FMGM 2015 – PM Dight (ed.

)
© 2015 Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, ISBN 978-0-9924810-2-5
https://papers.acg.uwa.edu.au/p/1508_59_Fowler/

Field test of long range terrestrial laser scanner and ground-based

synthetic aperture radar for area monitoring in open pit mines

A Fowler RIEGL Laser Measurement Systems GmbH, Austria

A Geier RIEGL Laser Measurement Systems GmbH, Austria

Abstract
Slope Stability Monitoring (SSM) has improved dramatically over the past few years with the introduction of
total stations, radar and other advanced technologies. This trend is continuing with the use of Terrestrial
Laser Scanners (TLS) to enable three-dimensional measurement of slope movements. With useful range of
the instruments typically limited by the balance of eye-safety and laser power, the application of
TLS systems has been limited to short range scenarios. However, applying infrared wavelengths and novel
innovations, these limitations have been surmounted and now monitoring applications beyond 2,000 m are
possible at high measurement rates without the safety hazards associated with typical Class 3R long-range
laser scanners (LR-TLS). It is now possible to use LR-TLS technology effectively for long range SSM and
surface deformation analysis.
In a cooperative field test conducted by RIEGL LMS, DMT GmbH & Co. KG, and RWE Power AG, a
RIEGL VZ-4000 online-waveform processing LR-TLS instrument was deployed in a large opencast coal mine
in Germany. LR-TLS data was continuously acquired for a period of 48 hours concurrently with an IDS IBIS-
FM long range ground-based Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (GB-InSAR) system and, additionally,
a Leica total station monitoring system. Results from this field test demonstrate the potential of this new
LR-TLS sensor technology and are compared with the results from those achieved via the GB-InSAR, LR-TLS
and Total Station systems to determine the level of usability in active long-range mining situations.

1 Introduction
Mountains crumble, hills erode, and cliffs tumble into the sea. This process has been occurring since the
beginning of time but never before has it been as important as it is today. With the advancement of
civilisation into and onto such active surfaces, the importance and value of monitoring these surfaces for
deformation is becoming ever more salient.
Remote sensing technologies are actively employed in detecting and quantifying such movements. The
ability to optimise warning time before such events occur and to develop an understanding of the
mechanisms involved, is determined in large part, by the accuracy, frequency and density of the
spatio-temporal aspects of the measurements acquired during the events. Detection of larger movements
is possible from satellite-borne remote sensing technologies, but more refined spatial and temporal
resolutions are required for detecting and quantifying surface deformations on a smaller scale (Atzeni et al.
2015).
Terrestrially-based active Remote Sensing technologies provide the ability to acquire the necessary level of
spatio-temporal data at a resolution needed for tracking slope deformation in real-time. A number of these
technologies are employed in slope deformation monitoring, with Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar
(GB-InSAR) and Tachymeters combined with prism networks forming the primary sources of such datasets.
However, GB-InSAR and Robotic Total Station Prism networks leave a gap in information; highly detailed
and accurate surface modelling of deformation in 3 dimensions. GB-InSAR provides the ability to produce
high-frequency 2D image sequences of deformation, but for spatial reference, these images require
projection onto another reference surface, such as a DEM, or similar model (Atzeni et al. 2015). The Robotic

FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia 797

Field test of long range terrestrial laser scanner and ground-based synthetic aperture A Fowler and A Geier
radar for area monitoring in open pit mines

Total Stations provide precise 3D positions, but is limited to sparsely populated, finite reference points in a
prism network.
Long Range Terrestrial LIDAR Scanning (LR-TLS) technology has the potential to fill this gap in technology:
providing high density spatio-temporal datasets collected in small time intervals (Reetz & Gaisecker 2011).
While short-range terrestrial LIDAR scanning technology has been around for approximately 20 years,
systems achieving reliable data beyond 2 km have only been introduced in the past few years (Gaisecker
et al. 2012). As the technology is still quite new, testing is needed to ensure it provides satisfactory results
for this application.

2 Installation
The field test consisting of an IDS IBIS-L GB-InSAR system, a RIEGL VZ-4000 LR-TLS and a Leica Tachymeter
with prism network was conducted on a section of the RWE Hambach open pit mine near Cologne,
Germany in September 2014. The test field was composed of clay and soft rock with bench angles of
roughly 10°. The instruments were installed in an advantageous position to balance the range, perspective
and region of interest requirements. The test ran for approximately 2.5 days of nearly uninterrupted
observation; from 22-24 September 2014. In the course of the test, continued rainfall resulted in some
localised slope movements which were detected by multiple systems. The quantity of change and resulting
difference map for these movements were produced and a basic report on the result from each system
examined.
The installation of each of the systems was as follows (Figure 1):
• The GB-InSAR system was housed in a shipping container and mounted on concrete blocks. An
aperture in the side of the shipping container provided an unobstructed view of the test site.
• The LR-TLS instrument was mounted on a steel column which protruded from a 1 m cube of
concrete with two holes for transport by forklift. The mount was installed between the GB-InSAR
and Tachymeter instruments, approximately 3 m from each.
• The Tachymeter was installed within a glass shield and on top of an approximately 2.5 m tall
concrete monument which was submerged approximately 1 m under the ground surface.

Figure 1 Installation of GB-InSAR (1), LR-TLS (2), and Tachymeter (3) with Test Field in background

798 FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia

 Slope stability

3 Configuration and data processing

All sensors were configured to optimise range and resolution performance. The manufacturer’s respective
software packages for each system were employed to produce the best possible results. The results
revealed the different levels of sophistication for each of the software solution accompanying the
technologies. The GB-InSAR was equipped with a well-developed software package specifically tailored to
this application, which provided real-time processing and analysis. For the LR-TLS, a post-processing
approach was decided on whereby data would be run through an algorithm to simulate real-time
processing. The final results from each system were then compared.
The project was a joint venture and one team operated the GB-InSAR system while the other operated the
LR-TLS system. No results were exchanged until all processing had been completed. Thus, each dataset and
the results achieved were fully independent.

3.1 GB-InSAR configuration

The GB-InSAR system was configured to acquire data on a recurring 5 minute interval with the resulting
field-of-view (FoV) parameters as delineated in Table 1. All data was automatically processed in
near-real-time by the manufacturer’s supplied software and displacement values exported for later
comparison.

Table 1 GB-InSAR parameters

Parameter Applied value

Horizontal field of view 60°
Vertical field of view 60°
Range resolution ~0.75 m
Azimuth resolution ~4.4 m @ 1,000 m
Maximum range 4,000 m

3.2 LR-TLS configuration

The LR-TLS system was configured to automatically acquire data on a fixed 10-minute interval with the
parameters in Table 2.
In addition to the scheduled 10-minute scanning interval, the scanner was set up to automatically acquire a
network of 10 reflectors every two hours. The process of acquiring all 10 reflectors required approximately
10 minutes each interval, which resulted in the forfeit of one scan sequence every two hours. Aside from
initial configuration, all data was acquired by the LR-TLS system autonomously.

Table 2 LR-TLS parameters

Parameter Applied value

Horizontal field of view 90°
Horizontal step-width (resolution) 0.014°
Vertical field of view 20°
Vertical step-width (resolution) 0.018°
Maximum range 4,000 m
Pulse repetition rate 50 kHz

FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia 799

Field test of long range terrestrial laser scanner and ground-based synthetic aperture A Fowler and A Geier
radar for area monitoring in open pit mines

3.3 LR-TLS data processing

The LR-TLS data was post-processed after the field test was fully completed. The data was processed using
a combination of software tools developed for the test, software provided by the manufacturer for
geometric adjustments to each dataset (adjusting roll, pitch and yaw to each complete scan), and in a final
step, software provided by the manufacturer for simulated real-time data processing (all datasets were
processed automatically with one set of parameters to simulate real-time processing).

3.3.1 LR-TLS atmospheric scaling correction

The first step in the post-processing stage was the application of range corrections induced by atmospheric
scaling factors. These values were calculated from atmospheric readings acquired by an onsite weather
station. The range variances to 10 planar reflectors prior to correction are shown in Figure 2 as grey lines.
The standard deviation of all values was 5.1 mm over all ranges (min = 120 m, max = 2.4 km). The calculated
range scaling correction due to atmospheric change (in ppm) is overlaid in green.

Figure 2 Graph showing range variances (in meters) to measured TLS reflectors over time (grey lines) overlaid with
calculated atmospheric scaling correction in parts-per-million (green line with crosses)

With the atmospheric range corrections applied, the relative differences in range were again charted,
resulting in a final standard deviation of 3.7 mm. The final result can be seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Graph showing resulting range variances to measured TLS reflectors over time AFTER calculated scaling
correction was applied (each reflector is represented by a black line)

800 FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia

 Slope stability

3.3.2 LR-TLS data adjustment

Persistent operation of LR-TLS systems in active mining environments presents a few challenges. The
instrument may be disturbed by machinery in the immediate vicinity (as was the case during this test),
blasting or any other number of disturbances. Likewise, moderate rainfall, geological rebound of the mine,
and other natural influences can cause minor changes to the material under the concrete mount. Thermal
expansion and contraction of the steel beam of the LR-TLS mount according to which side the sun heats
also incurs variation to the position and (more significantly) orientation of the instrument. Therefore, a
method of registering the datasets together to adjust these errors is required.
Two approaches were tested to determine an optimal method for adjustment. The first method invoked
was a least-squared adjustment of the observed values on the reflector network (acquired every
two hours). For validation, a second adjustment was performed utilising an iterative closest point (ICP)
algorithm on planes extracted from each scan from each epoch with the first scan held as a reference for all
others. The ICP algorithm is also known as MSA in the software used for adjustment. The results of each
independent method are presented in Figure 4. Note the dramatic influence of the machinery between
23. 07:00 and 23. 17:00.

8
6
Orientation [mdeg]

4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8

Day of September 2014. Time (UTC) Roll MSA Pitch MSA Yaw MSA
Roll TPL Pitch TPL Yaw TPL

Figure 4 Comparison of LR-TLS Orientation Results from the Reflector Network (TPL) and ICP Adjustment (ICP)

3.3.3 LR-TLS deformation analysis

The final analysis used to derive deformation values was completely automated. Parameters were
established to optimise results and the automated process was started.
The process operates in the following manner:
• The objective surface was modelled via a 2.5D Raster methodology. Each scan was divided into
seven segments, with an optimum reference plane defined for each segment. Each of these
planes served as the base of a rasterised grid. Each raster cell of each plane was projected
through the point cloud data and all points contained within each raster were averaged to obtain
a single height above the plane. The result is a 2.5D value for each cell (Figure 5).
That raster information for each epoch was then compared to the reference epoch by differencing the
raster distance values for each cell along the normal direction of the reference plane. Any cell containing
less than was filtered to eliminate poor results causes by insufficient data.

FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia 801

Field test of long range terrestrial laser scanner and ground-based synthetic aperture A Fowler and A Geier
radar for area monitoring in open pit mines

Figure 5 LR-TLS raster planes

4 Results
During the course of the monitoring period, moderate rain showers occurred which resulted in some minor
slope deformation in a number of locations within the test field (Figure 6). The extent of these
deformations was further investigated. However, as there were a number of smaller events, only the most
pronounced were investigated. Typical deformations were selected to provide a representative sample of
the overall performance for each system.

Figure 6 RIEGL VZ-4000 scanning in a moderate rainstorm

The final step in the project, correlating the two datasets, proved to be more challenging than planned.
Although the GB-InSAR system was georeferenced using RTK-GNSS to measure the origin and
georeferenced corner cube reflectors used to determine the orientation, assimilating the GB-InSAR and
LR-TLS datasets proved to be a challenge due to the large beam size and relative orientation errors
encountered with the GB-InSAR system.
In contrast, the LR-TLS system was relatively easy to precisely georeference provided by its integrated
sensors: inclination, GNSS, and precise reflector scanning capabilities (see Figure 3 for range measurement

802 FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia

 Slope stability

errors to multiple reference targets). The resulting positioning accuracy of the LR-TLS data was at the
centimeter level.
However, with a bit of trial and error, the shift between the GB-InSAR and LR-TLS datasets was found to be
around 20-30m, depending on the range. The challenge this presented was simply one of logistics; the size
of the slope deformations often were not larger than 20-30m and therefore positively identifying
displacements between systems via geodetic coordinates was achieved only after a great deal of
coordination between datasets.

4.1 System coverage

Both instruments are specified to achieve measurement performance up to 4,000 meters. As the site was
limited to roughly 3,000 meters, the ability to test this aspect of performance was not available. The
immediate difference between the two technologies is evident in the Laser Scanner’s ability to scan a
configurable 360° window, while the GBInSAR system is limited to 60 × 60°. This creates a striking
difference when comparing coverage of each system (see Figure 7) as the LR-TLS was configured to acquire
a 90° horizontal window. The LR-TLS system easily covered the same region as the GB-InSAR system and
extended well beyond in the horizontal aspect. While the LR-TLS system covered a much wider Field of
View, it required twice as much time (10 minutes) as the GB-InSAR system to do so. There is a direct
tradeoff between the configured Field of View and required scan time for the Laser Scanner and this should
considered for optimising for different applications in the future.

Figure 7 Sensor coverage map. Note: GB-InSAR (white) overlaps LR-TLS (blue)

4.2 Detection capabilities

There is a large difference in the detection capabilities afforded by the two systems. Basic physics dictate
the characteristics of each. Radar has a large footprint due to its wavelength, but the benefit of the same
wavelength is the ability to resolve relative changes to millimetre precision, given that the surface
encountered by the radar beam is relatively planar.
The LR-TLS used in this test provided a large number of discrete points with a much smaller beam diameter
(see Table 3) compared with the radar system. However, each point has a precision of 10 mm, which means
that the variability of each point will create a noisier result, but a more accurate result due to the nature of
the system.

FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia 803

Field test of long range terrestrial laser scanner and ground-based synthetic aperture A Fowler and A Geier
radar for area monitoring in open pit mines

In principle, the differences (see Table 3) can be summarised as this: GB-InSAR provides precise change
detection and LR-TLS provides accurate change detection. The difference is not simply a change in terms, it
is the difference between tracking fast and slow moving surfaces. Typically, the precision required to
repeatably detect change is determined as the capability to measure and order of magnitude more precise
than the change itself. In this case, the InSAR system potentially has the ability to detect changes on the
order of 0.1 mm, which means it can reliably detect changes of 1 mm. However, due to the limitation of the
technology, rapid deformations result in a complete loss of data integrity. A change has occurred, but it
cannot be quantified.
LR-TLS does not suffer this issue as it measures in true 3D. However, the results from this test show that the
systems can resolve to approximately 4 mm (Section 3.1.1), which translates to a detectable change of
40 mm or greater.

Table 3 System characteristics (Sources: IDS 2012 and RIEGL 2015)

IDS IBIS-FM RIEGL VZ-4000

Maximum range 4,000 m 4,000 m
Precision Spec: <0.1 mm (SNR dependent) Spec: 10 mm
Actual results: 0.3-1 mm Actual results: 3-5 mm
Measurement Amplitude and phase X, Y, Z, θ, φ, r
attributes Amp., reflectance, deviation
Beam footprint 4.4 m @ 1,000 m 0.15 m @ 1,000 m
(4.4 mrad azimuth resolution) (to perpendicular surface)
Displacement 1D line-of-sight 1D plane raster
detection method (3D also realisable)

4.3 Detected events

Four deformation events were selected to represent the diverse conditions and results which were
achieved by both systems (although there were several more noted). The range and location of these are
depicted in Figure 8 and a side-by-side comparison of events is provided in Table 4. All images in Table 4 are
scaled from -10 to +10 mm of displacement.

Figure 8 Plot of detected events and their distance from the instruments

804 FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia

 Slope stability

Table 4 Event displacement map comparison

Event GB-InSAR displacement map LR-TLS displacement map

ALL

FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia 805

Field test of long range terrestrial laser scanner and ground-based synthetic aperture A Fowler and A Geier
radar for area monitoring in open pit mines

4.3.1 Event 1
Both systems detected this event (centre of each image in Table 3, Row 1). The immediately notable
difference between each result is the ability of the LR-TLS system to accurately depict erosion and
deposition, while the GB-InSAR provides the information that an event has occurred, but does not provide
any ability to quantify the erosion and deposition activity (Figure 9).
200
TLS: Displacement
GB-InSAR: LOS Change

100
[mm]

0
-100
-200
-300

TLS 7_09 TLS 7_10

Day of September 2014. Time (UTC)
GB-InSAR 7_14 Gb-InSAR 7_19

Figure 9 Displacement from 2 cells demonstrating erosion and deposition quantification for GB-InSAR and LR-TLS

4.3.2 Event 2
Caused by earth moving equipment, this was technically not a slope failure. It was a machine induced earth
movement caused by a dozer pushing earth over an embankment. Displacement graphs from each system
are provided in (Figures 10 and 11).

Figure 10 LR-TLS measured displacement of Event 2

Figure 11 GB-InSAR measured displacement of Event 2

806 FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia

 Slope stability

4.3.3 Event 3
This was the largest event recording during testing. A substantial change is readily observable in each of the
technology’s displacement map from Table 4, Row 3 above. GB-InSAR detected the event(s), but only
reported them as deposition events, while the LR-TLS accurately detected both the erosion and deposition
event. Extents of the displacement were greater than 3 meters in both deposition and erosion as measured
by the LR-TLS system.

4.3.4 Event 4
Event 4 appears to be consistent with a traditional earthen creep-type movement. The toe of the highwall
is slowly advancing as the crest is slowly subsiding. During the testing period the GB-InSAR detected
changes of 50-60 mm, while the LR-TLS results were less conclusive. From the results, it appears that the
LR-TLS system was not able to detect the subtle displacement of this system with sufficient precision to
render the change as identifiable in the displacement map.

5 Conclusion
The value of the current level of automation in today’s GB-InSAR systems is not to be understated. Once
configured, the system operates almost fully automatically (requiring only infrequent inspections). The
merits of the technology do not need to be reiterated as they have already been proven in active mine sites
around the world (Atzeni et al. 2015). There are, however, limitations to the technology which leave gaps in
the ability of geoscientists to accurately model and quantify surface deformations in three dimensions. This
aspect of interpretation will prove increasingly vital to the contribution of understanding the mechanics
and attributes of soil, rock and material dynamics. This could be overcome if more than one radar would be
deployed.
To this extent, the rapid acceleration in LR-TLS developments in recent years has provided a viable means
of acquiring highly accurate 4D data in dynamic conditions. The further development and improvement of
the automation of these systems will prove critical to their adoption. However, it should be noted that the
physical dimensions, performance and rapid improvement of the technology already enables in-depth
analysis of slope dynamics with all the benefits of a Remote Sensing technology (safety, ease of
deployment, resistance to atmospheric conditions etc.).
It is expected that LR-TLS systems will soon become standard equipment in monitoring applications.
Further testing of post-processing and analytical automation will be required to realise a high-performance,
high-accuracy real-time LR-TLS monitoring system. Specifically, refined adjustments to counter for physical
disturbance of the instrument, better classification and quantification of surface displacement and
deformation along with seamless integration with existing infrastructure will be required. The level of
automation provided by the RIEGL VZ-4000 enabled the acquisition process to be fully autonomous, which
is a must for such isolated installations. With integrated inclination sensors, GNSS and the ability to
automatically acquire reflectors, the system provides a straightforward means of georeferencing datasets
and therefore simplifies the process of aggregation with other sensor data.
LR-TLS already provides 3D change detection and volumetric change detection capabilities, and is a
standard for surveying volumetric changes induced by excavation and other such surface deformation
activities (Meinig 2014). It is expected that these capabilities will be extended into the time domain to
provide a 4D record of the mine surface and volumetric changes. As these activities were considered
outside the scope of this paper, they have not been detailed. However, these are key considerations for any
future research and development.
The fusion of the resulting datasets also provides an additional challenge, as the georeferencing capabilities
for Radar data are rather limited due to the physical beam size and lack of internal orientation capabilities.
While the radar data was georeferenced to within 5-30 m (depending on where the data was sampled),
attempts to combine the two was made difficult by the ambiguities inherent in the 2D radar datasets.

FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia 807

Field test of long range terrestrial laser scanner and ground-based synthetic aperture A Fowler and A Geier
radar for area monitoring in open pit mines

Therefore, it is highly recommended to precisely georeferenced installations in the future to avoid such
hassles.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank RWE for providing a great test field, accommodating all the necessary
requirements to fulfil testing, and their cooperation in producing this work.
Additionally, the authors extend their gratitude to DMT for providing their technical expertise in GBInSAR
analysis, coordinating the exchange and communication for all participants, companies and providing the
fundamental capability of supporting such a technical test involving a topic which is quite sensitive for the
region in which it was conducted.

References
Atzeni, C, Barla, M, Pieraccini, M & Antolini, F 2015, ‘Early warning monitoring of natural and engineered slopes with ground-based
synthetic-aperture radar’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 235-246.
Gaisecker, T, Pfennigbauer, M, Sevcik, C, Studnicka, N 2012‚ ‘Terrestrischs Laser Scanning in den Alpen mit dem RIEGL VZ-4000 – für
Geländeerfassung, Hangrutschungsüberwachung und Gletschermonitoring’, Vermessung & Geoinformation, pp. 45-52.
IDS Ingegneria dei Sistemi S.p.A 2012, IBIS-L Controller Software, IBIS-L Controller ver. 02.02, User Manual
https://www.idscorporation.com/fr/georadar/our-solutions-products/transport/products/item/27-ibis-fl-interferometric-
radar, Pisa, Italy.
Meinig, H 2014, ‘Geotechnische Anforderungen für den Aufbau operativer markscheiderischer Überwachungssysteme im Bereich
der Tagebaue der VE Mining AG’, Proceedings of Markscheiderisches Kolloquium 2014 Vattenfall Europe Mining AG,
Freiberg, Germany.
Reetz, F & Gaisecker, T 2011, ‘Automatisches Deformationsmonitoring an fortschreitenden Tagebauböschungen der
Mitteldeutschen Braunkohlen GmbH (MIBRAG) mit RIEGL Laserscan-Technologie’ 12. Geokinematischer Tag, Tagungsband.
[en: Automatic Deformation Monitoring of Slopes for Mitteldeutschen Braunkohlen GmbH (MIBRAG) with RIEGL Laser
Scanning Technology]
RIEGL Laser Measurement Systems GmbH 2015, VZ-4000 Datasheet, RIEGL, Horn, viewed 26 May 2015,
http://www.riegl.com/uploads/tx_pxpriegldownloads/DataSheet_VZ-4000_2015-03-24.pdf

808 FMGM 2015, Sydney, Australia