TY - GEN
T1 - Sensitivity of roughness algorithms to sampling frequency for the characterization of weathered limestone specimens
AU - Brown, S.
AU - Ball, K.
AU - Kimes, L.
AU - Oglesby, J.
AU - Harris, A.
AU - Hudyma, N.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright 2016 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Twenty-two weathered limestone specimens from various locations in Florida were profiled along their length to assess roughness and the sensitivity of computed roughness values to sampling frequency. A laser profilometer, with a data collection spacing of 0.05 mm, was used to obtain four profiles from each specimen. The profiles were then down-sampled to produce profiles of decreasing resolution. Seven common roughness algorithms were used analyze the profiles. Mean absolute angle, root mean square, and energy roughness values were not affected by down-sampling. Sinuosity roughness values decreased linearly for rough profiles but smooth profiles were unaffected. Number of turning points decreased linearly for both rough and smooth profiles with the rough profiles being more influenced by down-sampling. Z2 roughness values decreased logarithmically for rough profiles and very slightly decreased linearly for smooth profiles. The visual roughness classifications compared favorably with roughness values, most notably for the smooth and rough specimens. Rough specimens were less homogeneous then smooth specimens which indicates the whole specimens, not just portions of the specimen, should be used for roughness assessment.
AB - Twenty-two weathered limestone specimens from various locations in Florida were profiled along their length to assess roughness and the sensitivity of computed roughness values to sampling frequency. A laser profilometer, with a data collection spacing of 0.05 mm, was used to obtain four profiles from each specimen. The profiles were then down-sampled to produce profiles of decreasing resolution. Seven common roughness algorithms were used analyze the profiles. Mean absolute angle, root mean square, and energy roughness values were not affected by down-sampling. Sinuosity roughness values decreased linearly for rough profiles but smooth profiles were unaffected. Number of turning points decreased linearly for both rough and smooth profiles with the rough profiles being more influenced by down-sampling. Z2 roughness values decreased logarithmically for rough profiles and very slightly decreased linearly for smooth profiles. The visual roughness classifications compared favorably with roughness values, most notably for the smooth and rough specimens. Rough specimens were less homogeneous then smooth specimens which indicates the whole specimens, not just portions of the specimen, should be used for roughness assessment.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85010338836
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85010338836
T3 - 50th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium 2016
SP - 2520
EP - 2528
BT - 50th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium 2016
T2 - 50th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium 2016
Y2 - 26 June 2016 through 29 June 2016
ER -