2003
DOI: 10.3141/1821-12
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electronic Data Collection for Rockfall Analysis

Abstract: Rockfall analysis traditionally has used conventional stationery tools, that is, pencil and paper, for data collection. Traditional methodologies are being revisited with the advent of personal digital assistants (PDAs) or pen-based computers that enable field data to be collected electronically. The advantages over data collection with pencil and paper include automatic error and data integrity checks during data input and the elimination of manual data entry. PDAs also allow automatic branching to solicit da… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An important innovation is that they have developed a protocol to use a mobile Palm Pilot platform for field-based input and analysis (Bellamy et al, 2003).…”
Section: Tennessee Rockfall Hazard Rating Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An important innovation is that they have developed a protocol to use a mobile Palm Pilot platform for field-based input and analysis (Bellamy et al, 2003).…”
Section: Tennessee Rockfall Hazard Rating Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the last two decades, several qualitative risk rating systems (QRSs) have been proposed in order to reduce the potential consequences of rockfalls, and information technology systems (involving the use of electronic data sets, video images, lidar-based technologies, and GIS) have been implemented by several authors and transportation agencies in the USA, Canada, Australia and elsewhere (Pierson et al, 1990;Franklin and Senior, 1997;Bateman, 2003;Rose, 2005;Drumm et al, 2005;Liang et al, 2006;Pack et al, 2007;Youssef and Maerz, 2012;Russell et al, 2008;Mekni et al, 2008;Ferrero et al, 2011;Lato et al, 2012;Mignelli et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%