Development of a 2D and 3D computational algorithm for discontinuity structural geometry identification by artificial intelligence based on image processing techniques

  • Mohammad Azarafza
  • Akbar GhazifardEmail author
  • Haluk Akgün
  • Ebrahim Asghari-Kaljahi
Original Paper


Block geometry is commonly the most important feature determining the behaviour of a rock mass and directly controls the structural instability in underground openings or surface cuttings. Various methods are used to estimate block geometry and to perform a block survey, and these are standardly divided into empirical-based methods (e.g. spot mapping, linear mapping, areal mapping) and computer-based methods (e.g. laser scanning, image processing, digital image mapping). Empirical approaches are associated with effective features as well as with a number of errors; however, the latter can be covered by artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. The combination of image processing and areal mapping have led to geometric block estimation in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) spaces; these approaches can be widely used in stability analysis, dimension stone extraction, excavations, open pit mining design and the delineation of blasting patterns for dimension stone extraction. Therefore, the application of an approach that allows both the modelling and production of rock blocks based on their actual status with qualified accuracy and speed are both worthwhile and necessary. In this study, to estimate the shape and block dimension utilized, we used the algorithm based on the AI image processing technique for rock mass structural detection and for rock block definition in 2D and 3D space obtained with the Mathematica software package. The algorithm, by categorizing the discontinuities in two groups (opened and closed), which represents the main and the secondary discontinuities, can identify the emplacement and shape of rock blocks.


Artificial intelligence Discontinuity Image processing techniques Digital image processing Computer simulation Mathematica 


Compliance with ethical standards

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. Alejano LR, Pons B, Bastante FG, Alonso E, Stockhausen HW (2007) Slope geometry design as a means for controlling rockfalls in quarries. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44(6):903–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azarafza M, Yarahmadi-Bafghi AR, Asghari-Kaljahi E, Bahmannia GR, Moshrefy-Far MR (2013) Stability analysis of jointed rock slopes using key block method (case study: gas flare site in 6, 7 and 8 phases of south pars gas complex). J Geotch Geol 9(3):169–185 (in Persian)Google Scholar
  3. Azarafza M, Asghari-Kaljahi E, Akgün H (2017a) Numerical modeling of discontinuous rock slope utilizing the 3DDGM (three dimensional discontinuity geometrical modeling) method. Bull of Eng Geol Environ 76:989–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azarafza M, Asghari-Kaljahi E, Akgün H (2017b) Assessment of discontinuous rock slope stability with block theory and numerical modeling: a case study for the South Pars Gas Complex, Assalouyeh, Iran. Environ Earth Sci 76(11):397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azarafza M, Feizi-Derakhshi MR, Azarafza M (2017c) Computer modeling of crack propagation in concrete retaining walls: a case study. Comput Concrete (CAC) 19(5):509–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozzini M, Lenarduzzi L, Rossini M (2014) Non-regular surface approximation. Math Methods Curv Surf 8177:68–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brady BHG, Brown ET (2010) Rock mechanics: for underground mining, 3rd edn. Springer SBM, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Cacciari PP, Futai MM (2016) Mapping and characterization of rock discontinuities in a tunnel using 3D terrestrial laser scanning. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75(1):223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cao F (2000) Geometric curve evolution and image processing. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Gonzalez RC, Woods RE (2002) Digital image processing. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodman RE (1976) Methods of geological engineering in discontinuous rocks. West, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodman RE (1989) Introduction to rock mechanics. Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman RE, Shi G (1985) Block theory and its application to rock engineering. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  14. Gonzalez RC, Woods RE, Steven L (2010) Digital image processing using MATLAB, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamdi E, du Mouza J (2005) A methodology for rock mass characterization and classification to improve blast results. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42(2):177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hudson JA, Harrison JP (1997) Engineering rock mechanics—an introduction to the principles. Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Jaeger JC, Cook NG, Zimmerman R (2009) Fundamentals of rock mechanics. Wiley, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Jain R, Kasturi R, Schunck BG (1995) Machine vision. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. MathWorks (2014) MATLAB, Version R2014b. MathWorks Inc., NatickGoogle Scholar
  20. Nikoobakht S, Ghazifard A, Azarafza M (2016) Stability analysis of sliding wedges in exit portal of Golab 2 tunnel. In: 34th National and the 2nd International geosciences congress of Iran (in Persian)Google Scholar
  21. Palmstrom A (1982) The volumetric joint count—a useful and simple measure of the degree of rock mass jointing. In: Proc IAEG Congress. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  22. Palmstrom A (1996a) The weighted joint density method leads to improved characterization of jointing. In: Int Conference Recent Advances in Tunnelling Technology. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  23. Palmstrom A (1996b) Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in practical rock engineering. Part 1: the development if the rock mass index (RMi). Tunn Undergr Space Technol 11(2):175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palmstrom A (2000) Block size and block size distribution. In: Proc GeoEng2000 Conference. 18–24 November 2000. MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  25. Palmstrom A (2005) Measurements and correlations between block size and rock quality designation (RQD). Tunn Undergr Space Technol 20(4):362–377Google Scholar
  26. Porsani JL, Sauck WA, Junior AO (2006) GPR for mapping fractures and as a guide for the extraction of ornamental granite from a quarry: a case study from southern Brazil. J Appl Geophys 58(3):177–187Google Scholar
  27. Priest S (1993) Discontinuity analysis for rock engineering. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Prost GL (2013) Remote sensing for geoscientists: image analysis and integration, 3rd edn. CRC press, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  29. Pusch R (1995) Rock mechanics on a geological base. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Saliu MA, Idowu KA (2014) Investigating the effect of fracture on rock fragmentation efficiency: a case study of Kopec granite quarries, south western, Nigeria. J Earth Sci Geotech Eng 4(4):53–69Google Scholar
  31. Ulusay R (2015) The ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 2007–2014. Springer SBM, BaselGoogle Scholar
  32. Wolfram S (2003) The Mathematica book, 5th edn. Wolfram Media/Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Yarahmadi R, Bagherpour R, Sousa LMO, Taherian S (2015) How to determine the appropriate methods to identify the geometry of in situ rock blocks in dimension stones. Environ Earth Sci 74:6779–6790CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeologyUniversity of IsfahanIsfahanIran
  2. 2.Geotechnology Unit, Department of Geological EngineeringMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations