Advertisement

Determination of rock type and moisture content in flysch using TLS intensity in the Elerji quarry (south-west Slovenia)

  • Tina ŽivecEmail author
  • Andreja Anžur
  • Timotej Verbovšek
Original Paper

Abstract

Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) was performed in tectonically undisturbed flysch in the Elerji quarry (south-west Slovenia), which represents heterogeneous rock mass with alternation of marlstone and sandstone beds. A 9.3-m-thick lithological profile was measured in detail and then compared to TLS values of reflected intensity and mineralogical composition of general marlstones and sandstones. The results showed distinguishable differences between the intensity values of marlstones and sandstones, as these two groups were found to be statistically different. It was also possible to discriminate these units with regard to their moisture content, as different values were observed for combinations of lithology and moisture content. Correlations of intensity and RGB (red, green, blue) values for the mineralogical composition of marlstones and sandstones revealed a good correlation of intensity with combined calcite and quartz content; however, such correlation is valid only for sandstones due to their bigger grain size. Larger quartz grains can scatter the laser beam and lower the correlation. The results showed that acquiring data from heterogeneous rock mass using TLS could be used for the geotechnical engineering classification of distant, inaccessible outcrops and excavated faces, based on the well-established RMR (Rock Mass Rating) and GSI (Geological Strength Index) rock mass classification systems. Both RMR and GSI classification systems classify rock mass based on rock composition, structure and surface conditions of discontinuities. Lithological segmentation of heterogeneous rocks presents, therefore, an important input parameter for their further classification.

Keywords

Flysch rock mass TLS Signal intensity Reflectance South-west Slovenia Moisture content Rock mass characterisation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research for using TLS for lithology logging of thin-bedded heterogeneous rock mass by analysing the intensity values of the reflected laser beam was performed between 2011 and 2016 as part of the Elea iC Research & Development group NTg2 (New Technologies in Geomatics and Geomechanics), which was co-financed by the European Union. The analysis included scanned faces of underground and ground excavations, like tunnel and quarry faces.

The authors express their thanks to Dr. Matej Dolenec for the performance of XRD analysis and DFG Consulting for supporting the performance and knowledge of terrestrial laser scanning.

References

  1. Andriani GF, Parise M (2015) On the applicability of geomechanical models for carbonate rock masses interested by karst processes. Environ Earth Sci 74(12):7813–7821.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4596-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andriani GF, Parise M (2017) Applying rock mass classifications to carbonate rocks for engineering purposes with a new approach using the rock engineering system. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9(2):364–369.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of rock support. Rock Mechanics, 6(4), pp. 189–236Google Scholar
  4. Bellian JA, Kerans C, Jennette DC (2005) Digital outcrop models: applications of terrestrial scanning lidar technology in stratigraphic modeling. J Sediment Res 75(2):166–176.  https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2005.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bieniawski, ZT (1989) Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil, and Petroleum Engineering, A Wiley-Interscience publication. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley SJ, Enge HD, Carlsson C et al (2010) Terrestrial laser scanning for use in virtual outcrop geology. Photogrammetric Rec 25(131):225–239.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9730.2010.00585.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton D, Dunlap DB, Wood LJ et al (2011) Lidar intensity as a remote sensor of rock properties. J Sediment Res 81(5):339–347.  https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2011.31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campos Inocencio L, Veronez MR, Wohnrath Tognoli FM et al (2014) Spectral pattern classification in Lidar data for rock identification in outcrops. Sci World J 2014:539029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carrea D, Abellan A, Humair F et al (2016) Correction of terrestrial LiDAR intensity channel using Oren–Nayar reflectance model: an application to lithological differentiation. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 113(supplement C):17–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fekete S, Diederichs M (2013) Integration of three-dimensional laser scanning with discontinuum modelling for stability analysis of tunnels in blocky rockmasses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 57:11–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fekete S, Diederichs M, Lato M (2010) Geotechnical and operational applications for 3-dimensional laser scanning in drill and blast tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 25(5):614–628.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2010.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feng Q, Röshoff K (2015) A survey of 3D laser scanning techniques for application to rock mechanics and rock engineering. In: Ulusay R (ed) The ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 2007–2014. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 265–293.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07713-0_25 Google Scholar
  13. Fookes PG (1997) Geology for engineers: the geological model, prediction and performance. Quart J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 30(4):293–424.  https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1997.030.P4.02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franceschi M, Teza G, Preto N et al (2009) Discrimination between marls and limestones using intensity data from terrestrial laser scanner. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 64(6):522–528.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heritage G, Large A (2009) Laser scanning for the environmental sciences. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 288 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Humair F, Abellan A, Carrea D et al (2015) Geological layers detection and characterisation using high resolution 3D point clouds: example of a box-fold in the Swiss Jura Mountains. Eur J Remote Sens 48(1):541–568.  https://doi.org/10.5721/EuJRS20154831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kraus K (2007) Photogrammetry: geometry from images and laser scans. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 459 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu J, Georghiades AS, Rushmeier H, Dorsey J, Xu C (2005) Synthesis of material drying history: phenomenon modeling, transferring and rendering. In: Proceedings of the first Eurographics conference on natural phenomena (NPH’05). Eurographics Association, Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland, pp 7–16Google Scholar
  19. Marinos P, Hoek E (2001) Estimating the geotechnical properties of heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch. Bull Eng Geol Environ 60(2):85–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100640000090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marinos V, Marinos P, Hoek E (2005) The geological strength index: applications and limitations. Bull Eng Geol Environ 64(1):55–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-004-0270-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marinos V, Marinos P, Hoek E (2007) Geological Strength Index (GSI). A characterization tool for assessing engineering properties for rock masses. In: Underground Works under Special Conditions. Proceedings of the ISRM Workshop W1, Madrid, Spain, 6–7 July 2007, pp 13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1201/NOE0415450287.ch2
  22. Matasci B, Carrea D, Abellan A et al (2015) Geological mapping and fold modeling using Terrestrial Laser Scanning point clouds: application to the Dents-du-Midi limestone massif (Switzerland). Eur J Remote Sens 48(1):569–591.  https://doi.org/10.5721/EuJRS20154832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nourani MH, Moghadder MT, Safari M (2017) Classification and assessment of rock mass parameters in Choghart iron mine using P-wave velocity. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9(2):318–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Osgoui RR, Ulusay R, Unal E (2010) An assistant tool for the Geological Strength Index to better characterize poor and very poor rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci 47(4):690–697.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Penasa L, Franceschi M, Preto N et al. (2014) Integration of intensity textures and local geometry descriptors from Terrestrial Laser Scanning to map chert in outcrops. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 93:88–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pesci A, Teza G, Ventura G (2008) Remote sensing of volcanic terrains by terrestrial laser scanner: preliminary reflectance and RGB implications for studying Vesuvius crater (Italy). Ann Geophys 51(4):633–653.  https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-4455 Google Scholar
  27. Pfeifer N, Dorninger P, Haring A et al (2007) Investigating terrestrial laser scanning intensity data: quality and functional relations. In: Proceedings of the 8th conference on Optical 3-D Measurement Techniques, Zurich, Switzerland, July 2007, pp 328–337Google Scholar
  28. Pleničar M, Polšak A, Šikić D (1969) Osnovna geoloska karta SFRJ. L 33-88, Trst (Trieste) [kartografsko gradivo], 1:100 000. Beograd: Zvezni geoloski zavodGoogle Scholar
  29. Pleničar M, Polšak A, Šikić D (1973) Tolmac za list Trst: L 33-88: Socialisticna federativna republika Jugoslavija, osnovna geoloska karta, 1:100 000. Beograd: Zvezni geoloski zavodGoogle Scholar
  30. Ranasooriya J (2009) The reliability of rock mass classification systems as underground excavation support design tools. Ph.D. thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  31. Read SAL, Perrin ND, Richards L (2000) Assessment of New Zealand greywacke rock masses with the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. In: Proceedings of the ISRM International Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, 19–24 November. International Society for Rock MechanicsGoogle Scholar
  32. Riegl LMS GmbH (2011) 3D Terrestrial Laser Scanner Riegl VZ-400: General Description and Data InterfacesGoogle Scholar
  33. Rožič B, Verbovšek T, Vrabec M (2014) Povzetki in ekskurzije/Abstracts and field trips. In: 4. slovenski geološki kongres, Ankaran, 8.-10. oktober 2014. Ljubljana: Naravoslovnotehniska fakultetaGoogle Scholar
  34. Slob S, Hack HRGK, van Knapen B et al (2004) Automated identification and characterisation of discontinuity sets in outcropping rock masses using 3D terrestrial laser scan survey techniques. In: Schubert W (ed) Proceedings of the ISRM regional symposium EUROCK 2004 and 53rd Geomechanics colloquy: rock engineering and practice, Salzburg, Austria, 7–9 October 2004. Verlag Glückauf, Essen, pp 439–443Google Scholar
  35. Sturzenegger M (2010) Multi-scale characterization of rock mass discontinuities and rock slope geometry using terrestrial remote sensing techniques. Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  36. Telling J, Lyda A, Hartzell P et al (2017) Review of earth science research using terrestrial laser scanning. Earth Sci Rev 169(supplement C):35–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vöge M, Lato MJ, Diederichs MS (2013) Automated rockmass discontinuity mapping from 3-dimensional surface data. Eng Geol 164:155–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering, Department of GeologyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.DFG Consulting d.o.o.LjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations