Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 60, Issue 3, pp 831–864 | Cite as

Evaluating roadside rockmasses for rockfall hazards using LiDAR data: optimizing data collection and processing protocols

  • Matthew J. Lato
  • Mark S. Diederichs
  • D. Jean Hutchinson
  • Rob Harrap
Original Paper

Abstract

Highways and railroads situated within rugged terrain are often subjected to the hazard of rockfalls. The task of assessing roadside rockmasses for potential hazards typically involves an on-site visual investigation of the rockmass by an engineer or geologist. At that time, numerous parameters associated with discontinuity orientations and spacing, block size (volume) and shape distributions, slope geometry, and ditch profile are either measured or estimated. Measurements are typically tallied according to a formal hazard rating system, and a hazard level is determined for the site. This methodology often involves direct exposure of the evaluating engineer to the hazard and can also create a potentially non-unique record of the assessed slope based on the skill, knowledge and background of the evaluating engineer. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)–based technologies have the capability to produce spatially accurate, high-resolution digital models of physical objects, known as point clouds. Mobile terrestrial LiDAR equipment can collect, at traffic speed, roadside data along highways and rail lines, scanning continual distances of hundreds of kilometres per day. Through the use of mobile terrestrial LiDAR, in conjunction with airborne and static systems for problem areas, rockfall hazard analysis workflows can be modified and optimized to produce minimally biased, repeatable results. Traditional rockfall hazard analysis inputs include two distinct, but related sets of variables related to geological or geometric control. Geologically controlled inputs to hazard rating systems include kinematic stability (joint identification/orientation) and rock block shape and size distributions. Geometrically controlled inputs include outcrop shape and size, road, ditch and outcrop profile, road curvature and vehicle line of sight. Inputs from both categories can be extracted or calculated from LiDAR data, although there are some limitations and special sampling and processing considerations related to structural character of the rockmass, as detailed in this paper.

Keywords

Lidar Rockfall Rockmass Characterization Risk Hazard 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend gratitude to Kathy Kalenchuk and Dave Ball from Queen’s University. The authors would like to thank the support of Paul Mrstik, Craig Sheriff and Kresimir Kusevic from Ambercore for mobile terrestrial and helicopter LiDAR data collection and knowledgeable support. The authors would also like to thank Isabel Coderre for her countless hours of editing. As well, the authors would like to thank InnovMetric for the consultations regarding processing geological LiDAR data in PolyWorks. This research has been generously funded since 2006 by the NSERC, GEOIDE and PREA agencies with tactical support from CN and CPRail.

