DEM analysis of granular crushing during simple shearing

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 522-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sihong Liu ◽  
Yishu Wang ◽  
Chaomin Shen
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (17) ◽  
pp. 2809
Author(s):  
Meirman Syzdykbayev ◽  
Bobak Karimi ◽  
Hassan A. Karimi

Detection of terrain features (ridges, spurs, cliffs, and peaks) is a basic research topic in digital elevation model (DEM) analysis and is essential for learning about factors that influence terrain surfaces, such as geologic structures and geomorphologic processes. Detection of terrain features based on general geomorphometry is challenging and has a high degree of uncertainty, mostly due to a variety of controlling factors on surface evolution in different regions. Currently, there are different computational techniques for obtaining detailed information about terrain features using DEM analysis. One of the most common techniques is numerically identifying or classifying terrain elements where regional topologies of the land surface are constructed by using DEMs or by combining derivatives of DEM. The main drawbacks of these techniques are that they cannot differentiate between ridges, spurs, and cliffs, or result in a high degree of false positives when detecting spur lines. In this paper, we propose a new method for automatically detecting terrain features such as ridges, spurs, cliffs, and peaks, using shaded relief by controlling altitude and azimuth of illumination sources on both smooth and rough surfaces. In our proposed method, we use edge detection filters based on azimuth angle on shaded relief to identify specific terrain features. Results show that the proposed method performs similar to or in some cases better (when detecting spurs than current terrain features detection methods, such as geomorphon, curvature, and probabilistic methods.


Author(s):  
Behrad Esgandari ◽  
Shahab Golshan ◽  
Reza Zarghami ◽  
Rahmat Sotudeh‐Gharebagh ◽  
Jamal Chaouki

2014 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Destrade ◽  
C. O. Horgan ◽  
J. G. Murphy

Geomorphology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 126 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 42-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniele Casalbore ◽  
Claudia Romagnoli ◽  
Alessandro Bosman ◽  
Francesco Latino Chiocci

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 587-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. K. Hillier ◽  
G. Sofia ◽  
S. J. Conway

Abstract. Physical processes, including anthropogenic feedbacks, sculpt planetary surfaces (e.g. Earth's). A fundamental tenet of geomorphology is that the shapes created, when combined with other measurements, can be used to understand those processes. Artificial or synthetic digital elevation models (DEMs) might be vital in progressing further with this endeavour in two ways. First, synthetic DEMs can be built (e.g. by directly using governing equations) to encapsulate the processes, making predictions from theory. A second, arguably underutilised, role is to perform checks on accuracy and robustness that we dub "synthetic tests". Specifically, synthetic DEMs can contain a priori known, idealised morphologies that numerical landscape evolution models, DEM-analysis algorithms, and even manual mapping can be assessed against. Some such tests, for instance examining inaccuracies caused by noise, are moderately commonly employed, whilst others are much less so. Derived morphological properties, including metrics and mapping (manual and automated), are required to establish whether or not conceptual models represent reality well, but at present their quality is typically weakly constrained (e.g. by mapper inter-comparison). Relatively rare examples illustrate how synthetic tests can make strong "absolute" statements about landform detection and quantification; for example, 84 % of valley heads in the real landscape are identified correctly. From our perspective, it is vital to verify such statistics quantifying the properties of landscapes as ultimately this is the link between physics-driven models of processes and morphological observations that allows quantitative hypotheses to be tested. As such the additional rigour possible with this second usage of synthetic DEMs feeds directly into a problem central to the validity of much of geomorphology. Thus, this note introduces synthetic tests and DEMs and then outlines a typology of synthetic DEMs along with their benefits, challenges, and future potential to provide constraints and insights. The aim is to discuss how we best proceed with uncertainty-aware landscape analysis to examine physical processes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document