Digital relief models of open-pit mining facilities: Analysis and optimization

The article discusses digital relief modeling using the common methods of spatial interpolation and with the new method based on the growth pole theory and optimization theory, with the accuracy rating of the results. Efficient production, including mineral mining, seems to be impossible without the analysis of geospatial information obtained from geodetic surveying among other things. The geospatial information is applicable to construction of digital relief models and to periodic monitoring of their variation by means of repeated observations and comparative analysis. This study describes the digital modeling algorithms in terms of an open pit mine. The geospatial data were semi-automatically classified using TerraScan and, then, were processed manually. The digital relief modeling in Surfer was performed, and the results were compared with the authorial method. The digital relief modeling used 6 common interpolations, namely, Kriging, Inverse Distance Weighting, Triangulation with Linear Interpolation, Minimal Curvature and Radial Basis Function. The proposed algorithm uses the growth pole theory and optimization theory which enable recovering additional connections inside a surface triangulation that serves as a basis. This approach reforms one of the disadvantages of triangulation—processing of data gaps between initial measurements. The comparative analysis shows that the estimated parameters—the average number and the mean square deviation—are the least in the proposed method. These results give grounds for application of the proposed methods in the digital relief modeling.

Vasilev B. Yu., Mustafin M.G. Digital relief models of open-pit mining facilities: Analysis and optimization. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2023;(9):141-159. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2023_9_0_141.

B.Yu. Vasilev¹, Graduate Student, e-mail: Vasilev_BYu2@pers.spmi.ru, ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4119-4051,
M.G. Mustafin¹, Dr. Sci. (Eng.), Assistant Professor, Head of Chair, e-mail: Mustafin_MG@pers.spmi.ru, ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9416-2358,
¹ Saint-Petersburg Mining University, 199106, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.

B.Yu. Vasilev, e-mail: Vasilev_BYu2@pers.spmi.ru.

1. Guth P. L., Van Niekerk A., Grohmann C. H., Muller J.-P., Hawker L., Florinsky I. V., Gesch D., Reuter H. I., Herrera-Cruz V., Riazanoff S., López-Vázquez C., Carabajal C. C., Albinet C., Strobl P. Digital elevation models: terminology and definitions. Remote Sensing. 2021, vol. 13, no. 18, pp. 3581—3600. DOI: 10.3390/rs13183581.

2. Erdede S. B., Bektaş S. Examining the interpolation methods used in forming the digital elevation models. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science. 2020, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 207— 214.

3. Habib M. Evaluation of DEM interpolation techniques for characterizing terrain roughness. Catena. 2021, vol. 198, pp. 105072—105089. DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2020.105072.

4. Huang C., Xia H., Hu J. Surface deformation monitoring in coal mine area based on PSI. IEEE Access. 2019, vol. 7, pp. 29672—29678.

5. Belyakov N. A., Morozov K. V., Emelyanov I. A. Data processing in full-scale in-situ stress testing by overcoring. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2023, no. 5, pp. 89—96. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.17580/ gzh.2023.05.13.

6. Glazunov V. V., Burlutsky S. B., Shuvalova R. A., Zhdanov S. V. Improving the reliability of 3D modellingof a landslide slope based on engineering geophysicsdata. Journal of Mining Institute. 2022, vol. 257, pp. 771—782. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.31897/PMI.2022.86.

7. Raguzin I. I., Bykowa E. N., Lepikhina O. U. Polygonal metric grid method for estimating the cadastral value of land plots. Moscow University bulletin. Series 5, Geography. 2023, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 92—103. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.55959/MSU0579-9414.5.78.3.8.

8. Protosenya A. G., Katerov A. M. Development of stress and strain state of combined support for a vertical shaft driven in salt massif. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2022, no. 6-1, pp. 100—113. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2022_61_0_100.

9. Belikov A. A., Belyakov N. A. Method of predicting the stress-strain state of interchamber pillars lined with a compliant rope fastener. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2023, no. 4, pp. 20—34. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2023_4_0_20.

10. Petrova T. A., Astapenka T. S., Kalahryuka A. A., Yesman M. M. Reducing the geoenvironmental impact of halite waste storage. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2022, no. 10-1, pp. 155—162. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2022_101_0_155.

11. Belyakov N. A., Belikov A. A. Prediction of the integrity of the water-protective stratum at the Verkhnekamskoye potash ore deposit. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2022, no. 6-2, pp. 33—46. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2022_62_0_33.

12. Gusev V. N., Blishchenko A. A., & Sannikova A. P. Study of a set of factors influencing the error of surveying mine facilities using a geodesic quadcopter. Journal of Mining Institute. 2022, vol. 254, pp. 173—179. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.31897/PMI.2022.35.

13. Kremcheev E. A., Danilov A. S., Smirnov Yu. D. Status of metrological support for unmanned aerial vehicle-based monitoring systems. Journal of Mining Institute. 2019, vol. 235, pp. 96—105. [In Russ].

14. Val'kov V. A., Vinogradov K. P., Val'kova E. O., Mustafin M. G. Creating high-resolution images from laser scanning and aerial survey data. Geodesy and Cartography. 2022, no. 11, pp. 40—49. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.22389/0016-7126-989-11-40-49.

15. Men’shikov S. N., Dzhaljabov A. A., Vasiliev G. G., Leonovich I. A., Ermilov O. M. Spatial models developed using laser scanning at gas condensate fields in the northern construction-climatic zone. Journal of Mining Institute. 2019, vol. 238, pp. 430—437. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.31897/PMI.2019.4.430.

16. Bykowa E., Skachkova M., Raguzin I., Dyachkova I., Boltov M. Automation of negative infrastructural externalities assessment methods to determine the cost of land resources based on the development of a «Thin Client» model. Sustainability. 2022, vol. 14, no. 15, pp. 9383— 9412. DOI: 10.3390/su14159383.

17. Krzysztof S., Ciesielski M., Bałazy R., Zawiła-Niedźwiecki T. Comparison of various algorithms for DTM interpolation from LIDAR data in dense mountain forests. European Journal of Remote Sensing. 2016, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 599—621. DOI: 10.5721/EuJRS20164932.

18. Hui Z., Li D., Jin S., Ziggah Y. Y., Wang L., Hu Y. Automatic DTM extraction from airborne LiDAR based on expectation-maximization. Optics & Laser Technology. 2019, vol. 112, pp. 43—55. DOI: 10.1016/j.optlastec.2018.10.051.

19. Trier O. D., Cowley D. C., Waldeland A. U. Using deep neural networks on airborne laser scanning data: Results from a case study of semi-automatic mapping of archaeological topography on Arran, Scotland. Archaeological Prospection. 2019, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 165—175. DOI: 10.1002/arp.1731.

20. Liu Q., Fu L., Chen Q., Wang G., Luo P., Sharma R. P., He P., Li M., Wang M., Duan G. Analysis of the spatial differences in canopy height models from UAV LiDAR and photogrammetry. Remote Sensing. 2020, vol. 12, no. 18, pp. 2884—2905. DOI: 10.3390/rs12182884.

21. Meyer T. H. The discontinuous nature of kriging interpolation for digital terrain modeling. Cartography and Geographic Information Science. 2004, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 209—216. DOI: 10.1559/1523040042742385.

22. Hui Z., Hu Y., Yevenyo Y. Z., Yu. X. An improved morphological algorithm for filtering airborne LiDAR point cloud based on multi-level kriging interpolation. Remote Sensing. 2016, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 35—50. DOI: 10.3390/rs8010035.

23. Saraf N. M., Kamarolzaman K. N., Saad N. M., Khalid N., Abdul Rasam A. R., Othman A. N. Data verification of lidar-derived DEM from different interpolation techniques. Charting the Sustainable Future of ASEAN in Science and Technology: Proceedings from the 3rd International Conference on the Future of ASEAN (ICoFA) 2019, Springer Singapore. 2020, vol. 2, pp. 361—375. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-3434-8_31.

24. Cățeanu M., Ciubotaru A. Accuracy of ground surface interpolation from airborne laser scanning (ALS) data in dense forest cover. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2020, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 224—244. DOI: 10.3390/ijgi9040224.

25. Gafurov A. The methodological aspects of constructing a high-resolution DEM of large territories using low-cost UAVs on the example of the sarycum aeolian complex, Dagestan, Russia. Drones. 2021, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 7—24. DOI: 10.3390/drones5010007.

26. Pavlova A. I. Analysis of elevation interpolation methods for creating digital elevation models. Optoelectronics, Instrumentation and Data Processing. 2017, vol. 53, pp. 171—177. DOI: 10.3103/S8756699017020108.

27. Boreggio M., Bernard M., Gregoretti C. Evaluating the differences of gridding techniques for digital elevation models generation and their influence on the modeling of stony debris flows routing. A case study from rovina di cancia basin (North-eastern Italian alps). Frontiers in Earth Science. 2018, vol. 6, pp. 89—115. DOI: 10.3389/feart.2018.00089.

28. Shi W. Z., Li Q. Q., Zhu C. Q. Estimating the propagation error of DEM from higherorder interpolation algorithms. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2005, vol. 26, no. 14, pp. 3069—3084. DOI: 10.1080/01431160500057905.

29. Alper A. Evaluation of accuracy of dems obtained from uav-point clouds for different topographical areas. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences. 2017, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 110—117. DOI: 10.26833/ijeg.329717.

30. Andrade M. S., Gorgens E. B., Reis C. R., Cantinho R. Z., Assis M., Sato L., Ometto J. P. Airborne laser scanning for terrain modeling in the Amazon forest. Acta Amazonica. 2018, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 271—279. DOI: 10.1590/1809-4392201800132.

31. Agüera-Vega F., Agüera-Puntas M., Martínez-Carricondo P., Mancini F., Carvajal F. Effects of point cloud density, interpolation method and grid size on derived Digital Terrain Model accuracy at micro topography level. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2020, vol. 41, no. 21, pp. 8281—8299. DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2020.177178.8.

32. Karasev M. A., Petrushin V. V., Rysin A. I. The hybrid finite/discrete element method in description of macrostructural behavior of salt rocks. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2023, no. 4, pp. 48—66. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2023_4_0_48.

33. Setiyoko A., Basaruddin T., Arymurthy A. M. Minimax approach for semivariogram fitting in ordinary kriging. IEEE Access. 2020, vol. 8, pp. 82054—82065. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2991428.

34. Arun P. V. A comparative analysis of different DEM interpolation methods. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science. 2013, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 133—139. DOI: j.ejrs.2013.09.001.

35. Ajvazi B., Czimber K. A comparative analysis of different DEM interpolation methods in GIS: case study of Rahovec, Kosovo. Geodesy and Cartography. 2019, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 43—48. DOI: 10.3846/gac.2019.7921.

36. Bui L. K., Glennie C. L. Estimation of lidar-based gridded DEM uncertainty with varying terrain roughness and point density. ISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 2023, vol. 7, pp. 100028—100041. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophoto.2022.100028.

37. Heritage G. L., Milan D. J., Large A. R., Fuller I. C. Influence of survey strategy and interpolation model on DEM quality. Geomorphology. 2009, vol. 112, no. 3-4, pp. 334—344. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.06.024.

38. Smith T., Rheinwalt A., Bookhagen B. Determining the optimal grid resolution for topographic analysis on an airborne lidar dataset. Earth Surface Dynamics. 2019, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 475—489. DOI: 10.5194/esurf-7-475-2019.

39. Bui L. K., Glennie C. L., Hartzell P. J. Rigorous propagation of LiDAR point cloud uncertainties to spatially regular grids by a TIN linear interpolation. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters. 2021, vol. 19, pp. 1—5. DOI: 10.1109/LGRS.2021.3134587.

40. Yan W. Y. Scan line void filling of airborne LiDAR point clouds for hydroflattening DEM. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing. 2021, vol. 14, pp. 6426—6437. DOI: JSTARS.2021.3089288.

41. Chernova L. Surface interpolation using the pole method. Interexpo GEO-Siberia. 2006, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 125—128. [In Russ].

42. Chernova L. I., Koshechkin I. S. Partial non-linear interpolation of a digital elevation model. Proceedings of Irkutsk State Technical University. 2004, no. 1 (17), pp. 39—44. [In Russ].

43. Tomková M., Potůčková M., Lysák J., Jančovič M., Holman L., Vilímek V. Improvements to airborne laser scanning data filtering in sandstone landscapes. Geomorphology. 2022, vol. 414, article 108377. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2022.108377.

44. Chaplot V., Darboux F., Bourennane H., Leguédois S., Silvera N., Phachomphon K. Accuracy of interpolation techniques for the derivation of digital elevation models in relation to landform types and data density. Geomorphology. 2006, vol. 77, no. 1-2, pp. 126—141. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.12.010.

45. Štular B., Lozić E., Eichert S. Interpolation of airborne LiDAR data for archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2023, vol. 48, pp. 103840—103856. DOI: 10.1016/j. jasrep.2023.103840.

46. Li L., Nearing M. A., Nichols M. H., Polyakov V. O., Guertin D. P., Cavanaugh M. L. The effects of DEM interpolation on quantifying soil surface roughness using terrestrial LiDAR. Soil and Tillage Research. 2020, vol. 198, pp. 104520—104530. DOI: 10.1016/j.still. 2019.104520.

47. Behzadi S., Jalilzadeh A. Introducing a novel digital elevation model using artificial neural network algorithm. Civil Engineering Dimension. 2020, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 47—51. DOI: 10.9744/ced.22.2.47-51.

48. Chen C., Bei Y., Li Y., Zhou W. Effect of interpolation methods on quantifying terrain surface roughness under different data densities. Geomorphology. 2022, vol. 417, article 108448. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2022.108448.

49. Shenen P., Kosnar M., Gardan I. Matematika i SAPR: v 2 kn. Kn. 1. Osnovnye metody. Teoriya polyusov [Mathematics and CAD: in 2 vols. 1. Basic Methods. Pole theory]. 1988, 204 p.

50. Cirlin A. M. Metody optimizatsii dlya inzhenerov: monografiya [Optimisation methods for engineers: a monograph]. Мoscow–Berlin, Direkt-Media, 2015, 214 p.