References

  1. Abbott B, Bruce I, Keegan T, Oboni F, Savigny W (1998) A methodology for the assessment of rockfall hazard and risk along linear transportation corridors. In: 8th Congress, international association of engineering geology, a global view from the Pacific rim, Vancouver, vol 2. A. A. Balkema, Vancouver, pp 1195–1200Google Scholar
  2. Abellán A, Jaboyedoff M, Oppikofer T, Vilaplana JM (2009) Detection of millimetric deformation using a terrestrial laser scanner: experiment and application to a rockfall event. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abellán A, Vilaplana JM, Martínez J (2006) Application of a long-range Terrestrial Laser Scanner to a detailed rockfall study at Vall de Núria (Eastern Pyrenees, Spain). Eng Geol 88(3–4):136–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agliardi F, Crosta GB (2003) High resolution three-dimensional numerical modelling of rockfalls. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:455–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alshawa M, Smigiel E, Grussenmeyer P, Landes T (2007). Integration of a terrestrial LiDAR on a mobile mapping platform: first experiences. In: 5th International symposium on mobile mapping technology, Italy, p 6Google Scholar
  6. Amann M-C, Bosch T, Myllyla R, Rioux M (2001) Laser ranging: a critical review of usual techniques for distance measurement. Opt Eng 40(1):10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ambercore (2007) ALMIS. Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  8. Ambercore (2009) TITAN. Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  9. Arattano M, Marchi L (2008) Systems and sensors for debris-flow monitoring and warning. Sensors 8:2436–2452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barber D, Mills J, Smith-Voysey S (2008) Geometric validation of a ground-based mobile laser scanning system. J Photogramm Remote Sens 63:128–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of rock support. Rock Mech 6:189–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bauer A, Paar G, Kaltenböck A (2005) Mass movement monitoring using terrestrial laser scanner for rock fall management. In: Geo-information for disaster management, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 393–406Google Scholar
  13. Bellian JA, Kerans C, Jennette DC (2005) Digital outcrop models: applications of terrestrial scanning LiDAR technology in stratigraphic modelling. J Sediment Res 2(75):166–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classification. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Bonnaffe F, Jennette D, Andrews J (2007) A method for acquiring and processing ground-based LiDAR data in difficult-to-access outcrops for use in three-dimensional, virtual-reality models. Geosphere 3(6):501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bourrier F, Dorren L, Nicot F, Berger F, Darve F (2009) Toward objective rockfall trajectory simulation using a stochastic impact model. Geomorphology 110:68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bruce Geotechnical Consultants Inc. in association with Oboni Associates Inc (1997) Canadian National Railway Rockfall Hazard and Risk Assessment System. Field Implementation ManualGoogle Scholar
  18. Buckley SJ, Howell JA, Enge HD, Kurz TH (2008) Terrestrial laser scanning in geology: data acquisition, processing and accuracy considerations. J Geol Soc 165:625–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bunce CM, Cruden DM, Morgenstern NR (1997) Assessment of the hazard from rock fall on a highway. Can Geotech J 34:344–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carr SD, Easton RM, Jamieson RA, Culshaw NG (2000) Geologic transect across the Grenville Orogen of Ontario and New York. Can J Earth Sci 37:193–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chau KT, Wong RH, Wu JJ (2002) Coefficient of restitution and rotational motions of rockfall impacts. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cushing HP (1908) Lower portion of the Paleozoic section in northwestern New York. Geol Soc Am Bull 19:155–176Google Scholar
  23. Derron MH, Jaboyedoff M, Blikra LH (2005) Preliminary assessment of rockslide and rockfall hazards using a DEM (Oppstadhornet, Norway). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Donovan J, Raza AW (2008) A change detection method for slope monitoring and identification of potential rockfall using three-dimensional imaging. American Rock Mechanics Association, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  25. El-Rabbany A (2006) Introduction to GPS: the global positioning system, 2nd edn. Artech House Publishers, NorwoodGoogle Scholar
  26. ESRI (2008) ArcGIS V9.3 (Build 1770)Google Scholar
  27. Fekete S, Diederichs MS, Lato M (2009) Geotechnical and operational applications for dimensional laser scanning in drill and blast tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol; submitted Oct 2009 (manuscript 18 pages, 28 figures)Google Scholar
  28. Fekete S, Diederichs M, Lato M (2009b) Geotechnical applications of LiDAR scanning in tunnelling, RockEng. Diederichs and Grasselli, Toronto, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  29. Feng QH, Röshoff K (2004) In Situ mapping and documentation of rock faces using a full-coverage 3D laser scanning technique. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41(3):1–6Google Scholar
  30. Franklin JA, Senior SA (1997) Outline of RHRON, the Ontario rockfall hazard rating system. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on engineering geology and the environment, Athens, pp 647–656Google Scholar
  31. Glennie C (2007a) Reign of point clouds: a kinematic terrestrial LiDAR scanning system. In: InsideGNSS, pp 21–31Google Scholar
  32. Glennie C (2007b) Rigorous 3D error analysis of kinematic scanning LiDAR systems. J Appl Geodesy 1:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holm K, Jakob M (2009) Long rockfall runout, Pascua, Chile. Can Geotech J 46:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hungr O, Fletcher L, Jakob M, MacKay C, Evans SG (2003) A system of rock fall and rock slide hazard rating for a railway. In: Geohazards, Edmonton, pp 277–283Google Scholar
  35. Iavarone A, Vagners D (2003) Sensor fusion: generating 3D by combining airborne and tripod mounted LiDAR data. In: International archives of photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences, vol XXXIV. ISPRS, Regensburg, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  36. InnovMetric (2008) PolyWorks V11.0.1. Quebec City, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  37. Janeras M, Navarro M, Ruiz A, Kornus W, Talaya J, Barbera M et al. (2004) LiDAR applications to rock fall hazard assessment in Vall de Nuria. In: 4th ICA Mountain Cartography Workshop, Spain, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  38. Kalenchuk K, Diederichs MS, McKinnon S (2006) Characterizing block geometry in jointed rockmasses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:1212–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kemeny J, Turner K (2008) Ground-based LiDAR rock slope mapping and assessment. Federal Lands Highway Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnership Program. Federal Highway Administration, LakewoodGoogle Scholar
  40. Lan H, Martin CD, Lim CH (2007) Rockfall analyst: a GIS extension for three-dimensional and spatially distributed rockfall hazard monitoring. Comput Geosci 33:262–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lato M, Hutchinson J, Diederichs M, Kalenchuk K (2007) Evaluating block shape and block volume distributions of rock faces using LiDAR and 3DEC. Geophys Res Abstr (European Geosciences Union) 9:1–2Google Scholar
  42. Lato M, Hutchinson DJ, Diederichs MS, Harrap R (2008) Optimization of LiDAR scanning and processing for automated structural evaluation of discontinuities in rockmasses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:194–199Google Scholar
  43. Lato M, Diederichs MS, Hutchinson DJ (2009a) Bias correction for static LiDAR scanning of rock outcrops for structural characterization. Rock Mech Rock Eng 23:5–7. doi: 10.1007/s00603-010-0086-4 Google Scholar
  44. Lato M, Hutchinson DJ, Diederichs MS, Ball D, Harrap R (2009b) Engineering monitoring of rockfall hazards along transportation corridors: using mobile terrestrial LiDAR. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:935–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leica Geosystems (2007) HDS6000. Heerbrugg, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  46. Leica Geosystems HDS LLC (2008) Cyclone 6.0.2 Build 980. Heerbrugg, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  47. Lemy F, Hadjigeorgiou J (2004) A digital face mapping case study in an underground hard rock mine. Can Geotech J 41:1011–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lemy F, Yong S, Schultz T (2006) A case study of monitoring tunnel wall displacement using laser scanning technology. In: IAEG. The Geological Society of London, Nottingham, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  49. Maerz NH (2000). Highway rock cut stability assessment in rock massed not conducive to stability calculations. In: Proceedings of the 51st annual highway geology symposium, Seattle, pp 249–259Google Scholar
  50. Maptek (2007) I-Site 4400. Denver, Co, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. McCaffrey KW, Jones R, Holdsworth R, Wilson R, Clegg P, Imber J (2005) Unlocking the spatial dimension: digital technologies and the future of geoscience fieldwork. J Geol Soc Lond 162:927–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McFall GH (1993) Structural Elements and Neotectonics of Prince Edward County, Southern Ontario. Geographie Physique et Quaternaire 47(3):303–312Google Scholar
  53. McFarlane RB (1992) Stratigraphy, paleoenvironmental interpretation, and sequences of the Middle Ordovician Black River Group. Queen’s University at Kingston, Kingston (Publication No. AAT MM80627)Google Scholar
  54. McHugh EL (2004) Video motion detection for real-time hazard warnings in surface mines. In: SME annual meeting. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Denver, p 10Google Scholar
  55. McKean J, Roering J (2004) Objective landslide detection and surface morphology mapping using high-resolution airborne laser altimetry. Geomorphology 57:331–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mechelke K, Kersten TP, Lindstaedt M (2007) Comparative investigation into the accuracy behaviour of the new generation of terrestrial laser scanning systems. In: Optical 3D measurement techniques, vol VIII. Gruen and Kahmen, Zurich, pp 319–327Google Scholar
  57. Mekni M, Sahli N, Moulin B (2008) A geosimulation approach involving spatially-aware agents: a case study on the identification of risky areas for trains. SpringSim 1-56555-319-5, 37-45Google Scholar
  58. Moore HL (1986) Wedge rockfalls along Tennessee highways in the Appalachian region: their occurrence and correction. Bull As Eng Geol 23(4):441–460Google Scholar
  59. Optech (2008) Lynx Mobile Mapper. TorontoGoogle Scholar
  60. Park HJ, West TR (2002) Sampling bias of discontinuity orientation caused by linear sampling bias. Eng Geol 66:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pedrazzini A, Jaboyedoff M (2008). Structures and failure mechanisms analysis of turtle mountain. In: Locat DPJ (ed) Geohazards, Quebec City, pp 349–356Google Scholar
  62. Perret S, Dolf F, Kienholz H (2004) Rockfalls into forests: analysis and simulation of rockfall trajectories—considerations with respect to mountainous forests in Switzerland. Landslides 1:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pierson LA (1991) “Rockfall hazard rating system” final report. Federal Highway Administration, Oregon State Highway Division, SalemGoogle Scholar
  64. Priest SD (1993) Discontinuity analysis for rock engineering. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Priest SD, Hudson JA (1976) Discontinuity spacings in rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 13:135–148Google Scholar
  66. Pringle J, Gardiner A, Westerman R (2004) Virtual geological outcrops—fieldwork and analysis made less exhaustive. Geol Today 20(2):67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pritchard M, Porter M, Savigny KW, Bruce I, Oboni F, Keegan T (2005) CN rockfall hazard risk management system: Experience, enhancements, and future direction. The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  68. Ritchie AM (1963) Highway Research Record 17: evaluation of rockfall and its control. Highway Research Board, National Research Council. Transportation Research Board, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  69. RocScience (2006) Dips 5.1. TorontoGoogle Scholar
  70. RocScience (2007) RocFall 4.045. Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  71. Roncella R, Forlani G (2005) Extraction of planar patches from point clouds to retrieve dip and dip direction of rock discontinuities. ISPRS WG III/3, III/4, V/3 Workshop “Laser scanning 2005” EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  72. Rosser N, Dunning SA, Lim M, Petley DN (2005) Terresterial laser scanning for quantitative rockfall hazard assessment. In: Hungr, Fell, Couture, Eberhardt (eds) Landslide risk management, Paper 91. Balekema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  73. Stover BK (1992) Highway rockfall research report. Geological Survey Special Publication, DenverGoogle Scholar
  74. Sturzenegger M, Stead D (2009a) Quantifying discontinuity orientation and persistence on high mountain rock slopes and large landslides using terrestrial remote sensing techniques. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:267–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sturzenegger M, Stead D (2009b) Close-range terrestrial digital photogrammetry and terrestrial laser scanning for discontinuity characterization on rock cuts. Eng Geol 106:163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sturzenegger M, Yan M, Stead D, Elmo D (2007) Applications and limitations of ground-based laser scanning in rock slope characterization. In: Eberhardt E, Stead D, Morrison T (eds) Proceedings of the first Canadian US rock mechanics symposium, vol 1. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 29–36Google Scholar
  77. Terzaghi RD (1965) Source of error in joint surveys. Geotechnique 15:287–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Trevisani S, Cavalli M, Marchi L (2009) Variogram maps from LiDAR data as fingerprints of surface morphology on scree slopes. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Trinks I, Clegg P, McCaffrey K, Jones R, Hobbs R, Holdsworth B (2005) Mapping and analysing virtual outcrops. Vis Geosci 1–7Google Scholar
  80. Turner AK, Kemeny J, Slob S, Hack R (2006) Evaluation, and management of unstable rock slopes by 3D laser scanning. In; International association for engineering geology and the environment. The Geological Society of London, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  81. Vanderwater CJ, Dunne WM, Mauldon M, Drumm EC, Bateman V (2005) Classifying and assessing the geologic contribution to rockfall hazard. Environ Eng Geosci XI(2):141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vosselman G, Gorte B, Sithole G, Rabbani T (2004) Recognising structure in laser scanner point clouds. In: International archives of photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences vol 46. ISPRS, Freiberg, pp 33–38Google Scholar
  83. Yang Y, Farrell JA (2003) Magnetometer and differential carrier phase GPS-aided INS for advanced vehicle control. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 19(2):269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zimmer VL, Stock GM, Sitar N (2008) Seismic monitoring of rock falls in Yosemite National Park. American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, abstract #H51F-0897Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew J. Lato
    • 1
  • Mark S. Diederichs
    • 2
  • D. Jean Hutchinson
    • 2
  • Rob Harrap
    • 2
  1. 1.Norwegian Geotechnical InstituteOsloNorway
  2. 2.Geological Sciences and Geological EngineeringQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations