The Trend/plunge convention is similar to the Dip direction/Dip angle but it refers

to linear data (poles). A plane can be represented with Dip direction/Dip angle of
the plane itself or the Trend/Plunge of the respective pole (line perpendicular to
plane). As an example a plane with with Dip direction/Dip angle 300/50 would have
a Trend/Plunge 120/40 (pole).

Trend and plunge used to measure only the attitude of linear geological structures.

Dip direction and dip angle used to measure the attitude of linear and planar
geological structures.

Strike and dip angle used to measure only planar geological structures.

Trend and plunge are only used for linear features (mineral lineation,

imbrication, slickensides, etc.). They describe lines.

Strike and dip are used for planar features (beds, layers, contacts.). They

describe planes. Planes may be described as strike direction/angle
(strike/dip) or Plane inclination direction/DIP angle (dip//dip). Strike is a
horizontal line and it is perpendicular to the plane's dip direction.

Nevertheless, a Trend is analogous to strike and plunge is analogous to dip. It

just depends on what you're measuring.

Finally, trend is measured in the same direction as plunge. Strike is

perpendicular to dip but dip/dip measurements are also made in the same
direction that the plane dips.

There's nothing forbidding to measure lines as dip/dip direction as well, but

they still are trend and plunge.

What Thomas Makedon described is right but only refers to poles plotting in a
pole plot diagram where planes become lines and lines become points.

Planes: Dip direction/Dip angle or strike direction/dip angle.

Lines: Dip direction/Dip angle or trend (direction)/plunge.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_meaning_of_Trend_plunge
Abstract

The Q-system of Barton et. al. (1974, 1976) and the RMR-system of Beniawski (1973)
have been evaluated on the basis of measured tunnel support pressures from 26
tunnel sections, 2 to 14 m wide, covering both squeezing and non-squeezing ground
conditions. The comparison shows that the Q-system is unsafe for large tunnels
under squeezing ground condition. A new correlation has been developed
considering tunnel depth, tunnel radius, tunnel closure, and Rock Mass Number—
i.e., “stress free Q”—to obtain reliable estimates of tunnel support pressures.
Changes suggested by Sheorey (1991) for satisfactory application of the Q system to
coal-mine roadways on the basis of 44 case histories are presented. Unal's (1983)
correlation for coal-mine roadways is shown as overly safe for large tunnels under
non-squeezing ground conditions, and unsafe for all sizes of tunnels under squeezing
ground conditions. Correlations between tunnel support pressure, tunnel depth,
tunnel closure, and Bieniawski's RMR have been developed to provide reliable
tunnel support pressures for all sizes of rock tunnels under varying ground
conditions. The correlations between RMR and Q proposed by Beniawski (1976) and
by Rutledge and Preston (1978) are not reliable, because RMR and Q are not truly
equivalent. Therefore, an acceptable correlation between rock mass number N and
RMRmod, i.e., RMR without joint orientation and intact rock strength, has been
presented for a better interrelation.

Résumé

Les classifications des terrains de. Barton “Q” (1974, 1975) et de Beniawski “RMR”
(1913) sont évaluées à partir de 25 sections de mesure dépressions en tunnels de 2 à
14 m de large, à la fois daps des terrains poussant ou non poussant. La comparaison
montre que la classification “Q” est peu adaptée aux tunnels de grande section soul
fortes charges. Une nouvelle approche est développée qui prend en compte la
profondeur du tunnel, son rayon, la convergence du tunnel, et le “Rock Mans
Number” (le coefficient Q sans charge) pour obtenir une estimation fiable des
pressions exercées sur le tunnel. Les modifications proposées par Sheorey (1991)
pour une application satisfaisante de la classification de Barton aux accès des mines
de charbon à partir de 44 cas réels sont présentées. La comparaison faite par Unal
(1983) est considérée comme satisfaisante pour de grands tunnels sous faible charge
et comme insuffisante pour les tunnels de toutes tailles en terrains poussants. Des
corrélations entre la pression exercée sur le tunnel, la profondeur du tunnel, la
convergence du tunnel, et les classifications de Beniawski—RMR et Q—sont
développées pour arriver à une prévision fiable des pressions a exercées sur le
tunnel pour toutes les tailles et toutes les conditions de terrain. Les corrélations
entre RMR et Q proposées par Beniawski (1976) et Rutledge/Preston (1978) ne sont
pas significatives parce que RMR et Q ne pas sont réellement équivalents. C'est ainsi
que, pour obtenir un meilleur résultat dans la corrélation entre le Rock Mass
Number N et le RMR, il a été introduit un RMR modifié qui ne prend pas en compte
l'orientation des joints et la résistance de la matrice rocheuse.