrees for specimen preparation. The
soil is introduced at the top of the incline and the particles slide or roll downward
passing beneath a series of bridges having progressively smaller underpass heights.
Particle blockages behind the bridges can be disrupted by mild brushing of the grains
with horizontal strokes. Following segregation, the TST is lowered, the bridges are
removed and the backlit specimen is photographed by a ceiling-mounted camera. The
TST backlighting enhances the contrast between the particles and the background.
The third obstacle is contacting particles which would result in overestimation of
their actual sizes. The key feature of the TST system is a numerical algorithm called
watershed segmentation which digitally separates contacting particles thereby
eliminating the tedious task of physically separating the particles prior to image
capture. Watershed segmentation was introduced for soil particle detachment by
Ghalib and Hryciw (1999) and its use in the TST is described by Ohm and Hryciw
(2013). The watershed segmentation sequence is illustrated in Figs. 2(d) to 2(f).
The final TST obstacle is determining the third dimension of each particle. The
captured image will generally show the two larger particle dimensions (d
1
and d
2
)
while the smallest dimension (d
3
) will generally be the vertical. An approximation for
the third dimension is provided by the underpass heights of the bridges. However,
besides being only a crude estimate, this necessitates a much more careful preparation
of the specimen to insure that the particles end up in the proper intervals between
bridges. Some errors will be inevitable because not all particles will end up with their
smallest dimension vertically. A solution to this problem will be presented shortly.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 9

FIG. 2. Translucent Segregation Table (TST) system: a) table and camera,
b) top view, c) side view, d) binary image, e) Euclidean distance map,
f) segmented particles (Ohm and Hryciw 2013).
CORRECTION FOR SIEVE-BASED PARTICLE SIZE
There are many ways to define particle size with agreement occurring only for
perfectly spherical grains. The sieve size is very specific and its long history of use
by every soil classification system mandates that it be preserved. As such, image-
based particle dimensions must be corrected to obtain an equivalent sieve size.
Ohm and Hryciw (2013) rigorously showed that if a particle is assumed to be
ellipsoidal with d
1
>d
2
>d
3
the equivalent sieve opening size, d
e
, will be:
( )
2 2
2 3
/ 2
e
d d d = + (1)
Fig. 3 shows a typical TST test results from Hubler et al. (2014), which includes a
particle size distribution for pea gravel by Eq. (1) as well as distributions of particle
convexity, sphericity and aspect ratio. The four distributions are shown as cumulative
percent volume where the relative volumes of individual particles were computed as
(d
1
)(d
2
)(d
3
). The aspect ratio is d
1
/d
2
. Convexity is the ratio of the observed projected
particle area to the area of the smallest convex polygon that contains the particle.
Sphericity is the ratio of the perimeter of a circle that has the same projected area as
the particle to the actual particle perimeter.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 10

FIG. 3. TST results: a) particle size, b) aspect ratio, c) convexity, d) sphericity.

STEREOPHOTOGRAPHY
The shortcomings associated with using the TST bridge underpass heights to
estimate the third particle dimension is pointing to the adoption of stereophotography
to detail particle sizes and shapes in 3D. As mentioned earlier, stereophotography was
already popular in the 1850s. However, its full capabilities were on hold until
recently when high resolution cameras and digital characterization became available.

FIG. 4. Stereophotography: a) contouring, b) 3D view (Zheng and Hryciw 2014).

