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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

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)
Pages (from-to)105-132
Number of pages28
JournalFragblast
Volume7
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2003

Fingerprint

Sieves
Limestone
image analysis
Image analysis
Piles
photograph
pile
Rocks
sieving
histogram
fragmentation
limestone
prediction
rock
library
comparison
indicator
analysis
measuring
dumping

Keywords

  • Fragmentation
  • Image analysis
  • Sampling bias
  • Size distribution

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology

Cite this

A blind comparison between results of four image analysis systems using a photo-library of piles of sieved fragments. / Latham, John Paul; Kemeny, John M; Maerz, Norbert; Noy, Michael; Schleifer, Jacques; Tose, Simon.

In: Fragblast, Vol. 7, No. 2, 06.2003, p. 105-132.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Latham, John Paul ; Kemeny, John M ; Maerz, Norbert ; Noy, Michael ; Schleifer, Jacques ; Tose, Simon. / A blind comparison between results of four image analysis systems using a photo-library of piles of sieved fragments. In: Fragblast. 2003 ; Vol. 7, No. 2. pp. 105-132.
@article{d25b0decdf244203b8c8e98517f38f15,
title = "A blind comparison between results of four image analysis systems using a photo-library of piles of sieved fragments",
abstract = "Four image analysis systems for measuring rock fragmentation: FragScan, PowerSieve{\circledR}, 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.",
keywords = "Fragmentation, Image analysis, Sampling bias, Size distribution",
author = "Latham, {John Paul} and Kemeny, {John M} and Norbert Maerz and Michael Noy and Jacques Schleifer and Simon Tose",
year = "2003",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1076/frag.7.2.105.15899",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "105--132",
journal = "Fragblast",
issn = "1385-514X",
publisher = "Swets & Zeitlinger",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A blind comparison between results of four image analysis systems using a photo-library of piles of sieved fragments

AU - Latham, John Paul

AU - Kemeny, John M

AU - Maerz, Norbert

AU - Noy, Michael

AU - Schleifer, Jacques

AU - Tose, Simon

PY - 2003/6

Y1 - 2003/6

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Fragmentation

KW - Image analysis

KW - Sampling bias

KW - Size distribution

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0141460668&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0141460668&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1076/frag.7.2.105.15899

DO - 10.1076/frag.7.2.105.15899

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0141460668

VL - 7

SP - 105

EP - 132

JO - Fragblast

JF - Fragblast

SN - 1385-514X

IS - 2

ER -