PRE-CUT MEASUREMENT
The face audit before the first cut.
ANATOLIT measures the quarry face, maps the visible discontinuities your team reads on a tape, and tests cutting plans against your quarry’s own rules — before irreversible decisions are made. In a pilot, your foreman’s plan can be entered and scored on the same face.
01 · WORKFLOW
Five steps, from the face to the report.
- 01
Capture
Around 30 photos, walking the face from left to right. A quality gate checks overlap and sharpness on site.
- 02
3D model of the face
Photogrammetry — building 3D shape from photos taken at different angles — turns the set into a point cloud of the face. You mark which way is up. The model is for orientation; distances in the report come from tape readings in metres.
- 03
Visible discontinuities
Scanline readings — where each visible discontinuity crosses a tape stretched along the face — and the orientation of each family: dip, and dip direction when a compass reading is taken at the face.
- 04
Your rules
The product rule — classic block or squaring — is chosen for every job, with the smallest commercial piece, the heaviest mass you can split and topple, the heaviest block you can transport, and the foreman’s planned cuts. There is no default: without a rule, no plan is produced.
- 05
Face report
Discontinuity families, the cutting plans compared, slices that cannot yield a commercial piece under your rules and the model’s assumptions, and the seal.
02 · THE REPORT
What the report shows.
Plans compared
The proposal, the foreman’s plan and the best shift of a fixed spacing are scored on the same face, with the same rules and the same remainder rule. When a foreman’s plan is entered, the headline compares against it.
Cannot yield a commercial piece
A slice is flagged only when no cutting pattern in the model gives a commercial piece under your rules. The flag states its conditions: your thresholds, the model assumptions, and whether the proof covers every position or only the search grid.
Weight limits
The weight limits you enter restrict the proposal. If no pattern fits them, the report gives no proposal rather than one that cannot be lifted or shipped.
Discontinuity families
Each measured family with its dip and dip direction. In-situ block volume (Palmström) is shown as an empirical estimate, not as a physical limit.
- Visible discontinuity
- Foreman’s cuts
- Proposal
| Plan | Cuts (m) | Model volume | Cut surface |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proposal | 0 · 2.25 · 4.5 · 6 | 21.6 m³ | 40 m² |
| Foreman’s plan | 0 · 2.2 · 4.4 · 6 | 22.0 m³ | 40 m² |
| Fixed 2 m, best shift | 0 · 0.2 · 2.2 · 4.2 · 6 | 20.4 m³ | 44 m² |
If the foreman's plan is better, the report says so.
03 · THE SEAL
Frozen before anyone sees it.
- The raw request and the options it resolved to
- Content fingerprints of the engine files that produced it
- The full report
- A SHA-256 fingerprint of all of the above
Seals are written once and never overwritten. A verification script checks integrity, code changes and reproduction. The seal is a record kept on our system, not an independent notarisation.
- Sealed
- 2026-10-24 08:12 UTC
- Face
- synthetic-6x2x2
- Engine
- manifest 3f9c…a1d0
- SHA-256
- 9f3a…7c21
04 · SCOPE
What it measures, and what it assumes.
Measures
- The geometry of the visible face
- The spacing and orientation of visible discontinuities
- Cutting plans against the rules you enter
Assumes
- Visible discontinuities continue into the rock as planes that cut the full height and depth of the slice
- The in-situ block sets a ceiling: what is commercial also depends on colour, veining, micro-cracks and equipment
Outside the report
- Internal structure — that is ground-penetrating radar work
- Colour, veining and texture grading
- Reserve estimation
05 · METHOD AND SOURCES
Established methods, applied with a phone.
None of the methods are new. What is new is putting them into a workflow that needs only a phone, a measuring tape and a set of photos.
- Scanline surveyISRM (1978). Suggested methods for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 15(6), 319–368.
- Orientation bias correctionTerzaghi, R. D. (1965). Sources of error in joint surveys. Géotechnique 15(3), 287–304.
- Volumetric joint count and in-situ block volumePalmström, A. (2005). Measurements of and correlations between block size and rock quality designation (RQD). Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 20(4), 362–377.
- Cut-surface accountingJalalian, Bagherpour & Khoshouei (2023). Environmentally sustainable mining in quarries to reduce waste production and loss of resources using the developed optimization algorithm. Scientific Reports 13, 22183.
Measured
On a reference wall with known geometry, the photo pipeline recovered a 19.0 cm course spacing as 19.1 cm — a 0.5 % error. This is a calibration result, not a quarry result.