SScchhoollaarrss'' MMiinnee Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations Fall 2007 CChhaarraacctteerriizzaattiioonn ooff ccooaarrssee aaggggrreeggaattee aanngguullaarriittyy uussiinngg ddiiggiittaall iimmaaggee pprroocceessssiinngg Gregory Allen Swift Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses Part of the Geological Engineering Commons DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt:: RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn Swift, Gregory Allen, "Characterization of coarse aggregate angularity using digital image processing" (2007). Masters Theses. 4580. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/4580 This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHARACTERIZATION OF COARSE AGGREGATE ANGULARITY USING DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING GREGORY ALLEN SWIFT A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE IN GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING Approved by Dr. ~orbert'~M. aerz iii ABSTRACT This thesis involves a comparative analysis study between three well established labor-intensive physical tests specified by ASTM and/or AASHTO standards for determining shape, angularity and texture of coarse aggregates and minimum average curve radius. Aggregate angularity of individual particles is defined by WipShape, a digital image-based system, as the Minimum Average Curve Radius. Physical tests including Uncompacted Void Content, Index of Particle Shape and Texture (Compacted Voids), and Percentage of Fractured Particles, were conducted using several coarse aggregate samples, consisting of both river gravel and crushed rock. Minimum average curve radius measurements were obtained from the same aggregate samples using the WipShape imaging system and subsequently compared to physical testing results. A number of good correlations were found between Uncompacted Void Content, Compacted Voids and Minimum Average Curve Radius measurements. This implies that it may be possible to measure coarse aggregate angularity directly, discontinue the labor-intensive physical tests, and still generate similar results. This paper is the result of a research project sponsored by the Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program 4-30 that is intended to identify test methods, including digital imaging, for characterizing aggregate shape, texture, and angularity. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Norbert Maerz, for extending this opportunity to me. Without his patience and interest in my completion of this paper, I probably would not have finished. Second, I would like to thank the National Cooperative Highway Research IDEA Program for funding this research, and WipWare Inc. for providing a WipShape image analysis system and making modifications to the hardware and software. I would also like to thank the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) for their help and guidance, as well as the University of Missouri-Rolla Center for Infrastructure Engineering. Further, I would like to thank my graduate committee, Dr. David Richardson and Dr. Jeffery Cawlfield, along with Dr. Maerz, for taking the time and effort to serve on my committee and for their input and guidance. Finally, I would like to thank Joseph Molinaro for his help and especially Paula Cochran, for her guidance through the administrative process required in receiving my degree. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................... viii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x NOMENCLATURE .......................................................................................................... xi SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................. 1 1.2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................... 1 1.3. SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................. 2 1.4. THESIS ORGANIZATION................................................................................ 3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 5 2.1. IMPORTANCE OF AGGREGATE SHAPE ..................................................... 5 2.2. AGGREGATE SHAPE MEASUREMENT ....................................................... 6 2.3. STATE OF ART IN IMAGE-BASED MEASUREMENTS ............................. 7 2.3.1. Data Acquisition Procedures .................................................................... 7 2.3.2. Static Video Methods ............................................................................... 7 2.3.3. Dynamic Video Methods ........................................................................ 10 2.4. BENEFITS OF IMAGE-BASED MEASUREMENTS.................................... 15 3. WIPSHAPE IMAGING SYSTEM .......................................................................... 17 3.1. HARDWARE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 17 3.1.1. Black Mini-Conveyor Belt ..................................................................... 17 3.1.2. Translucent Rotating Table .................................................................... 18 3.1.3. Imaging ................................................................................................... 19 3.2. SOFTWARE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 19 3.2.1. Image Acquisition Loop ......................................................................... 19 3.2.2. Measurements ......................................................................................... 20 3.2.3. Sizing ...................................................................................................... 21 vi 3.2.4. Aspect Ratio ........................................................................................... 21 3.2.5. Angularity ............................................................................................... 21 3.2.6. Data Output ............................................................................................ 24 3.2.7. Performance ............................................................................................ 24 4. PHYSICAL TESTING METHODS ........................................................................ 25 4.1. PROCEDURE ................................................................................................... 25 4.1.1. Aggregate Samples Assembled for Testing ........................................... 25 4.1.2. Control Samples ..................................................................................... 25 4.1.3. Bulk Samples .......................................................................................... 27 4.2. PHYSICAL LABORATORY TEST METHODS USED ................................ 27 4.2.1. Uncompated Void Content of Coarse Aggregate ................................... 28 4.2.2. Index of Aggregate Particle Shape and Texture (Compacted Voids). ... 29 4.2.3. Fractured Particles in Coarse Aggregate ................................................ 30 4.2.4. Bulk Specific Gravity of Coarse Aggregate ........................................... 31 5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PHYSICAL AND WIPSHAPE TESTING ..... 32 5.1. PURPOSE OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ................................................ 32 5.2. CONTROL SAMPLE TESTING RESULTS ................................................... 32 5.2.1. Uncompacted Void Content and Curve Radius ..................................... 32 5.2.2. Compacted Voids and Curve Radius ...................................................... 33 5.2.3. Percentage of Fractured Particles and Curve Radius ............................. 33 5.3. ANALYSIS OF CONTROL SAMPLE RESULTS .......................................... 34 5.4. BULK SAMPLE TESTING RESULTS ........................................................... 35 5.4.1. Uncompacted Void Content and Curve Radius ..................................... 35 5.4.2. Compacted Voids (V10) and Curve Radius ........................................... 36 5.4.3. Compacted Voids (V50) and Curve Radius ........................................... 38 5.4.4. Percentage of Fractured Particles and Curve Radius ............................. 39 5.5. ANALYSIS OF BULK SAMPLE RESULTS .................................................. 39 5.6. REPEATABILITY OF BULK SAMPLE TESTING ....................................... 41 5.7. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY.................................................................... 43 6. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 44 6.1. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................... 44 vii 6.2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ....................................... 46 APPENDICES A. CONTROL SAMPLE GRAPHS AND TESTING DATA ................................. 47 B. BULK SAMPLE GRAPHS AND TESTING DATA ......................................... 53 C. AGGREGATE SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS ..................................................... 60 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 65 VITA ................................................................................................................................ 70 viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 2.1. Kou, Frost and Lai Method .......................................................................................... 8 2.2. Aggregate Imaging System .......................................................................................... 9 2.3. Laser-Based Aggregate Analysis System .................................................................. 10 2.4. French VDG-40 Videograder .................................................................................... 10 2.5. Computer Particle Analyzer ....................................................................................... 11 2.6. Camsizer .................................................................................................................... 12 2.7. Micrometrics OptiSizer System ................................................................................. 13 2.8. Video Imaging System ............................................................................................... 13 2.9. Buffalo Wire Works System ...................................................................................... 14 2.10. University of Illinois Aggregate Image Analyzer .................................................... 14 3.1. First Prototype of WipShape Imaging Device ........................................................... 17 3.2. Current Prototype of WipShape Imaging Device ...................................................... 18 3.3. WipShape Preparing to Analyze Image of a Rounded Particle ................................. 20 3.4. WipShape Minimum Average Curve Radius ............................................................ 22 3.5. WipShape Moving Curve Radius Measurements ...................................................... 23 3.6. WipShape Gaussian Smoothed Moving Curve Radii ................................................ 24 3.7. WipShape Data Output .............................................................................................. 24 4.1. Control Samples ......................................................................................................... 26 4.2. Uncompacted Void Content of Coarse Aggregate Apparatus ................................... 28 4.3. Index of Aggregate Particle Shape and Texture Molds ............................................. 29 5.1. Uncompated Void Content vs. Curve Radius for #4 and 3/8” Control Samples ....... 32 5.2. Compacted Voids vs. Curve Radius for #4 Control Samples .................................... 33 5.3. Compacted Voids vs. Curve Radius for 3/8” Control Samples ................................. 33 5.4. Fractured Face Count vs. Curve Radius for #4 Control Samples .............................. 34 5.5. Fractured Face Count vs. Curve Radius for 3/8” Control Samples ........................... 34 5.6. Uncompacted Void Content vs. Curve Radius for #4 Bulk Samples ........................ 35 5.7. Uncompacted Void Content vs. Curve Radius for 3/8” Bulk Samples ..................... 36 5.8. Uncompacted Void Content vs. Curve Radius for 1/2” Bulk Samples ..................... 36