A blind comparison between results of four image analysis systems using a photo-library of piles of sieved fragments

John Paul Latham, John Kemeny, Norbert Maerz, Michael Noy, Jacques Schleifer, Simon Tose

Research output: Contribution to specialist publicationArticle

34 Scopus citations

Abstract

Four image analysis systems for measuring rock fragmentation: FragScan, PowerSieve®, Split and WipFrag, have been compared under conditions necessary to provide an objective though limited assessment of their capabilities. The analysis of results is based on a sample of ten photographs taken from a series of photographs of controlled artificial muckpiles. These were created from dumping a blended mixture of sieved samples of limestone aggregate, in order to create a range of near perfect Rosin-Rammler sieve size distributions. Results from the various systems we compared with sieved results using both histogram and cumulative forms, with and without fines corrections in the case of Split and Wipfrag. Statistical indicators are evaluated to examine the match between system prediction values and sieving values. Commentaries on the results by the inventors of each system have been incorporated. All four systems were found to perform both well in some cases and poorly in others. From a detailed examination of the results, some insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the various systems is presented.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages105-132
Number of pages28
Volume7
No2
Specialist publicationFragblast
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2003

Keywords

  • Fragmentation
  • Image analysis
  • Sampling bias
  • Size distribution

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A blind comparison between results of four image analysis systems using a photo-library of piles of sieved fragments'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this