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 11
The contouring abilities of stereophotography to obtain detailed 3D particle shapes
are shown in Fig. 4. Analyzing 600 particles having 2 mm to 40 mm sieve opening
sizes, Zheng and Hryciw (2014) observed nearly perfect agreement between
stereophotography and manual caliper measurements. The agreement with sieving by
Eq. (1) was also perfect. Whereas sieve tests took 30 m inutes and the caliper
measurements took days, stereophotography required only seconds to capture and
analyze the images. At this time, commercial camera resolutions are approaching the
needs of the TST to analyze stereo images of particles as small as 2 mm in a 36 in.
(900 mm) field of view.
SEDIMAGING
For medium to fine sands and certainly for silts, an individual accounting for every
particle as done in the TST test is presently impossible except for small specimens
captured at relatively high camera magnifications. As such, a different approach
based on image capture of three-dimensional assemblies of particles was developed.
Shin and Hryciw (2004) developed a mathematical wavelet analysis method which
yields the dominant particle size from images (or areas of an image) in which the
particles are within a size range bracketed by two successive standard sieves. Hryciw
et al. (2013) provide a detailed description and analysis of the wavelet method. In
short, the analysis yields a wavelet index (CA) for a s quare incremental segment
(typically 128 pi xels x 128 pixels) of an image. The wavelet index has been semi-
empirically correlated to the dominant particle size in units of pixels per particle
diameter (PPD). The same equation and empirical constants work for a wide range of
soil types, grain sizes and camera magnifications:
1
log log
CA
PPD A
CA

=

(2)
where CA
1
= 2.4 and A = 5.1 for saturated sands photographed behind glass.
Specimen preparation involves segregating the particles by size prior to image
capture. This is accomplished by sedimenting the soil through a column of water.
The system is shown in Fig. 5. It features a 2 in. x 2 in. x 6 ft (5 cm x 5 cm x 180 cm)
water filled column with a detachable sediment accumulator at the bottom which
allows image capture through its glass window. A typical image of a sedimented soil
is shown in Fig. 5. Hryciw and Ohm (2012) named the test Sedimaging (for
sediment imaging). Sedimaging is presently used for particles in the 2 mm to 0.075
mm size range. However, the percentage of fines is also determined and the fines are
conveniently recovered for Atterberg limits testing. A typical sedimaging test result
with comparison to sieving is shown in Fig. 6.
It should be noted that the sedimaging hardware shown in Fig. 5 could be used with
other image processing techniques including mathematical morphology (Ohm 2013)
and edge pixel density (Jung 2010). However, these methods are not as developed as
wavelet analysis.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 12

FIG. 5. Sedimaging system and a 2NS soil column (Hryciw and Ohm 2012).

FIG. 6. Size distribution based on 5490 sedimaging points for the soil from Fig. 5.
VISION CONE PENETRPOMETER (VisCPT)
The senior authors interest in analysis of soil images began in the mid 1990s with
development of the Vision Cone Penetrometer (Raschke and Hryciw 1997) shown in
Fig. 7. It was conceived to capture a continuous stream of images of the soil in-situ
and thus eliminate the shortcoming of having no soil specimen to inspect in the CPT.
The VisCPT has demonstrated an ability to detect very thin soil seams, easily detect
transitions between layers, confirm groundwater conditions and explain anomalous
spikes in CPT logs (Ghalib et al. 2000; Hryciw et al. 2003; Hryciw and Shin 2004;
Hryciw et al. 2005; Jung et al. 2008; Hryciw et al. 2009). Fig. 8 illustrates a segment
of a VisCPT log showing its much higher resolving ability compared to the CPT
alone. The Contrast and Homogeneity parameters in Fig. 8 are image texture
indices developed by Haralick et al. (1973) and adopted for soils by Ghalib et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 13
(1998). For the reasons
previously explained, grain
size distribution from VisCPT
images is not yet determinable.
However, the textural indices
do reveal changes in soil types.
The resolutions of miniature
cameras have not increased
since the 1990s as they have
for regular digital cameras.
Furthermore, zooming abilities
are still not available for such
small formats. Therefore, the
fixed camera magnifications
have to be judiciously set at
specific levels to discriminate
particle sizes of most interest.
For example, at 75 microns to
discriminate sands from silts.

FIG. 7. The Vision Cone Penetrometer (VisCPT).

FIG. 8. Stratigraphic resolutions by CPT and VisCPT (after Ghalib 2001).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 14
SOIL PARTICLE TRACKING
Despite its relatively low camera resolutions, the VisCPT is able to detect the
movement or flow of soil particles during pauses in CPT advance. The flows result
from dissipation of excess pore water pressures induced by the advancing CPT and
are possibly indicators of soil liquefaction susceptibility. In some gap-graded soils, a
piping of finer particles through a coarser soil skeleton has also been observed by
Hryciw and Ohm (2013). An optical flow technique is being developed to quantify
such motions by tracking changes in soil grain positions through successive video
frames. Fig. 9(a) shows a frame in which
the migrations of soil particles was
observed in the delineated area. Figs.
9(b) and 9(c) show the computed motion
vectors and the areas of soil erosion. The
authors believe that the sum of the
absolute velocities of soil particles in the
eroded area could lead to prediction of
soil liquefaction and piping
susceptibility.

FIG. 9. Particle tracking: a) single frame with observed motions; b) computed
motion vectors, c) eroded areas identified by tracking the soil particles.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Particle sizes and shapes (just as consistency limits) are merely indices of potential
engineering soil behavior. Particle shapes (and certainly not their distributions by
size) are not even formally considered in classification systems. This partly explains
the wide range of potential behaviors within soil groups. The ability to provide
complete size and shape distributions from images of non-contacting particles leads to
a narrowing of these estimated ranges. An ability to discern a soils intrinsic
properties from three-dimensional assemblies is the next frontier. Once developed,
even images captured in-situ may be analyzed and when combined with CPT
penetration resistances will paint a complete picture of both the intrinsic and state
properties and their stratigraphic distributions. With complete knowledge of intrinsic
and state properties, the anticipated engineering behavior of a site will be more
accurately predicted.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 15
CONCLUSIONS
Image analysis will play an ever increasing role in geotechnical engineering,
particularly in landform analysis using satellite images; aerial and surface monitoring
of soil and rock mass stability; stratigraphic characterization by borehole cameras and
the VisCPT; laboratory grain size and particle shape analysis; scanning electron
microscopy of clays; and motion detection of particles in-situ to detect liquefaction
and piping susceptibility. As camera resolutions and computing power increase, the
optical methods described in this paper will make many mechanical measurement and
testing systems less attractive and possibly obsolete. The optical methods provide
much more information than their mechanical counterparts. For example, image based
analysis of soils also provides detailed information on particle shapes. This holds the
promise of estimating intrinsic soil properties based on information derived from high
resolution images of geomaterials both in the lab and in-situ.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
under Grant Nos. CMMI 0900105 and CMMI 1300010 and Michigan Department of
Transportation Contract No. 2010-0296 Research No. ORE0908. ConeTec
Investigations Ltd. and the ConeTec Education Foundation are acknowledged for
their support to the Geotechnical Engineering Laboratories at the University of
Michigan. Figure 2 is reprinted, with permission, from Geotechnical Testing Journal,
Vol. 36, N o. 4, copyright ASTM International, 100 B arr Harbor Drive, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428. Drs. Scott Raschke, Ali Ghalib, Seung-Cheol Shin and
Yongsub Jung conducted the earlier research described in this paper while Merrick
Burch and Robert Fischer helped with the design and construction of the described
testing systems.

