«LANDSLIDE DEFORMATION CHARACTER INFERRED FROM TERRESTRIAL LASER SCANNER DATA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ...»
PIV and ICP techniques applied to time series TLS point cloud data from the CCL show that both methods can provide spatially continuous 3D displacement fields. Both methods perform well for the CCL data from the January-May, May-June and January-Jun 2010 time periods (Figure 9 and 10a). One advantage of PIV is that it estimates the displacements at higher resolution and the effects of displacement gradients in the estimation window can be minimized.
For June 2010 to April 2012, the displacement is as large as ~3 m and mismatch between the orientations of ICP and PIV vectors are more prominent (Figure 3.10c). In this case, the PIV displacement field may have larger noise due to the need to use a larger correlation window (6
m) as described in section 1.1 and the larger displacement gradient in the correlation window.
Yet, PIV performs better than ICP; as ICP suffers significantly from problems related to large movements and different data point densities in the two scans. Nevertheless, both ICP and PIV displacement fields reveal the displacement pattern in the active part of the slide from June 2010 to April 2012 (Figure 3.10c).
Differences in performance of ICP vs PIV for the synthetic signal vs the CCL data can be related to the effect of vegetation and shadows. In contrast to the synthetic data, the data from CCL contains backscattering from vegetation particularly in May and June compared to January 2010.
Returns from trees and bushes can be significantly different over time. In PIV, changes in returns from vegetation over time may cause decorrelation and therefore PIV estimates are less sensitive to the vertical growth of trees and bushes over time. In contrast, ICP finds the corresponding match for every single data point and therefore returns from trees and bushes and their shadows increase the estimation errors. Another reason for the poorer match of the ICP estimate with the ground truth measurements can be due to the coarser estimation resolution (larger windows). The ICP estimation is at 5 m grid resolution and therefore the ICP estimation and the ground truth measurements can be as far as 2.5 m in space. This can introduce errors particularly when the displacement gradient in the ICP window is larger.
Table 3.1 Average misfit of the PIV and ICP estimation with different window sizes for a synthetic signal applied to Jan 2010 TLS data and Jan-Jun 2010 TLS data.
The point-to-point ICP matching of large data sets can be very slow, but the point-to-plane ICP we use in our analysis has much faster convergence particularly when the initial position of the data is close to the model and when the input has relatively small noise. When the corresponding shapes start far away from each other, or for noisy point clouds due to trees or shadows, point-toplane ICP tends to oscillate and can fail to converge (Gelfand et al., 2003). Similarly, ICP assumes that one point cloud is a subset of the other. When this assumption is not valid (as might be the case in a deforming landslide), false matches can cause ICP to converge to an incorrect solution or to a local minima (Fusiello et al., 2002). In TLS data, this situation can occur when there are many, similarly shaped features (e.g., trees or surface of uniform slope) or significantly higher displacement gradients than expected. Therefore, some of the vectors in Figure 3.10c are unrealistic (e.g., pointing upwards).
Overall, our results demonstrate that the PIV and ICP methods applied to the TLS data can estimate displacement fields of small spatial extent and can capture the wide spectrum of the displacement field in space (Figure 3.1) and time that can be challenging to measure using other methods such as GPS and InSAR..
We have applied the particle image velocimetry (PIV) and iterative closest point (ICP) method to terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) data from the toe of the Cleveland Corral landslide (CCL) and derived 3D displacement fields. ICP performed better to recover the synthetic signal applied to one of the TLS data sets. Estimated displacement fields from the CCL, however, agree relatively better with the PIV estimates. This discrepancy can be attributed to the change in returns from vegetation that can affect the ICP estimates more than the PIV estimates. PIV can create displacement fields at higher resolution but the expected maximum displacement is needed a priori for the method to perform well. When the area scanned contains no vegetation and shadows, ICP is preferred. Therefore, instead of these two methods replacing each other, they can complement each other and provide a means to validate the result of one or the other. The methods we demonstrate here should be useful for estimating surface displacements of smaller spatial extent associated with a variety of geologic processes including land subsidence, volcanic activities, ice sheet and glacier movement, in addition to landslides.
Aryal, A., Brooks, B.A., and Reid, M.E., 2013, Landslide subsurface slip character inferred from surface displacement fields: Geology (in preparation), v. xx.
Aryal, A., Brooks, B.A., Reid, M.E., Bawden, G.W., and Pawlak, G.R., 2012, Displacement
fields from point cloud data: Application of particle imaging velocimetry to landslide geodesy:
Journal of Geophysical Research-Earth Surface, v. 117, p. 15.
Baldo, M., Bicocchi, C., Chiocchini, U., Giordan, D., and Lollino, G., 2009, LIDAR monitoring
of mass wasting processes: The Radicofani landslide, Province of Siena, Central Italy:
Geomorphology, v. 105, p. 193-201.
Baum, R.L., and Fleming, R.W., 1991, Use of longitudinal strain in identifying driving and resisting elements of landslides: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 103, p. 1121-1132.
Bergevin, R., Soucy, M., Gagnon, H., and Laurendeau, D., 1996, Towards a general multi-view registration technique: Ieee Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, v. 18, p.
Besl, P.J., and McKay, N.D., 1992, A method for registrastion of 3-D shapes: Ieee Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, v. 14, p. 239-256.
Buckley, S.J., Howell, J.A., Enge, H.D., and Kurz, T.H., 2008, Terrestrial laser scanning in geology: data acquisition, processing and accuracy considerations: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 165, p. 625-638.
Burgmann, R., Hilley, G., Ferretti, A., and Novali, F., 2006, Resolving vertical tectonics in the San Francisco Bay Area from permanent scatterer InSAR and GPS analysis: Geology, v. 34, p.
Carnec, C., Massonnet, D., and King, C., 1996, Two examples of the use of SAR interferometry
on displacement fields of small spatial extent: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 23, p. 3579Chen, Y., and Medioni, G., 1992, Object modeling by registration of multiple range images:
Image and Vision Computing, v. 10, p. 145-155.
Chetverikov, D., Stepanov, D., and Krsek, P., 2005, Robust euclidean alignment of 3D point sets: the trimmed iterative closest point algorithm: Image and Vision Computing, v. 23, p. 299Coe, J.A., Ellis, W.L., Godt, J.W., Savage, W.Z., Savage, J.E., Michael, J.A., Kibler, J.D., Powers, P.S., Lidke, D.J., and Debray, S., 2003, Seasonal movement of the Slumgullion landslide determined from Global Positioning System surveys and field instrumentation, July 1998-March 2002: Engineering Geology, v. 68, p. 67-101.
Collins, B.D., Minasian, D., and Kayen, R., 2009, Topographic change detection at select archeological sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2006-2007, p. 58.
Collins, B.D., and Sitar, N., 2008, Processes of coastal bluff erosion in weakly lithified sands, Pacifica, California, USA: Geomorphology, v. 97, p. 483-501.
Cruden, D.M., and Varnes, D.J., 1996, Landslide types and processes, in Turner, A.K., and Shuster, R.L., eds., Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation, Volume Spec Rep Transp Res Board, p. 36–75.
Fusiello, A., Castellani, U., Ronchetti, L., and Murino, V., 2002, Model acquisition by registration of multiple acoustic range views, Computer Vision ECCV 2002, Springer, p. 805Gelfand, N., Ikemoto, L., Rusinkiewicz, S., and Levoy, M., 2003, Geometrically stable sampling for the ICP algorithm, 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling, 2003. 3DIM 2003. Proceedings.
Fourth International Conference on, IEEE, p. 260-267.
Gruen, A., and Akca, D., 2005, Least squares 3D surface and curve matching: ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, v. 59, p. 151-174.
Hilley, G.E., Burgmann, R., Ferretti, A., Novali, F., and Rocca, F., 2004, Dynamics of slowmoving landslides from permanent scatterer analysis: Science, v. 304, p. 1952-1955.
Huang, H.T., Fiedler, H.E., and Wang, J.J., 1993, Limitation and Improvement of PIV 2. Particle Image Distortion, A Novel Technique: Experiments in Fluids, v. 15, p. 263-273.
Iverson, R., 2005, Regulation of landslide motion by dilatancy and pore pressure feedback:
Journal of Geophysical Research-EARTH SURFACE, v. 110, F02015.
Keane, R., and Adrian, R., 1992, Theory of cross-correlation analysis of PIV images: Applied Scientific Research, v. 49, p. 191-215.
Large, A.R., and Heritage, G.L., 2009, Laser Scanning - Evolution of the Discipline, in Large, A.R.G., and L., H.G., eds., Laser Scanning for the Environmental Sciences, Wiley-Blackwell, p.
Lichti, D., and Jamtsho, S., 2006, Angular resolution of terrestrial laser scanners:
Photogrammetric Record, v. 21, p. 141-160.
Low, K.-L., 2004, Linear least-squares optimization for point-to-plane icp surface registration, Technical Report TR04-004, Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Massonnet, D., and Feigl, K.L., 1998, Radar interferometry and its application to changes in the earth's surface: Reviews of Geophysics, v. 36, p. 441-500.
McCoy, S.W., Kean, J.W., Coe, J.A., Staley, D.M., Wasklewicz, T.A., and Tucker, G.E., 2010, Evolution of a natural debris flow: In situ measurements of flow dynamics, video imagery, and terrestrial laser scanning: Geology, v. 38, p. 735-738.
Meunier, P., and Leweke, T., 2003, Analysis and treatment of errors due to high velocity gradients in particle image velocimetry: Experiments in Fluids, v. 35, p. 408-421.
Meunier, P., Leweke, T., Lebescond, R., Aughem, B., and Wang, C., 2004, DPIVsoft User Guide, IRPHE, Mrseille, France: IRPHE, Mrseille, France, Institut de Recherche sur les Phenomenes Hors Equilibre.
Minguez, J., Montesano, L., and Lamiraux, F., 2006, Metric-based iterative closest point scan matching for sensor displacement estimation: Ieee Transactions on Robotics, v. 22, p. 1047Monserrat, O., and Crosetto, M., 2008, Deformation measurement using terrestrial laser scanning data and least squares 3D surface matching: ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, v. 63, p. 142-154.
Nissen, E., Krishnan, A.K., Arrowsmith, J.R.n., and Saripalli, S., 2012, Three•dimensional surface displacements and rotations from differencing pre•and post•earthquake LiDAR point clouds: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 39.
Oldow, J.S., and Singleton, E.S., 2008, Application of Terrestrial Laser Scanning in determining the pattern of late Pleistocene and Holocene fault displacement from the offset of pluvial lake shorelines in the Alvord extensional basin, northern Great Basin, USA: Geosphere, v. 4, p. 536Prokop, A., and Panholzer, H., 2009, Assessing the capability of terrestrial laser scanning for monitoring slow moving landslides: Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, v. 9, p. 1921Raffel, M., Willert, C.E., Wereley, S.T., and Kompenhans, J., 2007, Particle Image Velocimetry A Practical Guide: New York, Oxford Univ. Press, 448 p.
Reid, M., Brien, D., Lahusen, R., Roering, J., de la Fuente, J., and Ellen, S., 2003, Debris-flow initiation from large, slow-moving landslides, in Rickenmann, D., and Chen, C., eds., DebrisFlow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction and Assessment: Rotterdam, Millpress, p. 155Reid, M.E., and LaHusen, R.G., 1998, Real-time monitoring of active landslides along Highway 50, El Dorado County: California Geology, v. 51, p. 17-20.
Schulz, W.H., Kean, J.W., and Wang, G.H., 2009, Landslide movement in southwest Colorado triggered by atmospheric tides: Nature Geoscience, v. 2, p. 863-866.
Shen, Z.-K., Jackson, D.D., and Bob, X.G., 1996, Crustal deformation across and beyond the Los Angeles basin from geodetic measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 101, p. 27957Spittler, T., and Wagner, D., 1998, Geology and slope stability along Highway 50: California Geology, v. 51, p. 12.
Stewart, J.P., Hu, J.P., Kayen, R.E., Lembo, A.J., Collins, B.D., Davis, C.A., and O'Rourke, T.D., 2009, Use of Airborne and Terrestrial Lidar to Detect Ground Displacement Hazards to Water Systems: Journal of Surveying Engineering-Asce, v. 135, p. 113-124.
Strang, G., and Borre, K., 1997, Linear algebra, geodesy, and GPS: Wellesley, MA, WellesleyCambridge Press.
Teza, G., Galgaro, A., Zaltron, N., and Genevois, R., 2007, Terrestrial laser scanner to detect landslide displacement fields: a new approach: International Journal of Remote Sensing, v. 28, p.
Teza, G., Pesci, A., and Galgaro, A., 2008, Grid_strain and grid_strain3: Software packages for strain field computation in 2D and 3D environments: Computers & Geosciences, v. 34, p. 1142Westerweel, J., 1997, Fundamentals of digital particle image velocimetry: Measurement Science & Technology, v. 8, p. 1379-1392.
White, D.J., Take, W.A., and Bolton, M.D., 2003, Soil deformation measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and photogrammetry: Geotechnique, v. 53, p. 619-631.
Wilkinson, M., McCaffrey, K.J.W., Roberts, G., Cowie, P.A., Phillips, R.J., Michetti, A.M., Vittori, E., Guerrieri, L., Blumetti, A.M., Bubeck, A., Yates, A., and Sileo, G., 2010, Partitioned postseismic deformation associated with the 2009 Mw 6.3 L'Aquila earthquake surface rupture measured using a terrestrial laser scanner: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 37.
Zhang, Z., 1994, Iterative point matching for registration of free-form curves and surfaces: