SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics / 2016 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3

Determining Roughness Angle of Limestone Using Optical Laser Scanner

E. Özgür Avşar
Erkan Bozkurtoğlu
Umut Aydar
Dursun Zafer Şeker
Şinasi Kaya
Cem Gazioğlu
Pages
57–75
Publication Date
2016-12-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Mathematical analyses of 17 profiles showed that roughness profiles can be expressed by 21st – 30th degree polynomial equations with approximately 10-4 degree standard deviation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, a limestone rock core specimen with 6.94 cm x 4.95 cm dimensions was exposed to tensile force by Brazilian test and rough surfaces were obtained.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, Nextengine 3D Desktop scanner was used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Mathematical analyses of 17 profiles showed that roughness profiles can be expressed by 21st – 30th degree polynomial equations with approximately 10-4 degree standard deviation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Roughness angle · limestone · image processing

Abstract

In this study, a limestone rock core specimen with 6.94 cm x 4.95 cm dimensions was exposed to tensile force by Brazilian test and rough surfaces were obtained. Following the Brazilian test, roughness angles were measured by a laser scanner along one side of the rock specimen. For this purpose, Nextengine 3D Desktop scanner was used. The 17 profiles were studied along the width of the core with a 0.3 mm interval. Approximately 10000 points produced for each profile, some of them are in the “+” and some are in the “-” direction along each profile. Maximum and minimum roughness angles are calculated as 65.580 and 1.56x10-5 degree respectively. The average roughness angle value of the profiles is 13.870. The percentage of the roughness angle between 13 and 14 degrees were 2.65% and 2.70% for “-” and “+” directions on the rock surface, respectively. Mathematical analyses of 17 profiles showed that roughness profiles can be expressed by 21st – 30th degree polynomial equations with approximately 10-4 degree standard deviation.

🔖

Cite This Article

Avşar, E. Ö., Bozkurtoğlu, E., Aydar, U., Şeker, D. Z., Kaya, Ş., Gazioğlu, C. (2016). Determining Roughness Angle of Limestone Using Optical Laser Scanner. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3, 57–75. https://ajindex.com/articles/672641

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Akça, D., Grün, A., Breuckmann, B., And Lahanier, C. (2007). High Definition 3D-Scanning of Arts Objects and Paintings, Optical 3D Measurement Techniques VIII, July 9-12,
  2. Zurich, Switzerland. Anon, (1979). Classification of rocks and soils for engineering geological mapping. Part I–Rock and soil materials’, Bull. Int. Ass. Engg Geol., 19, 364-371.
  3. Aydar, U., Akyol, O., Duran, Z. (2011). A Low-Cost Laser Scanning System Design, XXIII CIPA Symposium, 12/16 September 2011,
  4. Prague, Czech Republic. Barton, N. R. (1973). Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock joints. Eng. Geol., 8, 287-332.
  5. Barton, N. R. and Choubey, V. (1977). The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice. Rock Mechanics, 10, 1-54.
  6. Fardin, N., Feng, Q. and Stephansson, O. (2004). Application of a new in situ 3D laser scanner to study the scale effect on the rock joint surface roughness. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(2): 329-335.
  7. Fecker, E. and Rengers, N. F. (1971). Measurement of large scale roughness of rock planes by means of profilograph and geological compass. 1st Int. Symp. Rock Mech, Nancy pp.1-18.
  8. Galante, G., Piacentini, M. and Ruisi, V. F. (1991). Surface roughness detection by tool image processing, Wear, 148(2): 211-220.
  9. Grasselli, G. and Egger, P. (2000). 3D surface characterization for the prediction of the shear strength of rocks joints. In: A. Aachen (Editor), Symposium EUROCK 2000, Germany, pp. 281-286.
  10. Grima, M. A. (1994). Scale effect on shear strength behaviour of ISRM roughness profiles. MSc Thesis, ITC Delft, Kanaalweg 3, 2628 EB Deft, The Netherlands, 200p. Harrison, J. P. and Rasouli, V. (2001). In-plane analysis of fracture surface roughness: anisotropy and scale effect in anisotropy. In: H.K. Tinucci JP, Elsworth D (Editor), Proceeding of the 38th US Rock Mechanics Symposium, Lisse, Netherlands, Swets & Zeitlinger Washington DC, USA, pp. 777-783.
  11. Hong, E., Lee, I and Lee, J. (2006). Measurement of rock joint roughness by 3D scanner. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 29(6):8. ISRM, (1978). Commission on standardization of laboratory and field test: Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 15(6): 319-368.
  12. Jaeger, J. C. (1971). Frictions of rocks and stability of rock slope. Geotechnique, 21, 97-134.
  13. Kerstiens, C. M. D. (1999). A generic UDEC model for rock joint shear test, including roughne