REFERENCES
Adu-Gyamfi, Y.O., Okine, N.A., Garateguy, G., Carrillo, R. and Arce, G.R. (2011).
Multiresolution information mining for pavement crack image analysis. J. Comput.
Civil Engrg. 26(6): 741-749.
Aksoy, B. a nd Ercanoglu, M. (2012). Landslide identification and classification by
object-based image analysis and fuzzy logic: An example from the Azdavay region
(Kastamonu, Turkey). Comput. Geosci. 38(1): 87-98.
Allan, M.O.J. and Priest, G.R. (2012). Movement and erosion quantification of the
Johnson Creek, Oregon landslide through 3D laser scanning. Proc., GeoCongress
2012, GSP No. 225, Vol. 5: 3050-3059.
Alshibli, K.A. and Sture, S. (1999). Sand shear band thickness measurements by digital
imaging techniques. J. Comput. Civil Engrg. 13(2): 103-109.
Amankwah, A. and Aldrich, C. (2011). Estimation of particulate fines on conveyor belts
by use of wavelets and morphological image processing. Int. J. Mach. Learn.
Comput. 1(2): 132-137.
Amarasiri, S., Gunaratne, M. and Sarkar, S. (2009). Modeling of crack depths in digital
images of concrete pavements using optical reflection properties. J. Transp.
Engrg. 136(6): 489-499.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 16
Arasan, S., Akbulut, S. and Hasiloglu, A.S. (2011a). Effect of particle size and shape on
the grain-size distribution using image analysis. Int. J. Civil Struct. Engrg. 1(4): 968-
985.
Arasan, S., Akbulut, S. and Hasiloglu, A.S. (2011b). The relationship between fractal
dimension and shape properties of particles. KSCE J. Civil Engrg. 15(7): 1219-1225.
Aydilek, A.H., Oguz, S.H. and Edil, T.B. (2002). Digital image analysis to determine
pore opening size distribution of nonwoven geotextiles. J. Comput. Civil
Engrg. 16(4): 280-290.
Bagde, M.N., Raina, A.K., Chakraborty, A.K. and Jethwa, J.L. (2002). Rock mass
characterization by fractal dimension. Engrg. Geol. 63(1): 141-155.
Banta, L., Cheng, K. and Zaniewski, J. (2003). Estimation of limestone particle mass
from 2D images. Powder Technol. 132(2): 184-189.
Benavente, N. and Pina, P. (2009). Morphological segmentation and classification of
marble textures at macroscopical scale. Comput. Geosci. 35(6): 1194-1204.
Bowman, E.T., Soga, K., and Drummond, W. (2001). Particle shape characterization
using Fourier descriptor analysis. Gotechnique, 51(6): 545-554.
Bowman, E.T. and Soga, K. (2003). Creep, ageing and microstructural change in dense
granular materials. Soils Found. 43(4): 107-117.
Breul, P. and Gourves, R. (2006). "In field soil characterization: approach based on
texture image analysis." J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engrg. 132(1):102-107.
Chandan, C., Sivakumar, K., Masad, E. and Fletcher, T. (2004). Application of imaging
techniques to geometry analysis of aggregate particles. J. Comput. Civil
Engrg. 18(1): 75-82.
Chen, S., Yue, Z.Q. and Tham, L.G. (2004). Digital image-based numerical modeling
method for prediction of inhomogeneous rock failure. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 41(6): 939-957.
Collins, B.D. and Sitar, N. (2005). Monitoring of coastal bluff stability using high
resolution 3D laser scanning. Proc., Geo-Frontiers 2005, GSP No. 138.
Conte, O.A. and Coffman, R.A. (2012). Slope stability monitoring using remote sensing
techniques. Proc., GeoCongress 2012, GSP No. 225, 3060-3068.
Devaux, M.F., Robert, P., Melcion, J.P. and Le Deschault de Monredon, F. (1997).
Particle size analysis of bulk powders using mathematical morphology. Powder
Technol. 90(2): 141-147.
Ehrlich, R., Kennedy, S.K., Crabtree, S.J. and Cannon, R.L. (1984). Petrographic image
analysis; I, Analysis of reservoir pore complexes. J. Sediment. Res. 54(4): 1365-1378.
Fernlund, J.M.R. (2005). Image analysis method for determining 3-D size distribution of
coarse aggregates. Bull. Eng. Geol. and the Envir. 64(2):159-166.
Fletcher, T., Chandan, C., Masad, E. and Sivakumar, K. (2003). Aggregate imaging
system for characterizing the shape of fine and coarse aggregates. Transportation
Research Record: J. of the Transp. Res. Board, No. 1832, 67-77.
Francus, P. (1998). An image-analysis technique to measure grain-size variation in thin
sections of soft clastic sediments. Sediment. Geol. 121(3): 289-298.
Glinas, V. and Vidal, D. (2010). Determination of particle shape distribution of clay
using an automated AFM image analysis method. Powder Technol. 203(2): 254-264.
Ghalib, A.M. (2001). Laboratory and in-situ soil characterization by computer vision.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 225 p.
Ghalib, A.M., Hryciw, R.D. and Shin, S.C. (1998). "Image texture analysis and neural
network for the characterization of uniform soils." Proc., ASCE Congress on Comput.
in Civil Eng., Boston, MA, 671-682.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 17
Ghalib, A.M. and Hryciw, R.D. (1999). Soil particle size distribution by mosaic imaging
and watershed analysis. J. Comput. Civil Engrg. 13(2): 80-87.
Ghalib, A.M., Hryciw, R.D. and Susila, E. (2000). Soil stratigraphy delineation by
VisCPT. Proc., GeoDenver 2000, GSP No. 97: 65-79.
Guler, M., Edil, T.B. and Bosscher, P.J. (1999). Measurement of particle movement in
granular soils using image analysis. J. Comput. Civil Engrg. 13(2):116-122.
Guler, M., Kutay, M.E., Aydilek, A.H. and Dafla, H. (2005). Evaluation of Strain
Distribution in Geotextiles Using Image Analysis. Proc., Geo-Frontiers 2005, GRI
No. 18.
Haralick, R.M., Shanmugam, K. and Dinstein, I. (1973). Textural features for image
classification. IEEE Trans. on System, Man, and Cybernetics 3(6): 610-621.
Hattori, S., Akimoto, K., Ono, T. and Miura, S. (2003). Tunnel profile measurement by
vision metrology toward application to NATM. Electronic Imaging 2003
International Society for Optics and Photonics, 50-58.
Hervs, J., Barredo, J.I., Rosin, P.L., Pasuto, A., Mantovani, F. and Silvano, S. (2003).
Monitoring landslides from optical remotely sensed imagery: the case history of
Tessina landslide, Italy. Geomorphology 54(1): 63-75.
Hryciw, R. D. and Ohm, H. S., (2012) Feasibility of digital imaging to characterize earth
materials, Research Report Number RC1557, Michigan Department of
Transportation, 290 p.
Hryciw, R.D. and Ohm, H.-S. (2013). Soil migration and piping susceptibility by the
VisCPT. Proc., GeoCongress 2013, GSP No. 231, 192-195.
Hryciw, R.D., Ohm, H.-S., Jung, Y. and Zhou, Jie (2013) The Theoretical Basis for
Optical Granulometry by Wavelet Transformation, ASCE Journal of Computing in
Civil Engineering, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000345(Jul. 25, 2013).
Hryciw, R.D., Shin, S. and Ghalib, A.M. (2003). High resolution site characterization by
VisCPT with application to hydrogeology Proc. of Soil and Rock America, the 12th
Panamerican Conf. on Soil Mech. and Geotech. Engrg., Vol. 1: 293-298.
Hryciw, R.D., Susila, E. and Shin, S. (2005). CPT readings, VisCPT observations and
advanced FEM modeling of penetration through soil interfaces. Proc., Geo-Frontier
2005 GSP No. 138.
Hryciw, R.D. and Shin, S. (2004). Thin layer and interface characterization by VisCPT.
Proc. Second Int. Conf. on Site Characterization, Porto, Portugal 701-706.
Hryciw, R.D., Jung, Y., Susila, E. and Ibrahim, A. (2009). "Thin soil layer detection by
VisCPT and FEM simulations." Proc. Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech. Engrg.,
Alexandria, Egypt 1052-1055.
Hu, R.L., Yue, Z.Q., Tham, L.G. and Wang, L.C. (2005). Digital image analysis of
dynamic compaction effects on clay fills. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engrg. 131(11):
1411-1422.
Hubler, J., Ohm, H.-S., Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A. and Hryciw, R.D. (2014). Effect of
Particle Morphology on t he Monotonic Response of Gravel-Sized Soils Through
Large Scale Simple Shear Testing. Proc., GeoCongress 2014.
Hubner, T., Will, S. and Leipertz, A. (2001). Sedimentation image analysis (SIA) for the
simultaneous determination of particle mass density and particle size. Particle and
Particle Syst. Char. 18(2): 70-78.
Jung, Y. (2010). Determination of Soil Grain Size Distribution by Soil Sedimentation
and Image Processing. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 202 p.
Jung, Y., Hryciw, R.D. and Elsworth, D. (2008). Vision cone penetrometer calibration
for soil grain size. Proc. of the Third Int. Conf. on Site Characterization ISC3,
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 18
Taipei, Taiwan, 1303-1308.
Katagiri, J., Matsushima, T. and Yamada, Y. (2010). Statistics on 3D particle shapes of
lunar soil (No. 60501) obtained by micro x-ray CT and its image-based DEM
simulation. Earth and Space 254-259.
Kemeny, J., Norton, B., Handy, J. and Donovan, J. (2008). Three-dimensional digital
imaging for the identification, evaluation and management of unstable highway
slopes. Final Report for NCHRP-IDEA Project 119, 27 p.
Kim, F.H., Penumadu, D., Gregor, J., Kardjilov, N. and Manke, I. (2013). High-
resolution neutron and x-ray imaging of granular materials. J. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engrg. 139(5): 715-723.
Kim, F.H., Penumadu, D. and Hussey, D.S. (2012). Water distribution variation in
partially saturated granular materials using neutron imaging. J. Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engrg. 138(2): 147-154.
Kumara, G.J.J., Hayano, K. and Ogiwara, K. (2012). Image analysis techniques on
evaluation of particle size distribution of gravel. Int. J. GEOMATE: geotechnique,
construction materials and environment Vol. 3: 290-297.
Kuo, C.Y. and Freeman, R.B. (20 00). Imaging indices for quantification of shape,
angularity, and surface texture of aggregates. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res.
Board, 1721(1): 57-65.
Kuo, C.-Y., Frost, J.D., Lai, J.S. and Wang, L.B. (1996). Three-Dimensional Image
Analysis of Aggregate Particles from Orthogonal Projections. Transport. Res. Rec.:
J. Transport. Res. Board, 1526: 98-103.
Lee, C.H., Chiu, Y.C., Wang, T.T. and Huang, T.H. (2013). Application and validation
of simple image-mosaic technology for interpreting cracks on t unnel lining. Tunn.
Undergr. Sp. Tech. 34: 61-72.
Leu, S.S. and Chang, S.L. (2005). Digital image processing based approach for tunnel
excavation faces. Automat. Constr. 14(6): 750-765.
Liu, J. and Iskander, M. (2004). Adaptive cross correlation for imaging displacements in
soils. J. Comput. Civil Engrg. 18(1): 46-57.
Mahmoud, E., Gates, L., Masad, E., Erdoan, S. and Garboczi, E. (2010).
Comprehensive evaluation of aims texture, angularity, and dimension
measurements. J. Mater. Civil Engrg. 22(4): 369-379.
Mahmoud, E. and Masad, E. (2007). Experimental methods for the evaluation of
aggregate resistance to polishing, abrasion, and breakage. J. Mater. Civil
Engrg. 19(11): 977-985.
Masad, E., Al-Rousan, J., Little, D. and Tutumluer, E. (2007). Test methods for
characterizing aggregate shape, texture, and angularity. NCHRP Report 555, Transp.
Res. Board.
Matsushima, T., Katagiri, J., Uesugi, K., Tsuchiyama, A. and Nakano, T. (2009). 3D
shape characterization and image-based DEM simulation of the lunar soil simulant
FJS-1. J. Aerospace Engrg. 22(1): 15-23.
Medina-Cetina, Z. and Rechenmacher, A. (2006). Image-based sensing of 3-D
displacements for enhanced soil model calibration. Proc., GeoCongress 2006.
Mynarczuk, M. (2010). Description and classification of rock surfaces by means of
laser profilometry and mathematical morphology. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 47(1):
138-149.
Mora, C.F. and Kwan, A.K.H. (2000). Sphericity, shape factor, and convexity
measurement of coarse aggregate for concrete using digital image processing.
Cement Concrete Res. 30(3): 351-358.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 19
Mora, C.F., Kwan, A.K.H. and Chan, H.C. (1998). Particle size distribution analysis of
coarse aggregate using digital image processing. Cement Concrete Res. 28(6): 921-
932.
Nederbragt, A.J. and Thurow, J.W. (2001). A 6000 yr varve record of Holocene climate
in Saanich Inlet, British Columbia, from digital sediment colour analysis of ODP Leg
169S cores. Mar. Geol. 174(1): 95-110.
Nyander, A., Addison, P.S., McEwan, I. and Pender, G. (2003). Analysis of river bed
surface roughnesses using 2D wavelet transform-based methods. Arab. J. Sci.
Eng., Vol. 28 (1; PART C): 107-122.
Ohm, H.-S. (2013). Image-Based Soil Particle Size and Shape Characterization. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 318 p.
Ohm, H.-S. and Hryciw, R.D. (2013b). Translucent segregation table test for sand and
gravel particle size distribution. Geotech. Test. J. 36(4): 592-605.
Ohm, H.-S. and Hryciw, R.D. (2014b). Soil Fabric Characterization by Wavelet
Transformation of Images. Proc., GeoCongress 2014.
Ohm, H.-S., Sahadewa, A., Hryciw, R.D., Zekkos, D., and Brant, N. (2013). Sustainable
Soil Particle Size Characterization through Image Analysis. Geotech. and Geol. Eng.,
DOI 10.1007/s10706-013-9657-z.
Ohnishi, Y., Nishiyama, S., Yano, T., Matsuyama, H. and Amano, K. (2006). A study of
the application of digital photogrammetry to slope monitoring systems. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 43(5): 756-766.
Piuela, J.A., Andina, D., McInnes, K.J. and Tarquis, A.M. (2007). Wavelet analysis in
a structured clay soil using 2-D images. Nonlinear Proc. Geoph. 14(4): 425-434.
Quiones-Rozo, C.A., Hashash, Y.M.A. and Liu, L.Y. (2008). Digital image reasoning
for tracking excavation activities. Automat. Constr. 17(5): 608-622.
Rajagopal (2012) A comparison of optical gradation analysis devices to current test
methods. Report FHWA/OH-2012/5, 109 p.
Rao, C. a nd Tutumluer, E. (2000). Determination of volume of aggregates.
Transportation Research Record: J. of the Transp. Res. Board, No. 1721, 73-80.
Raschke, S.A. and Hryciw, R.D. (1997). Grain-size distribution of granular soils by
computer vision. ASTM Geotech. Test. J. 20(4): 433-442.
Sachan, A., Lin, H. and Penumadu, D. (2006). Use of digital imaging technique for
studying strain localizations. Proc., GeoCongress 2006.
Sadek, S., Iskander, M.G. and Liu, J. (2003). Accuracy of digital image correlation for
measuring deformations in transparent media. J. Comput. Civil Engrg. 17(2): 88-96.
Sanchidrin, J.A., Segarra, P. and Lpez, L.M. (2006). A practical procedure for the
measurement of fragmentation by blasting by image analysis. Rock Mech Rock
Engrg. 39(4): 359-382.
Shaffner, P., Heisler, R., Krosley, L., Kotenstette, J. and Wright, J. (2009).
Characterization of dam foundation blocks using digital photogrammetric mapping
and boreholes geophysical logging to create comprehensive 3D foundation models.
Proc. of the 29th Annual USSD Conf., Nashville, TN, 33 p.
Shin, S. and Hryciw, R.D. (2004). Wavelet analysis of soil mass images for particle size
determination. J. Comput. Civil Engrg. 18(1): 19-27.
Sjostrom, J.W., Annandale, G.W. and Wikstrom, S.A. (2001). Riverbank protection
analysis in Yosemite National Park using digital imagery. Wetlands Engrg. & River
Restoration 2001, ASCE, 7 p.
Sobhan, K., Reddy, D.V. and Genduso, M.J. (2008). Permanent strain characterization
in granular materials using repeated load triaxial tests and digital image correlation
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Page 20
(DIC) technique. Proc., GeoCongress 2008, GSP No. 179, 181-188.
Su, Y.Y., Hashash, Y.M.A. and Liu, L.Y. (2006). Integration of construction as-built
data via laser scanning with geotechnical monitoring of urban excavation. J. Constr.
Engrg. Manage. 132(12): 1234-1241.
Sukumaran, B. and Ashmawy, A.K. (2003). Influence of inherent particle characteristics
on hopper flow rate. Powder Technol. 138(1): 46-50.
Suncar, O.E., Rathje, E.M. and Buckley, S.M. (2013). Deformations of a rapidly moving
landslide from high-resolution optical satellite imagery. Proc., GeoCongress 2013,
GSP No. 231, 269-278.
Tafesse, S., Fernlund, J.M.R. and Bergholm, F. (2012). Digital sieving-Matlab based 3-
D image analysis. Eng. Geol. Vol. 137-138: 74-84.
Take, W.A., Chappel, M.J., Brachman, R.W.I. and Rowe, R.K. (2007). Quantifying
geomembrane wrinkles using aerial photography and digital image
processing. Geosynth. Int. 14(4): 219-227.
Turel, M., and Frost, J.D., (2012), Satellite Imaging of Earthquake Geotechnical
Highway Damage, Proc.of GeoCongress 2012, GSP No. 225, 3041-3049.
Tutumluer, E. and Pan, T. (2008). Aggregate morphology affecting strength and
permanent deformation behavior of unbound a ggregate materials. J. Mater. Civil
Engrg. 20(9): 617-627.
van den Berg, E.H., Meesters, A.G.C.A., Kenter, J.A.M. and Schlager, W. (2002).
Automated separation of touching grains in digital images of thin sections. Comput.
Geosci. 28(2): 179-190.
Wang, L., Wang, X., Mohammad, L. and Abadie, C. (2005). A unified method to
quantify aggregate shape angularity and texture using Fourier analysis. J. of
Materials in Civil Engrg. 17(5): 498-504.
Wang, T.T., Jaw, J.J., Chang, Y.H. and Jeng, F.S. (2009). Application and validation of
profileimage method for measuring deformation of tunnel wall. Tunn. Undergr. Sp.
Tech. 24(2): 136-147.
Westgate, Z.J. and DeJong, J.T. (2006). Evolution of sand-structure interface response
during monotonic shear using particle image velocimetry. Proc., GeoCongress 2006.
Wettimuny, R. a nd Penumadu, D. (2004). Application of Fourier analysis to digital
imaging for particle shape analysis. J. Comput. Civil Engrg. 18(1): 2-9.
Zheng, J. and Hryciw, R.D. (2014). Soil particle size characterization by
stereophotography. Proc., GeoCongress 2014.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
s
c
e
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
.
o
r
g

b
y

B
E
R
N

D
I
B
N
E
R

L
I
B

S
C
I

&

T
E
C
H

o
n

0
8
/
2
7
/
1
4
.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

A
S
C
E
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
;

a
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

Innovations in Optical Geo-Characterization

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Innovations in Optical Geo-Characterization

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Page 1

Innovations in Optical Geo-Characterization

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen