See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303988565

Sampling Technique Biases and their Effect on Discrete Fracture Network

Generation for Underground Works using LiDAR Scanning

Conference Paper · October 2016

CITATIONS READS

4 209

3 authors:

Ioannis Vazaios Nicholas Vlachopoulos

Arup Royal Military College of Canada
52 PUBLICATIONS   184 CITATIONS    171 PUBLICATIONS   888 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mark S. Diederichs
Queen's University
215 PUBLICATIONS   5,370 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Laboratory direct shear testing of rock fractures View project

Monitoring, Instrumentation, Analysis and Design for Geotechnical Engineering Projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ioannis Vazaios on 28 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sampling Technique Biases and their Effect on
Discrete Fracture Network Generation for
Underground Works using LiDAR Scanning
I. Vazaios, N. Vlachopoulos, M.S. Diederichs
Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering,
Queen’s University, Kingston
Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6

ABSTRACT
Structural mapping is a key element that provides valuable data such as discontinuity orientation, density, persistence,
fracture trace length etc. which serve as input to the geometrical modelling of a rockmass. However, in an active
underground environment, traditional joint survey techniques, and more specifically, structural mapping of the tunnel walls,
may become difficult. LiDAR scanning in an operational underground environment can be proven to be more efficient, as
the required collection data time and impediment to the construction is minimized as processing of the structural rockmass
data can be conducted at a later time. However, similar to traditional mapping, “virtual” mapping is subjected to the same
biases due to the inherent limitations of the sampling techniques employed. This affects the discontinuity data which is
then used as input to the geometrical modelling of the fracture network (such as the use of Discrete Fracture Networks
(DFNs)), which is critical in order to establish a reliable, geologically and geomechanically sound “picture” of any
underground project. This paper will focus on the procedures associated with utilizing LiDAR data in order to aid in the
characterization of the rockmasses past the face of tunnelling projects. The workflow and results will be discussed utilizing
data sets obtained from a tunneling project in Norway.

RÉSUMÉ
La cartographie structurale est un élément clé qui fournit des données précieuses telles que l’orientation des discontinuités,
la densité, la persistance, la localisation des fissures et fractures, etc. L’ensemble de ces données est utilisé et nécessaire
à la modélisation d’une masse rocheuse. Cependant, dans un environnement souterrain actif, les techniques de relevés
conventionnelles, et plus spécifiquement, la cartographie structurale des parois d’un tunnel peuvent s’avérer difficiles. À
l’opposé, un balayage LiDAR dans un environnement souterrain opérationnel peut s’avérer plus efficace en raison de la
rapidité de la collecte des données qui diminue les entraves aux opérations. La collecte de données est rapide puisque le
traitement des données de la masse rocheuse peut être effectué ultérieurement. De plus, semblable à la cartographie
conventionnelle, la cartographie virtuelle est soumise aux mêmes inconvénients en raison des limites inhérentes aux
techniques d’échantillonnage utilisées. Cela entraine une interruption dans le flux de données qui sont ensuite utilisées
dans la modélisation géométrique du réseau de fracture (telles que l’utilisation d’un réseau de fractures discrètes), ce qui
est critique à la création d’une image sonore fiable géologiquement et géo mécaniquement de tout projet souterrain. Cet
article porte sur les procédures associées à l’utilisation et à la gestion de données LiDAR afin d’optimiser la caractérisation
d’une masse rocheuse une fois l’acquisition des données complétées. Des méthodes et résultats seront présentés en
utilisant des données provenant d’un projet antérieur de tunnel en Norvège.

KEYWORDS: DFN, LiDAR, Underground Projects, Sampling Biases

1 INTRODUCTION the numerical tools that has been developed in order to

Exposed rockmass surfaces are used to characterize the
fracture patterns present at a specific site with the
expectation that obtained discontinuity data will provide an
insight and enhance the understanding of the fracture
conditions of the rockmass under study. Especially when it
comes to underground projects, the evaluation and
estimation of the rockmass conditions can allow for
versatile and efficient modifications in the proposed support
system or the excavation method employed.
In-situ characterization combined with techniques such
as the geometrical modelling of a rockmass can be
particularly useful, as different generated models based on
the rockmass characterization can provide a wide range of
different expected fracture conditions and therefore
different support systems in order to manage these. One of
assist in this is the generation of Discrete Fracture
Networks (DFNs).
However, DFN modelling relies highly on the selected
input parameters and therefore, the adequate
characterization of the rockmass is critical in order to
generate models that are geologically reasonable and
correspond to the is-situ conditions of the investigated site.
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) systems can be
rather efficient in such cases due to their ability to produce
detailed 3D models of exposed rockmass surfaces and
assist in obtaining geotechnical data in an efficient manner.
However, this approach is subjected to biases similarly to
traditional discontinuity sampling techniques which affect
the DFN realizations, and therefore the estimate of the
rockmass conditions and the design of the underground
project.
 This paper will focus on the procedures associated with
utilizing LiDAR data in order to aid in the characterization
of the rockmasses past the face of tunnelling projects. The
workflow and results will be discussed utilizing data sets
obtained from a tunneling project in Norway.
2 DFN GENERATION
DFN model realizations serve as explicit representations of
finite size fractures in 2D or 3D space, used to simulate
discontinuities in a synthetic rockmass. In order to
extrapolate, modify and expand collected data to produce
a synthetic fracture network, the generation of DFNs
usually relies on statistics derived from accumulated field
data for a given project. Discontinuity orientation, fracture
size, intensity, spatial variation persistence and aperture
are typical input parameters in DFN modelling and are
usually collected by applying traditional techniques,
including manual joint mapping and boreholes, or more
sophisticated techniques, including virtual mapping of 3D
surface models created by LiDAR or photogrammetry data.
However, the access to the rockmass or its exposure may
be limited; hence, each of these techniques are subjected
to limitations leading to significant challenges during the
data collection, which also highly depends on the
specifications of the investigated site, resulting in less
complete, taken over smaller ranges or even skewed data.
This creates conditions which are not ideal for a
comprehensive rockmass characterization.
2.1 DFN Input Parameters and Related Biases in
Underground Works
As mentioned above, discontinuity data collection is critical
for DFN modelling; however, significant challenges may
rise depending on the employed sampling techniques and
the site specific requirements. Especially in a tunneling
operation environment, this may lead to misleading data
during the collection process, resulting in DFNs that are not
representative of the rockmass simulated.
Regarding orientation, the spacing of joints of all sets
observed in a tunnel relative to the tunnel diameter can
significantly influence the number of observed joints, as if
the spacing of blind-zone joints is close to or greater than
the tunnel diameter, there will inevitably be a
disproportionately small number of observations of the
orientation of blind zone joints (Terzaghi 1965) and
therefore the collected data that will be used as an input for
the DFN generation process.
Fracture density and fracture intensity also serve as
input parameter for DFN modelling and can be derived by
employing window mapping techniques on the tunnel walls.
The combination of number of fractures combined with a
total fracture length in an area, organized by set in total,
provides a less subjective and a more complete description
of the rockmass in 2D (Palleske et al. 2013). However,
window mapping is subjected to limitations due to sampling
problems such as censoring and truncation and therefore
depends on the excavated length of the tunnel.
Additionally, if the tunnel diameter is sufficiently large in
relation to the size of the fracture, a fracture may be
contained inside the tunnel, without intersecting the tunnel
surface (Mauldon & Mauldon 1997). All of these factors
influence the measured quantities and may lead to skewed
input data, not appropriate for DFN modelling.
Furthermore, during DFN generation the size of the
fractures has to be determined. However, this is a rather
difficult task as measuring or estimating directly is not
possible. However, indirect estimations can be made by
measuring the trace lengths on the exposed rockmass
surfaces. In a 2D mapping window or plane, the length
distribution of the traces is usually assumed to be
representative of the average fracture size distribution.
However, field data is usually truncated at some lower
bound, as below that it is either considered unimportant or
difficult to determine, which may result in skewed input
parameters for the generation process. Additionally, very
short fractures are less likely to intersect the tunnel wall
surfaces, even when more, than larger fractures skewing
the data towards the larger ones.
As stated above, it becomes evident that the area of the
exposed rockmass is crucial as it controls the size of the
sampling windows and therefore the availability of data
which can be used in a DFN generation process, especially
for discontinuity sets that that are more widely spaced
(Palleske et al. 2013). Furthermore, due to construction
reasons and restrictions depending on the cycle of works
in a tunneling environment, access to the exposed
rockmass may be limited. Moreover, tunnels are long
underground structures advancing towards a specific
direction and consequently the exposed rockmass
surfaces. Therefore, data collection is impacted by two
major factors: a. the total area extent of the surface to be
mapped; and b. the maximum size of the surface in a given
direction.
3 LIDAR SCANNING IN UNDERGROUND WORKS
LiDAR has already been proven as a real asset for slope
surveying and hazard assessment and has been
extensively used for rockmass structural characterization
at the rock outcrop scale. The same principles can be
employed at a certain extent to underground applications
as well, at unsupported sections of tunnels where the
rockmass is exposed (Fekete & Diederichs 2013).
Utilizing a transmitted and reflected laser beam, the
scanning results in the recording of millions of high
accuracy points in space with co-ordinates relative to the
position of the scanner known as “point-cloud”. Further
process of the point cloud results in a 3D surface model as
illustrated in Figure 1. One of the major advantages of such
a model is that discontinuities and fracture traces can be
mapped explicitly within the model and therefore
discontinuity data including joint orientation, fracture
density and fracture trace length can be extracted and used
in DFN modelling (Vazaios et al. 2015).
One of the key strengths of using LiDAR scanners in
underground projects is that they can function without
underground lighting, since the laser acts as its own “light
source”. This can be rather advantageous when compared
to photogrammetric or traditional method mapping
techniques. Additionally, high-speed phase-based
scanners have led to decreased scanning times which
allow their use in active tunnels (Fekete et al. 2010); hence
a better integration into the construction cycle of a tunnel
than conventional mapping may be achieved.
Figure 1. 3D Surface model created using LiDAR scanning
data of the Bånkall Tunnel, Norway.
3.1 Virtual Mapping of Discontinuities in Tunneling
Environments
Surface models are used to assess a rockmass as its
structural features can be identified and mapped explicitly
within them including joint surfaces and fracture traces and
have been successfully used in slope and outcrop
characterization. Similar principles can be employed in
underground applications where the unsupported span of
a tunnel can be scanned, create the surface model and
“map” the discontinuities (Fekete & Diederichs 2013, Vöge
et al. 2013) (Figure 2a) and the fracture traces on the tunnel
walls (Figures 2b) using Polyworks (InnovMentrics 2009),
a general purpose package for range for range image
processing.
Figure 2. Virtual mapping of a. discontinuity surfaces
(highlighted with a red ellipse and a blue rectangle), and b.
fracture traces (red) within the 3D surface model of the
Bånkall Tunnel, Norway.
3.2 Deriving Input Parameters for DFN Modelling from
LiDAR Data
After identifying the discontinuity surfaces and fracture
traces within the 3D surface model, discontinuity related
data can be extracted and used for DFN modelling serving
as input parameters. Discontinuity orientation can be
determined by fitting planes to selected areas (Figure 2a).
The normal of these planes determines the dip and dip
direction of the joint surfaces. Pole contouring of the
mapped discontinuities results in identifying the joint
“families” present and an average orientation or an
orientation distribution can be derived and used as input for
the DFN generation process. In Figure 3a, plane orientation
data from the 3D surface model of the Bånkall Tunnel is
used as input to Dips (Rocscience 2015) in order to
determine the dominant discontinuity groups for that
specific rockmass.
Fracture intensity is another discontinuity property
usually serving as an input parameter for DFN modelling
and provides information regarding the fracture frequency
and the fracture size. Fracture intensity in 2D (areal fracture
intensity P21) is estimated by employing window mapping
techniques from fractures traces. As illustrated in Figure
2b, fracture traces can be explicitly mapped within the 3D
surface model and therefore can be used to determine
fracture intensity. MoFrac (Mirarco 2014), a stochastic DFN
generator used for the purposes of this paper, employs the
best-fit line of a fracture intensity distribution in order to
define the size and density of the fractures created within a
volume of interest (Figure 3b).
Figure 3. Discontinuity and fracture properties derived for
the Bånkall Tunnel from LiDAR data including a.
Discontinuity orientation and pole contouring (Set 1-red,
Set 2-blue, Set 3-yellow) and b. Fracture intensity (Set 1).
4 THE BÅNKALL TUNNEL CASE
The Bånkall Tunnel located in Oslo area, Norway was
excavated in a massive plutonic rock, Permian in age. More
specifically, the tunnel was excavated in quartz-bearing
with grey plagioclase syenite (Figure 4). The tunnel is an
approximately 65m long and of a diameter of 6m testing
facility excavated by employing the drill and blast method
(Fekete et al. 2010).
Figure 4. The Bånkall Test Tunnel in massive quart-bearing
syenite located in the wider Oslo area, Norway.
4.1 DFN Generation for the Bånkall Tunnel Site
The selection of representative input parameters has a
significant impact on DFN generation, and equally
important is the generation method applied for the creation
of a fracture network. In order to examine the effect of the
selected input parameters and therefore the discontinuity
mapping and sampling biases on the generation of DFNs,
the Bånkall Tunnel case is examined and demonstrated in
this section. For these purposes the total length of the
tunnel was scanned and the generated point cloud was
used. Processing of RGB images or intensity values was
not conducted and the results rely solely on the geometrical
information obtained from the scanning process.
For the purposes of this paper, the DFN generator
MoFrac, which enables the user to generate 3D DFNs
using explicitly mapped fractures (Figure 2b) seeding the
fracture propagation algorithm based on collected
discontinuity data. Therefore, creating a dataset that will
serve as input for the generation process is of great
importance since it will control the number and size of the
fractures which are going to be generated. In Figure 5, one
of the DFN models generated for the purposes of this paper
is illustrated.
Figure 5. Generated DFN model of the Bånkall Test Tunnel
for a volume of interest 30mx60mx30m. Three different
joints sets can be identified based on different coloring (Set
1-red, Set 2-blue, Set 3-yellow).
4.2 Fracture Data Sampling and Input Parameter
Selection
Four main sampling strategies for collecting discontinuity
and fracture data are the usual state-of-practice and
reported in the literature including the linear scanline
method (Priest and Hudson, 1981; Priest, 1993), areal
sampling (Wu and Pollard, 1995), rectangular window
sampling (Pahl, 1981; Priest, 1993) and the circular
scanline method (Mauldon et al., 2001; Rohrbaugh et al.,
2002). These field techniques can be transferred and used,
based on the same principles, along with LiDAR data in
order to obtain input parameters for DFN models. In this
particular case for the Bånkall Tunnel a rectangular window
sampling strategy is applied, as illustrated in Figure 6.
Rectangular window sampling utilizes a rectangular area,
which is placed on the exposed rockmass (outcrop, tunnel
wall etc.) and selected discontinuity attributes are
measured within the area of the rectangle (Priest, 1993;
Watkins et al., 2015). Rectangular window sampling
reduces orientation bias and allows for a simple estimation
of mean trace length (Pahl, 1981). However, the data is
subjected to censoring, due to the size of the exposed
rockmass area, and the quality of the exposure (Watkins et
al., 2015). Within the indicated windows in Figure 6, joint
surface orientation and fracture trace length
measurements were taken. The main objective is to
examine how the collected data from windows of 10m,
Figure 6. Rectangular window sampling along the right wall
springline of the Bånkall Tunnel. Five mapping windows of
10m (red), 20m (yellow), 30m (green), 40m (blue), and 50m
(orange) are employed in order to estimate the
discontinuity properties of the 10m-Target Window (white).

20m, 30m, 40m, 50m assist in the estimation of the

discontinuity properties of the Target Window (highlighted
with white colour in Figure 6). It has to be noted that the
mapping windows have a constant height at all times which
is the height of the tunnel and equal to h=5.60m.

4.2.1 Orientation Measurements

Orientation measurements were taken for every window in

order to determine the orientation of the mean planes that
would be used as input for the DFN generation. From these
mean planes three joint sets are dominant for this specific
rockmass, with Set 1 being approximately parallel to the
tunnel axis (850/2720), Set 2 being perpendicular to the
tunnel axis (810/300), and Set 3 being approximately
horizontal (210/1220). In order to take into account possible
orientation biases due to the orientation of the tunnel axis
the Terzaghi correction method was also applied (Terzaghi,
1965). However, the obtained orientation values did not
differ significantly and therefore the originally estimated
ones were used. Mapping of discontinuities on the other
sidewall revealed that one more discontinuity set is
present. However, its existence was not evident on the right
wall of the tunnel which was under investigation and was
not included in the modelling process.
In Figure 7a and 7b, the collected orientation data are
demonstrated in order to examine how the accumulation of
data, as the mapping window length increases, affects the
dip and dip direction of the mean planes of all three joint
sets when compared to the mean planes of the Target
Window. From these it can be observed that for Set 1 the
accumulation of additional data, as the mapping window
length increases, helps improve the estimation of its dip
and dip direction as the deviation between the accumulated
data and the data of the Target Window decreases. The
same can be inferred for Set 2 at some extent as well. For
Set 3, the dip direction shows a similar trend. However, the
dip of Set 3 does not have a similar trend and in its case
the additional data seem to add more uncertainty in the
estimation of the dip for Set 3, which can be explained by
taking into account the geological and geotechnical
conditions of the specific site.
Figure 7. Deviation of a. Dip and b. Dip Direction between
the mean planes obtained from orientation measurements
from the mapping windows and the Target Window.
4.2.2 Fracture Intensity Measurements
Following the orientation measurements and the
identification of the dominant discontinuity sets within the
rockmass, fracture intensity measurements were also
conducted. In this particular case, the areal fracture
intensity as defined by Dershowitz and Herdra (1992), P21,
was measured for each joint set.
For the determination of the intensity, the total length of
the fracture traces per set was measured within the
sampling area and the results are demonstrated in Figure
8. From this it can be observed that for Set 1 the fracture
intensity does not fluctuate a lot for all different window size
cases. For Set 2 it seems that for a sampling lengths equal
to or greater than 20m, the intensity remains approximately
constant. Therefore, P21 can give relatively good
estimations for the fracture intensity of these two joint sets.
However, for Set 3 the areal fracture intensity is strongly
affected by the size of the sampling area due to its
orientation (Set 3 is an approximately horizontal fracture
set) and due to the fact that P21 is a fracture intensity
measure that is direction dependent (Dershowitz and
Herdra, 1992).

Figure 8. Areal fracture intensity as measured from
mapping windows of 10m, 20m 30m, 40m and 50m length
along the tunnel axis of the Bånkall Tunnel.
4.3 DFN modelling in Estimating Fracture Conditions and
the Effect of the Selected Input Parameters
In order to investigate the impact of the input parameters
derived from LiDAR data for different sampling windows in
the estimation of the fracture conditions, different DFN
models based on the prescribed sampling windows were
generated. Based on the numerical modelling that was
conducted, cross-sections were created from the DFN
models and the Target Window section was examined in
order to compare the fracture intensity of the numerical
models with the in-situ observed fracture intensity. The
results are demonstrated in Figures 9, 10 and 11 for Set 1,
Set 2 and Set 3 respectively.
For Set 1 in Figure 9, it can be observed that P21 varies
within the range of 1.5 and 2.5 m-1 as the sampling length
increases and it becomes more consistent for that specific
section. However, the intensity of the models does not
correspond to the in-situ conditions, as the deviation from
the targeted value is fluctuates between 70% and 80% for
sampling lengths greater than 30m. In this case, the update
of the model did not contribute in making a better estimate
for the expected fracture conditions. On the contrary, it can
be inferred that the fracture conditions within the Target
Window section change locally. This cannot be taken into
account by the model based on the previously collected
data, and therefore, the estimation of the fracture
conditions for this specific set is rendered difficult.
Additionally, due to the relative orientation between Set 1
and the tunnel alignment, sampling within the specific
section can be challenging and the observed fracture
traces may underestimate the in-situ fracture intensity.
Figure 9.Simulated areal fracture intensity P21 for Set 1 and
its deviation from the observed in-situ intensity for the
Target Window.
For Set 2 in Figure 10, P21 has a downward trend as the
sampling length increases for lengths greater than 30m it
becomes consistent and has a value of P21=1 m-1. The
deviation between the simulated and the observed in-situ
conditions also shows a downward trend, and it gets
consistent at around 25% for sampling lengths greater than
30m. In this case, the orientation of Set 2 relative to the
tunnel axis favors the sampling process and enhances the
input data as more of it is sampled by increasing the
window mapping size. While the deviation can still be
considered a little high, this is probably the result of
assigning a lower bound fracture size for our numerical
analysis. This favors the creation of larger fractures which
increases the areal fracture intensity and may not reflect
exactly the in-situ fracture intensity. Hence, an additional
bias may be introduced in the numerical model, associated
with the generation process though.
Figure 10.Simulated areal fracture intensity P21 for Set 2
and its deviation from the observed in-situ intensity for the
Target Window.
Following the aforementioned, in Figure 11 the results for
Set 3 can be observed. In this case the areal fracture
intensity P21 has an upward trend for sampling lengths
between 10m and 20m. However, again for sampling
lengths greater than 30m P21 becomes approximately
consistent at a value around P21=0.70m-1. Regarding the
deviation between the simulated intensity and the in-situ
intensity of the Target Window, a downward trend can be
observed for sampling lengths of 10m and 20m
respectively. For lengths greater than 30m it ranges
between 5% and 20%. As in the case of Set 2, the
orientation of the set relatively to the tunnel alignment
allows for an adequate sampling process, and the increase
in the mapping length assists in updating the input
parameters for the DFN generation process resulting in the
better estimation of the in-situ fracture conditions of the
Target Window section.
Figure 11.Simulated areal fracture intensity P21 for Set 3
and its deviation from the observed in-situ intensity for the
Target Window.
 5 CONCLUSIONS
Estimating fracture conditions during the design of an
underground project is a really important step in
determining the required support system. In order to
achieve this, a process of combining remote sensing
techniques along with numerical tools was demonstrated.
More particularly, DFN modelling can assist in
estimating the rockmass conditions, as discontinuities can
be modelled and multiple geometrical models can be
created for a specific site in order to examine possible
fracture patterns and their effect on the tunnel design.
However, DFN modelling highly relies on the selected
input parameters used for the generation of the models.
LiDAR can be used to extract discontinuity related data
which can serve as the basis of the required modelling
input parameters. The “virtual mapping” of joints within
LiDAR models is subjected to sampling biases, similar to
traditional mapping techniques. This has an impact on the
generated DFN models, and therefore it affects the
estimation of the rockmass conditions when using these
numerical models. In order to highlight this the case of the
Bånkall Tunnel was examined.
The results of the DFN modelling for different sampling
windows were illustrated and the effect of the geological
conditions, the abundancy of structural data and the related
input parameters, and the generation process on the
estimated fracture conditions was discussed. Unfavorable
orientation and locally changed fracture conditions for Set
1 in this specific case introduced biases that affected the
simulation process of the fractures, and therefore the
estimation of the fracture conditions was not judged
satisfactory, even when the DFN model was updated with
the addition of new data. On the contrary, for Sets 2 and 3,
the favorable orientation conditions relative to the tunnel
axis, created the conditions for adequate and accurate
sampling. This resulted in the additional data obtained, due
to the increase of the mapping window size, to assist in
estimating the fracture conditions as the DFN model was
updated by modifying the used input parameters. This
highlighted how DFN modelling is sensitive to the selected
input parameters and how specific factors introduce biases
that affect these, and the therefore the DFN generation
process.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Nuclear Waste
Management Organization of Canada, the National
Science and Engineering Research Council and the
Department of National Defence who have supported this
work.
REFERENCES
Dershowitz, W.S., Herda H.H. 1992. Interpretation of
Fracture Spacing and Intensity. Proc. 32nd US Rock
Mech. Symp., Santa Fe, NM, 757-766.
Fekete, S., M.S., Diederichs, M.J., Lato 2010. Geotechnical
and operational applications for 3-dimensional laser
scanning in drill and blast tunnels. Journal of Tunneling
and Underground Space Technology, 25, 614-628.
View publication stats
Fekete, S. and Diederichs, M.S. 2012. Integration of three-
dimensional laser scanning with discontinuum
modelling for stability analysis of tunnels. Int. J. of Rock
Mech. & Min. Sciences. 57 (2013): 11-23.
Mauldon, M. and Mauldon, J.G. 1997. Fracture Sampling
on a Cylinder: From Scanlines to Boreholes and
Tunnels. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
30(3): 129-144.
Mauldon, M., Dunne, W.M., Rohrbaugh, M.B., 2001.
Circular scanlines and circular windows: new tools for
characterizing the geometry of fracture traces. J. Struct.
Geol., 23: 247-258.
Pahl, P.J., 1981. Estimating the mean length of
discontinuity traces. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr., 18: 221-228.
Palleske, C., D.J. Hutchinson, D. Elmo, M.S. Diederichs.
2013. Impacts of limited data collection windows on
accurate rock simulation using discrete fracture
networks. In Proceedings of the 47th US Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, San
Francisco, 23 – 26 June 2013.
Priest, S.D. 1993. Discontinuity Analysis for Rock
Engineering. Chapman & Hall, London, United
Kingdom.
Priest, S.D. and Hudson, J.A. 1981. Estimation of
discontinuity spacing and trace length using scanline
surveys. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr.,
18: 183-197.
Rohrbaugh, M.B., W.M., Dunne, M., Mauldon 2002.
Estimating fracture trace intensity, density, and mean
length using circular scan lines and windows. AAPG
Bull. 86 (12): 2089-2104.
Terzaghi, R.D. 1965. Sources of error in joint surveys.
Geotechnique, 15(3): 287 - 304.
Vazaios, I., N., Vlachopoulos, M.S. Diederichs. 2015. A
study of the geometrical scale-dependency of fractured
rockmasses using LiDAR scanning: The case study of
the Brockville Tunnel. In Proceedings of the 13th
International Congress on Rock Mechanics: ISRM
Congress 2015, Montreal, 10 – 13 May 2015.
Vöge, M., M.J., Lato, M.S., Diederichs 2013. Automated
rockmass discontinuity mapping from 3-dimensional
surface data. Engineering Geology, 164: 155-162.
Watkins, H., C.E., Bond, D., Healy, R.W.H., Butler 2015.
Appraisal of fracture sampling methods and a new
workflow to characterise heterogeneous fracture
networks at outcrop. Journal of Structural Geology, 72:
67-82.
Wu, H., Pollard, D.D., 1995. An experimental study of the
relationship between joint spacing and layer thickness.
J. Struct. Geol., 17: 887-905.
InnovMetrics. PolyWorks, V11.0.4 Quebec City, 2009.
Mirarco. Mofrac, V1.0, Sudbury, 2014.
Rocscience. Dips, V6.016 Toronto, 2015.