Geomorphology 31 Ž1999.

29–45

Fracture characteristics in weathered granites

Judy Ehlen )
U.S. Army Topographic Engineering Center, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22315-3864, USA
Received 29 August 1996; received in revised form 11 March 1997; accepted 15 May 1997

Abstract

The variability of weathered materials is an important factor in the geotechnical characterization of rock for engineering
purposes. Most engineering rock mass classifications include weathering schemes that separate the weathering profile into
zones or grades that depend upon the engineering and geological properties of the rock. Many geotechnical characteristics,
including weathering, are controlled by the density and arrangement of fractures within the rock, but the relationships
between fracture patterns and weathering grades are typically not addressed.
Fracture characteristics were investigated in 13 exposures in five study areas in weathered granite in eastern Asia. All
weathering grades were present, but never in the same exposure. Two approaches were used to evaluate the field data: Ž1.
joint spacings were tabulated and examined within each weathering grade Žtabulated classification.; and Ž2. each exposure
was classified according to the dominant weathering grade Žvisual classification.. Mean and median joint spacings and joint
spacing frequency distributions were analyzed and compared statistically for each approach. The box fractal dimensions for
joint spacing were calculated for exposures classified visually in each weathering grade. Three-dimensional models of fresh
and weathered granite were also generated and sampled for comparison to the field data.
Mean joint spacing is usually 25% or more closer in weathered granite than it is in fresh granite, and the difference
between the mean spacings for weathered granite and fresh granite tend to be statistically significant. There are no
significant differences between any distribution medians. The joint spacing distributions for weathered granite and fresh
granite are also not statistically significantly different, and there are no significant differences among the joint spacing
frequency distributions for the different grades of weathered granite. Fractal analysis of joint spacings, however, suggests
spacing characteristics of fresh and slightly weathered ŽSW. granite are very different from those in moderately, highly, and
completely weathered granite, and sampling of three-dimensional models for weathered and fresh granite supports this. In an
engineering context, this suggests that joint spacing relationships in the various grades of weathered granite can be treated as
the same regardless of weathering grade and that joint patterns in fresh granite must be evaluated separately. This knowledge
could result in significant time and cost savings in the geotechnical characterization of these materials. q 1999 Elsevier
Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: weathering; joint spacing; granite; geotechnical; fractures

1. Introduction

)
Corresponding author. Tel.: q1-703-428-6887; Fax: q1-703-
Weathering variability is an important factor to
428-8176. the geomorphologist with respect to landform evolu-
E-mail address: jehlen@tec.army.mil ŽJ. Ehlen.. tion and development. The weathering profile is

0169-555Xr99r$ - see front mater q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 5 5 5 X Ž 9 9 . 0 0 0 7 1 - 9
30 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45
typically viewed as a continuum with weathering
intensity decreasing with depth as the proportion of
rock material increases until the weathering front is
reached Že.g., Ollier, 1984; Thomas, 1994.. Joint
patterns are addressed indirectly in geomorphic stud-
ies of weathering, mainly as conduits along which
fluids enter the rock and weathering occurs, but also
with respect to their control of landform shape and
location Že.g., Thomas, 1966, 1994; Thorp, 1967..
Differences in joint spacing can also be related to the
intensity of weathering and landform development
Že.g., Gerrard, 1974; Ehlen, 1991, 1994..
Variation in the degree of weathering is also
important in the geotechnical characterization of rock
for engineering purposes with respect to slope stabil-
ity, foundation design, ease of excavation, and suit-
ability as a construction material. Although engineers
and engineering geologists view the rock material in
the weathering profile similarly to geomorphologists,
they also address variation in the mechanical proper-
ties of the material and the rock mass Že.g., Dear-
man, 1974, 1995; International Society for Rock
Mechanics, 1981.. With respect to weathering, rock
material is assessed in terms of the degree of discol-
oration, decomposition andror disintegration. Rock
masses, on the other hand, are addressed in terms of
rock strength and discontinuity characteristics Že.g.,
joints, faults, bedding and foliation.. Weathering
classifications, which often include the results from
simple engineering index tests, are typically part of
rock mass classifications.
In an engineering context, the presence, type, and
intensity of discontinuities may have a significant
effect, particularly on slope stability. In rock mass
classifications, information about joint spacing, ori-
entation, and persistence are needed. Rock quality, a
major component of any geotechnical or engineering
characterization, is typically addressed with respect
to the percentage of intact pieces of core ŽRock
Quality Designation or RQD., a measure dependent
on fracture spacing.
None of the existing engineering weathering
schemes address differences in discontinuity charac-
teristics in the different zones of the weathered rock
mass. The variation in fracture patterns among the
different weathering grades, and how fracture pat-
terns in different grades of weathered rock compare
to the fracture patterns in the unweathered bedrock
are unknown. Knowledge of such relationships could
assist in making more accurate predictions in weath-
ered materials for geotechnical engineering purposes.
The purpose of this effort, part of a geotechnical
characterization of weathered granites, was to deter-
mine what variation may exist in joint patterns in the
different weathering grades.
2. Engineering weathering classifications
Rock material classifications describe the appear-
ance of the material with respect to discoloration,
decomposition and disintegration. The conditions of
diagnostic minerals, such as biotite and the feldspars
in granite, the extent of staining, rock texture or
fabric, and rock grain size may also be included.
Other factors of importance are density, porosity,
and water absorption. The rock material descriptions
of core from a number of boreholes or data from
individual field sites are typically included in rock
mass descriptions. These characteristics may be used
to separate the weathering profile into grades. The
standard weathering grades are: fresh rock ŽF, grade
I., slightly weathered rock ŽSW, grade II., moder-
ately weathered rock ŽMW, grade III., highly weath-
ered rock ŽHW, grade IV., completely weathered
rock ŽCW, grade V., and residual soil ŽRS, grade
VI.. Highly weathered rock, CW rock and residual
soil are typically referred to as saprolite, and because
of their engineering behavior, are considered soil,
although some authors do not include HW rock as
saprolite ŽDeere and Patton, 1971.. Engineering
characteristics, such as ease of excavation and suit-
ability for different types of structures, may be as-
signed to each grade ŽMoye, 1955; Newbery, 1971..
Six grades are used in weathering schemes in
most rock mass classifications, but the distinctions
between grades are based on slightly different crite-
ria, such as the proportions of soil and rock, rock
strength, and the presence or absence of original rock
fabric. Although other engineering properties are
important and are often included in rock mass weath-
ering schemes, rock strength is apparently the single
most important engineering characteristic: it is the
one characteristic found in all schemes. Rock mass
classifications also typically include information on
discontinuities Že.g., spacing, dip anglerdirection,
persistence, aperture..
 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45
The weathering grade concept was first used by
Moye Ž1955. for granites in Australia, and was
expanded by Ruxton and Berry Ž1957. for deeply
weathered granites in Hong Kong. The classification
of Moye Ž1955. was a rock material classification,
with material descriptions used to describe the
weathered rock mass. Although based on granite,
this classification formed the basis for later generic
rock mass weathering classifications. Other weather-
ing classifications have since been proposed for
lithologies other than granite Že.g., the classification
of Chandler Ž1969. for the Keuper Marl, and the
classification of Wakeling Ž1970. for chalk.. The
general trend, however, has been to devise weather-
ing classification schemes that are sufficiently gen-
eral to apply to all lithologies.
The Geological Society ŽLondon. Engineering
Group Working Parties and the International Society
for Rock Mechanics ŽISRM. have proposed a num-
ber of weathering schemes over the years as part of
rock mass classifications Že.g., Anon., 1970, 1972,
1981; International Society for Rock Mechanics,
1978, 1981.. Dearman Ž1995. recently summarized
these classifications. The weathering scheme in the
1981 ISRM rock mass classification has been widely
accepted. This classification is built on the Basic
Geotechnical Description of the rock mass. The
weathering classification in this scheme addresses
the proportion of rock and soil in the weathering
profile, and discoloration, decomposition andror dis-
integration of the rock material.
The most recent proposals for the classification of
weathered rock were made in 1995 by a Geological
Society ŽLondon. Engineering Group Working Party
ŽAnon., 1995.. This effort resulted from the general
confusion and lack of agreement with respect to
classification of weathered rock that existed prior to
1989 when the Working Party was organized, and is
based on a strategy distinctly different from that used
in previous weathering schemes. The most unusual
feature of these proposals is that weathering is ad-
dressed separately, not as part of a rock mass classi-
fication. This allows much fuller description and
potentially provides a sounder basis for evaluating
weathered materials for engineering purposes.
The 1995 proposals recommend five approaches.
The first approach is a general, non-generic descrip-
tion of the effects of weathering. It forms the basis
31
for the more detailed descriptions of Approaches 2
through 4, and should be applied to all rock masses
whether or not one of the other approaches is subse-
quently used. Approaches 2 through 4 are designed
for different types of rock masses: Ž2. those com-
posed of uniform materials, Ž3. heterogeneous
masses, and Ž4. cases where the transition between
weathering grades is gradual and material and mass
conditions cannot be separated. Approach Ž5. ad-
dresses situations in which the rocks cannot be clas-
sified using Approaches Ž1. through Ž4., such as
karst in carbonate terrains. The results of engineering
index tests are included, as are some fracture charac-
teristics.
Most published weathering schemes are general in
that they refer to all lithologies. The various parame-
ters in rock mass classifications, joint characteristics,
rock strength, and appearance, are described qualita-
tively in terms of ranges with word descriptors or
numeric codes Že.g., wide joint spacing is 60–200
cm; International Society for Rock Mechanics, 1981..
No quantitative descriptors are attached to the vari-
ous weathering grades. This would, in practice, be
impossible, because the different parameters vary to
some degree with lithology and certainly, with struc-
ture and site location. Most weathering classifica-
tions, as stated above, are thus based on the propor-
tions between soil and rock in the weathering profile
and the degree of decomposition or disintegration of
the rock material ŽRuxton and Berry, 1957; Dear-
man, 1974.. The 50:50 soil:rock ratio is important in
an engineering context, because joint blocks are
locked when there is more than 50% rock, and can
only be excavated with extreme difficulty ŽDearman,
1974.. Profiles with less than 50% rock can be easily
excavated. The point at which this ratio occurs is the
boundary between HW and MW rock.
There is a major difference between the published
weathering schemes and actual practice, however.
For example, prior to the 1981 ISRM scheme, there
were many recommendations to include simple engi-
neering tests that could be done in the field, such as
point load and Schmidt hammer rebound tests Že.g.,
Fookes et al., 1971; Dearman, 1974; Irfan and Dear-
man, 1978., as part of weathering grade classifica-
tions. The number of recommendations indicates that
many workers found these tests useful. Yet the 1981
scheme makes no recommendations for using index
32 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45

Table 1
Rock material classification
Weathering grade Description
Fresh No visible signs of weathering. Rock is fresh. Crystals are bright.
Slightly weathered Discontinuities are stained or discolored and may contain a thin filling of altered material. Discoloration may
extend into the rock from the discontinuity to a distance of 20% of the discontinuity spacing.
Moderately weathered Slight discoloration extends from discontinuity planes for a distance of more than 20% of the discontinuity
spacing. Discontinuities may contain filling of altered material. Partial opening of grain boundaries observed.
Highly weathered Discoloration extends throughout the rock, and the rock material is partly friable. The original texture of
the rock has mainly been preserved, but separation of the grains has occurred.
Completely weathered The rock is totally discolored and decomposed and in friable condition. The external appearance is that of a
soil. Internally, the rock texture is partly preserved, but the grains have been completely separated.
Residual soil Not included.

tests to determine weathering grade ŽInternational
Society for Rock Mechanics, 1981.. Since 1981,
additional proposals for the inclusion of simple index
tests have been made Že.g., Hencher and Martin,
1982; Irfan and Powell, 1985; Lee and de Freitas,
1989., and some of these are included in the 1995
proposals ŽAnon., 1995.. In practice, the standards
tend to be altered for use at a particular site or for
the particular engineering application Že.g., Gamon
and Finn, 1986; Cragg and Ingman, 1995., and a
number of recommendations have been made for
modified classifications based on practical experi-
ence Že.g., Deere and Patton, 1971; Martin and
Hencher, 1986; Lee and de Freitas, 1989; Dearman,
1995.. Cost is also a major factor, and for many
projects, description of the rock material and rock
mass weathering characteristics are combined in site
investigation ŽGamon and Finn, 1986.. The weather-
ing classification scheme used herein ŽTable 1. is the
one used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ŽMurphy, 1985.. It combines rock material and rock
mass characteristics.
occasionally contain very pale flesh pink feldspar.
One study area occurs in this type of topography. It
is in a tunnel and consists of fresh rock only. The
second type of topography ŽFig. 2. consists of vege-
tated hills with very little to no visible outcrop.
Relief is lower, and slopes are less steep. These
granites contain no pink feldspar and on average
may be slightly finer grained than the variety con-
taining pink feldspar. Four of the five study areas
exhibit this type of topography. All grades of weath-
ered granite were present in these areas. As in type 1
topography, however, fresh rock was only found in
tunnels.
The study areas are widely dispersed: the two
closest are approximately 14 km apart, and the two
most widely separated are about 40 km apart. They
vary in size from less than 500 to 120,000 m2 ,

3. Study areas

The topography in the vicinity of the study areas

varies considerably, and two general categories of
landform are present. The first type of topography
consists of high, steep-sided hills or mountains with
bare rock pavements interspersed with vegetation on
the slopes and occasional bare rock bulges near the
hill crests ŽFig. 1.. The bare rock pavements may Fig. 1. Higher relief Type 1 topography showing exposed bare
result from landsliding. The granites in these areas rock pavements.
 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45 33

between 100 and 200 m distant. The surface expo-

sure closest to the borehole consisted predominantly
of HW granite with a small core of MW granite.
This borehole was about 24 m deep. At the other
site, the borehole ŽB. was only about 10 m deep. It
was located just above the foot of the slope on a
small terrace. The exposures where joint data were
collected in this area were 300 to 1000 m distant and
up slope from the borehole. The exposure closest to
this borehole was predominantly HW granite with a
core of MW granite, but the proportion of MW
granite was far greater than near borehole ŽA.. Fresh
or SW granite was present in Borehole A at a depth
Fig. 2. Lower relief Type 2 topography showing moderate slopes of 22.6 m, but was not encountered in Borehole B.
and the absence of rock outcrop.
The greatest depth of weathering noted in surface
exposures was no more than 8–10 m. These depths
were observed in excavated faces, usually in HW
granite ŽFig. 3.. Most road cuts were no more than 2
depending on the distribution of outcrops. All sample to 2.5 m high ŽFig. 4.. Very little soil cover was
sites were in equigranular, medium grained granite. noted, with the maximum depth 20 to 25 cm. Joint
Most weathering grades were found in each of the blocks typically consist of the same grade of weath-
five study areas; but typically no more than two ered material throughout. In the exposures, however,
grades of weathered granite were present in each of more HW material typically surrounds a core of less
the 13 exposures. In most cases where more than one weathered material. More HW material was also
grade is present, the transition between weathering occasionally found along shear planes within less
grades is gradual, not abrupt. In addition, the differ- weathered blocks, but the amount and occurrences
ent weathering grades do not occur in layers, but in a were not significant.
chaotic jumble. Overall, weathering grade decreases The joints were readily seen in fresh to MW
with depth, but not in an ordered, readily interpreted granite ŽFig. 5., but became less visible with in-
manner. No corestones were found in the 13 sample
sites, but their presence was noted in other locations,
and several buried tors were found on hillsides. The
Table 2
50:50 soil rock ratio is not appropriate for grada- Thicknesses of weathered granite in the study area boreholes
tional weathering profiles such as these, which is Weathering grade Borehole A Borehole B
why the Corps of Engineers classification was used thickness Žm. thickness Žm.
Žsee Table 1.. The profiles in the study areas are
RS 0.2 0.7
similar to those described by Lee and de Freitas CW 4.3 none
Ž1989.. Approach 3 or 4 in the 1995 scheme ŽAnon., HW 7.3 10.0 Žbottom
1995. would have been appropriate for classifying of borehole.
these exposures, but it was not available at the time HW–MW 1.4
HW 1.2
field work was done. HW–MW 1.4
Boreholes were drilled at two study areas as part MW–SW 1.5
of the geotechnical characterization effort. The thick- SW 1.4
nesses of the different weathering grades at these HW–MW 1.5
two sites are shown in Table 2. At the first site, the MW–SW 1.2
SW 1.2
borehole ŽA. was located about one-third of the way SW–F 1.5 Žbottom
up a moderate slope; the exposures where joint data of borehole.
were collected were near the foot of the slope,
34 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45

Fig. 3. Excavated HW granite face. The face is about 8 m high.

creased weathering grade ŽFig. 6.. Most of the joints

were closed in fresh and SW granite, and were open
in MW granite. The joints were typically closed in
Fig. 5. Easily seen joints in MW granite.
HW and CW granite. Newbery Ž1971. attributes
closure, or reduction in aperture, in the more weath-
ered granite to consolidation of the material. These
joints, sometimes called relict joints, could often be and Patton, 1971; Ifran and Woods, 1988.. In the
identified only by the presence of a linear pattern of study areas, rock immediately adjacent to these joints
iron staining Žsee Fig. 6.. They did not form sharp can stand high like little levees; such ridges are very
lines as did joints in other weathering grades, but narrow and are often iron stained. If one brushes
wiggled around the disaggregated crystals.
The joints in HW and CW rock are of particular
importance in an engineering context. They are eas-
ily missed in site investigations, and are thus often
not addressed in design criteria. Slope failures along
unidentified relict joints are not uncommon ŽDeere

Fig. 6. Less visible joints in CW granite. Note iron staining along

Fig. 4. Typical road cut exposure. The exposure is about 2 m high. joints.
 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45
them with one’s hand or walks on them, the joint
literally disappears. Joint fillings in HW and CW
granite tend to be less weathered than the surround-
ing rock and act as an aid to joint location because
they form little ridges on the rock surface.
4. Field procedures
Joint spacing, orientation and trace length mea-
surements were made at 13 sample sites at five
locations. Three sites consisted of fresh granite Žtun-
nels., and the remaining ten were road cuts or exca-
vated faces. No exposures of fresh granite occurred
in natural outcrop on the ground surface. Each
weathering grade, except residual soil, which is not
addressed, was represented by at least one exposure.
The joint data were collected using an areal sam-
pling technique ŽEhlen, 1996.. The joints were first
separated into sets. Mean strike and dip for each set
were determined, and joint spacings were measured
perpendicular to strike for each joint set, so no
corrections for orientation bias were needed. The
joints were classified according to dip for data analy-
sis purposes: 0–258, horizontal joints; 26–698, dip-
ping joints; and 70–908 vertical joints. The maxi-
mum extent of the visible fracture trace was also
measured. Measured trace length is a function of
exposure size. Measured horizontal trace lengths are
usually greater than trace lengths measured for verti-
cal or dipping joints because the exposures were
typically much longer than they were tall. Because of
truncation at the edges of the exposure, trace length
data are strongly biased.
Other observations were also made at each expo-
sure. The characteristic weathering grade was identi-
fied, and as joint spacing measurements were made,
the points at which weathering grade changed were
recorded. This allowed joint spacings to be tabulated
by weathering grade. The number of joints that
terminated in ‘T’ intersections was estimated with
respect to the total number of joint intersections for
each joint set at most exposures Žtermination per-
cent.. Joints terminating against the edges of the
exposure and the ends of fractures that just die out
were not included in this estimate.
35
5. Results
Fracture patterns in relation to weathering grade
were addressed in two ways to compare different
methods of classification. First, the change between
weathering grades was recorded as the joint spacings
were measured. This allowed joint spacings to be
tabulated according to weathering grade, so that
spacings in each grade could be evaluated separately
Žtabulated classification.. For example, as shown in
Fig. 7, joint spacings would be recorded as: ‘‘HW 9,
18, MW 6, 3, 7, 6, 10, 12, 4, 6, 3, 3, 8, 7, 4, 4, 5, 5,
6 HW 15, 20.’’ The HW granite would be summed
as ‘‘9 q 18 q 15 q 20,’’ a total of 62 cm; and the
MW granite, as ‘‘6 q 3 q 7 q 6 q 10 q 12 q 4 q 6
q 3 q 3 q 8 q 7 q 4 q 4 q 5 q 5 q 6’’, a total of 99
cm. All spacings for each grade of weathered granite
in all exposures were combined in this manner.
Second, each exposure was classified visually ac-
cording to the most common weathering grade, and
the joint spacings in each type of exposure were
combined Žvisual classification.. The exposure in
Fig. 7 would be classified as MW because more than
60% of the exposure is MW granite. The spacings in
this exposure would be combined with those in all
other exposures classified as MW.
The joint spacing distributions for both classifica-
tions were evaluated statistically. The joint spacings
were plotted as frequency histograms, and means and
medians were determined for each distribution.
Fig. 7. Method used to tabulate joint spacings by weathering grade
Žtabulated classification.. The solid vertical lines represent a joint
set in a vertical exposure. The numbers are the spacings between
individual joints, measured from left to right. The designations
HW and MW represent the points at which that weathering grade
was identified. Spacings 9q18q15q20 represent the total dis-
tance in the exposure occupied by HW granite ŽHW; dashed line..
Spacings 6q3q7q6q10q12q4q6q3q3q8q7q4q4q5
q5q6 represent the total distance occupied by MW granite
ŽMW; dotted line. in the exposure.
36 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45

Log–normal, normal, Weibull, gamma, and expo- Table 4

nential distributions were fitted to the frequency Median joint spacings Žm. for different grades of weathered
granite Žtabulated classification.
histograms to determine the best fit using the Kol-
mogorov–Smirnov ŽK–S statistic. and chi-square Joint type F SW MW HW CW
tests Žwhere there were enough data.. The frequency Horizontal joints 0.19 0.09 0.05 0.07 –
distributions were also compared using the K–S test Vertical joints 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.15
Dipping joints 0.22 – 0.07 – –
to identify significant similarities and differences in
joint spacing among the weathering grades. The
nonparametric K–S statistic was used because the
distributions are highly skewed. The statistical tables
for these tests are too lengthy to include here; they granite. This may result from poor lighting in the
can be obtained from the author. tunnels where fresh granite occurred; smaller joint
Means and medians for the frequency distribu- spacings may have been overlooked. The very close
tions were compared using multiple range tests and joint spacing in MW granite was expected because
the Kruskal–Wallis test. All references to statistical this grade represents the stage at which microcracks
significance are at the 95% level of confidence un- begin to open, and decomposition has spread
less otherwise noted. The numerical results from the throughout the rock material. The wide spacing in
multiple range tests and the Kruskal–Wallis tests can CW granite could result from crystal disaggregation.
also be obtained from the author. As the rock weathers and progressively disintegrates,
individual crystals expand to fill all available space,
5.1. Tabulated classification including joints. As noted above, the distinctive lin-
ear pattern of the joint traces is replaced by discon-
5.1.1. Mean and median joint spacings tinuous curvilinear line segments. It is likely that
The mean joint spacings for all joint classes and relict joints are present.
all weathering grades are shown in Table 3; standard The means for dipping and horizontal joint spac-
deviations give a sense of the range and shape of the ings in fresh granite and weathered granite are statis-
distribution. Vertical joint spacing in fresh granite is tically significantly different; this comparison is
wider by one-third than in weathered granite; hori- across weathering grades. Vertical joint spacing
zontal and dipping joint spacings are also wider but means in fresh granite are significantly different
by at least 100%. The large decreases in mean form those in weathered granite except for CW
horizontal and vertical joint spacing between fresh granite. There are no significant differences among
and SW granite were unexpected because the main the medians for the three joint types. The medians
difference between these two weathering grades is are shown in Table 4.
the limited staining that occurs along the joints and
joint faces in SW granite; staining is absent in fresh 5.1.2. Frequency distributions
Log–normal, normal, exponential, gamma, and
Weibull distributions were fitted to the joint spacing
frequency distributions for each joint type in each
Table 3 weathering grade ŽTable 5.. Unless otherwise noted,
Mean joint spacings Žm. for different grades of weathered granite results reported in this section are at the 90% confi-
Žtabulated classification. dence level. For horizontal joints in SW, MW, HW
Joint type F SW MW HW CW and CW granite, any of the five distributions except
Horizontal joints 0.27 0.14 0.06 0.11 – gamma could fit the data. None of the five distribu-
Standard deviation 0.28 0.13 0.05 0.11 – tions fit the horizontal joint spacings in fresh granite.
Vertical joints 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.24 Furthermore, there were no good fits for vertical
Standard deviation 0.42 0.16 0.26 0.23 0.25
Dipping joints 0.27 – 0.14 – –
joint spacings in HW and MW granite or in fresh
Standard deviation 1.10 – 0.16 – – granite. Vertical joint spacings in CW granite could
exhibit either log–normal or exponential distribu-
 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45 37

Table 5
Comparison of joint spacing distributions Žtabulated classification.
Joint type and weathering grade K–S statistic P-value Significant Confidence
difference? level Ž%.
Vertical joints
CWrF 0.4571 0.0013 yes 95
CWrMW 0.5143 0.0002 yes 95
CWrHW 0.4000 0.0074 yes 95
HWrF 0.4571 0.0013 yes 95
HWrSW 0.4000 0.0074 yes 95
HWrMW 0.5143 0.0002 yes 95
MWrF 0.5143 0.0002 yes 95
MWrSW 0.5143 0.0002 yes 95
SWrF 0.4571 0.0013 yes 95

Horizontal joints
HWrF 0.8286 0.0000 yes 95
HWrSW 0.8571 0.0000 yes 95
HWrMW 0.8571 0.0000 yes 95
MWrF 0.8571 0.0000 yes 95
MWrSW 0.8571 0.0000 yes 95
SWrF 0.8571 0.0000 yes 95

Dipping joints
MWrF 0.7143 0.0000 yes 95

tions and spacings in SW granite could belong to
either exponential or Weibull distributions.
The K–S statistic was used to determine whether
the joint spacing frequency distributions were statis-
tically similar or dissimilar ŽTable 5.; Fig. 8 shows
examples of the distributions for each joint type. All
combinations of distributions for each joint type are
significantly different from each other.
5.2. Visual classification
5.2.1. Mean and median joint spacings
The mean spacings for each joint type in each
weathering grade are shown in Table 6. Mean verti-
cal and horizontal joint spacings tend to become
progressively closer with increasing weathering grade
up to HW granite, at which point mean spacing
becomes wider. Horizontal joints are wider by about
one-third in fresh granite, and vertical joints are
wider by more than 20%. Data are sparse for dipping
joints, but the trend is the same. Dipping joints in
fresh granite are about 50% wider than in weathered
granite. The increase in spacing in HW granites
probably results from the increased difficulty in iden-
tifying joints in the more weathered rocks because of
crystal disaggregation. It is likely that these expo-
sures contain unidentified, relict joints. The close
spacings in MW granite were expected.
Statistically, there are no significant differences
between the mean spacings among the different
weathering grades for horizontal and dipping joints.
For vertical joints, however, there are significant
differences between fresh granite and MW granite,
fresh granite and SW granite, MW granite and HW
granite, and MW granite and CW granite. The medi-
ans for all three joint type distributions among the
different weathering grades are significantly differ-
ent. The medians are shown in Table 7.
5.2.2. Frequency distributions
Log–normal, normal, exponential, gamma, and
Weibull distributions were fitted to the joint spacing
frequency distributions for each joint type in each
weathering grade ŽTable 8.. Unless otherwise noted,
results reported in this section are at the 90% confi-
dence level. Examples of the distributions for each
joint type are in Fig. 9. None of the five distributions
fit the horizontal joint spacing distribution in fresh
granite. The MW and SW granite distributions could
be anything except gamma, but it is likely that the
38 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45

Table 7
Median joint spacings Žm. for granite exposures with different
weathering grades Žvisual classification.
Joint type F SW MW HW CW
Horizontal joints 0.19 0.20 0.11 0.11 –
Vertical joints 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.13
Dipping joints 0.22 – 0.13 0.14 –

tions and vertical joint spacings in HW, MW or fresh

granite, but it is likely that the spacings in CW
granite come from a log–normal distribution and that
spacings in SW granite are from an exponential
distribution. For dipping joints, spacings in fresh
granite might be from any of the distributions except
gamma; no distribution fits the spacing data for
dipping joints in MW granite Ž99% confidence level.;
and the dipping joint spacings in HW granite could
come from log–normal, exponential or Weibull dis-
tributions.
The distributions were also compared with each
other using the K–S statistic. These results are shown
in Table 9. Significant differences were identified for
vertical joint spacings in CW granite and all other
weathering grades, and in MW granite and all other
weathering grades. The only distributions not signifi-
cantly different are those for HW granite and fresh
granite. None of the distributions for horizontal joint
spacing are significantly different and, for dipping
Fig. 8. Selected frequency distributions for vertical, horizontal and joints, only the distributions for MW and fresh gran-
dipping joints Žtabulated classification.. ŽA. Horizontal joints in
ite is significantly different.
fresh granite. ŽB. Dipping joints in MW granite. ŽC. Vertical
joints in CW granite.
5.2.3. Fractal analysis
Fractal analyses of the joint spacings were done
joint spacings in HW granite are from a log–normal manually using selected joint sets to see if there were
distribution. There are no good fits at the 99% differences in fractal dimension Ž D . among the dif-
confidence level between any of the five distribu- ferent weathering grades. Large numbers of measure-
ments are required to obtain a ‘‘correct’’ fractal
dimension ŽBarton et al., 1991; unpublished work by
Table 6 Ehlen suggests at least 100–150 joint spacings may
Mean joint spacings Žm. for granite exposures with different be needed., but this depends on the characteristics of
weathering grades Žvisual classification. the individual joint set and the size of the exposure.
Joint type F SW MW HW CW Where the joints are regularly spaced, and clustering
Horizontal joints 0.28 0.24 0.19 0.21 – is limited, fewer joint spacings are needed to obtain a
Standard deviation 0.29 0.18 0.19 0.31 – stable fractal dimension. The box fractal dimension
Vertical joints 0.22 0.15 0.14 0.21 0.21 was determined for 14 joint sets, at least one in each
Standard deviation 0.46 0.16 0.23 0.33 0.23
Dipping joints 0.27 – 0.15 0.20 –
weathering grade. Each joint set used for fractal
Standard deviation 1.10 – 0.08 0.30 – analysis contained at least 100 measured joint spac-
ings.
 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45 39

Table 8
Comparison of joint spacing distributions Žvisual classification.
Joint type and weathering grade K–S statistic P-value Significant Confidence
difference? Level Ž%.
Vertical joints
CWrHW 0.4857 0.0005 yes 95
CWrMW 0.4571 0.0013 yes 95
CWrF 0.4571 0.0013 yes 95
HWrMW 0.4857 0.0005 yes 95
HWrSW 0.4857 0.0005 yes 95
HWrF 0.6286 0.0349 no 95
MWrSW 0.4571 0.0013 yes 95
MWrF 0.4571 0.0013 yes 95
SWrF 0.4571 0.0013 yes 95

Horizontal joints
HWrMW 0.3333 0.8928 no 95
HWrSW 0.3333 0.8928 no 95
HWrF 0.5000 0.4487 no 95
MWrSW 0.3333 0.8928 no 95
MWrF 0.6667 0.4487 no 95
SWrF 0.9610 0.4487 no 95

Dipping joints
HWrMW 0.6000 0.3313 no 95
HWrF 0.5444 0.1177 no 95
MWrF 0.9722 0.0002 yes 95

The joint spacings were plotted manually on graph
paper strips at a scale of 1:10. Grids of various sizes,
the specific sizes depending on the joint pattern,
were laid over the paper strips for box counting.
These are one-dimensional data, so the Cantor’s Dust
method was used to determine the box fractal dimen-
sion ŽVelde et al., 1990.. The equation used to
calculate D is:
D s 1 y log Ž P . rlog Ž d .
where P s proportion of filled boxes; d s box size;
and D s fractal dimension. These data exhibit
power–law distributions, and D is a simple function
of the exponent of the power law. D is the slope of
the straight line in log–log space and is typically
estimated using a least-squares fit.
The number of scales and the scale ranges at
which D was determined depended on the joint
patterns in each joint set. Grids with larger squares
were used where joints and joint clusters were more
widely spaced, and grids with smaller squares, where
they were more closely spaced. The scales on the x
and y axes for each plot were therefore slightly
different. In order to make direct comparisons be-
tween the joint sets within one weathering grade, the
data were replotted using only those scales common
to all joint sets in that weathering grade. The result-
ing fractal dimensions were not necessarily the best
that could be calculated, and for some data sets, the
fractal range may have been exceeded. The fractal
dimensions are shown in Table 9.
Mean fractal dimensions for vertical joints in
fresh and SW granite are low, below 0.40, whereas
those for joints in the more weathered granite are
higher, greater than 0.47. Although there is intra-class
variability, these mean dimensions form two distinct
groups; Barton et al. Ž1991. suggest that a 6% differ-
ence between fractal dimensions indicates a real
difference, and the difference between these two
groups is 15%. Fractal dimensions for vertical joint
spacings in fresh granites and granodiorites else-
where are higher, ranging from 0.60 to 0.80 ŽEhlen,
1998.. As noted above, however, the fractal dimen-
sions reported here are not necessarily the best that
could be determined. When D was calculated over
40 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45

Table 9
Joint set and weathering grade fractal dimensions for weathered
granites
Weathering grade Fractal dimension Joint set
and joint set grade
Completely weathered 0.58
granite Žset CW1.
HW granite 0.47
Set HW1 0.49
Set HW2 0.61
Set HW3 0.44
Set HW4 0.40
MW granite 0.54
Set MW1 0.46
Set MW2 0.64
Set MW3 0.42
Set MW4 0.58
SW granite Žset SW1. 0.31
Fresh granite 0.40
Set F1 0.38
Set F2 0.49
Set F3 0.34
Set F4 0.34

classifications. However, other factors, particularly

clustering, play an important role in fractal dimen-
sion. A study of the graph paper strips shows that
joints are more clustered in the fresh granite and are

Fig. 9. Selected frequency distributions for vertical, horizontal and

dipping joints Žvisual classification.. ŽA. Horizontal joints in MW
granite. ŽB. Dipping joints in HW granite. ŽC. Vertical joints in
SW granite.

the full fractal range, they were higher and more like
the fractal dimensions determined elsewhere.
Fractal dimensions are not strictly amenable to
statistical comparison because fractal objects are not
random ŽBarton et al., 1991., but general conclusions
can be drawn based on the fractal dimensions and
the regression lines that define them ŽFig. 10.. D
was expected to follow the reverse pattern for mean
joint spacings, i.e., those weathering grades with
closely spaced joints having higher fractal dimen-
sions, and this is, in fact, the case. The distinctive
Fig. 10. Fractal curves for fresh granite ŽI., SW granite Že.,
difference in D between fresh and SW granite and MW granite Žq., HW granite Ž8., and CW granite ŽU .. The curves
the more weathered granites, however, is not shown for fresh and SW granite are solid lines and the curves for MW
in the statistical analysis of the visual or tabulated granite, HW granite, and CW granite are dashed lines.
 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45
more regularly spaced in the more weathered gran-
ites. The effects of clustering would not be discern-
able from statistical analysis of mean joint spacings
regardless of the classification scheme used. The
slopes of the regression lines show differences be-
tween fresh and SW granite and MW, HW, and CW
granite very clearly.
6. Three-dimensional modeling
The combination of statistical and fractal analyses
suggests that weathered granites can be treated as
two groups rather than five. Fresh granite appears to
be distinctly different from MW, HW, and CW
granite. Three-dimensional models were thus gener-
ated as another way to evaluate differences between
weathered granite and fresh granite ŽFigs. 11 and
12.. FracMan, a stochastic, discrete feature modeling
and simulation package ŽDershowitz et al., 1995.
was used to produce the models. The procedure used
is described in Ehlen Ž1996..
The three-dimensional models for fresh and
weathered granite are both 10 m by 10 m by 10 m.
For fresh granite, all 11 joint sets were used to
produce the model, but because of the large amount
of data on weathered granite, only 10 of the 26 joint
sets were used. Two vertical sets were used for CW
granite; five vertical and dipping joint sets, for HW
granite; and one horizontal, one dipping, and one
vertical joint set, for MW granite. The numbers and
types of joint sets were selected in proportion to their
occurrence in the different weathering grades in the
study areas.
Fig. 11. Three-dimensional model of simulated fractures in fresh
granite.
41
Fig. 12. Three-dimensional model of simulated fractures in weath-
ered granite.
6.1. Procedures
The field data needed to generate three-dimen-
sional models includes the strike and dip, trace length,
and termination percent for each joint set. These data
are used to calculate pole trend and plunge, mean
joint radius and fracture intensity, which comprise
the input for modeling. Mean joint radius is a first
approximation of measured trace length, and fracture
intensity is typically a measure of joint length and
sampling area.
Simulated horizontal and vertical trace planes and
simulated horizontal and vertical boreholes were used
to sample the models Žsee Dershowitz et al., 1995;
Ehlen, 1996.. The difference between the two trace
plane orientations is that the simulated vertical trace
plane is considered to include horizontal joints
whereas the simulated horizontal trace plane does
not; horizontal joint traces cannot be seen in plan
view. The measure used for fracture intensity on the
simulated trace planes is joint length per square
meter. Termination percent is calculated as the num-
ber of ‘T’ intersections divided by the total number
of joints cut by the plane.
Ten simulated vertical boreholes and nine simu-
lated horizontal boreholes were generated. The diam-
eter of the simulated boreholes is that of NX core
Ž0.076 m.. The simulated fracture spacings in the
vertical boreholes are approximately equivalent to
field-measured horizontal joint spacings and fracture
spacings in the horizontal boreholes are equivalent to
field-measured vertical and dipping joint spacings.
RQD is an indirect measure of fracture spacing in
the simulated core used to determine rock quality.
The higher the RQD, the better the rock quality and
42 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45

the more widely spaced the joints. The RQDs for the
field data were calculated using the equation of
Brady and Brown Ž1993, p. 54..
6.2. Results
The results from sampling the two models are
shown in Table 10. The field data, where equivalent
measurements were made, are shown for comparison
purposes. The mean joint spacings and trace lengths
for the field data were recalculated so that they
would be equivalent to the simulated data. No joint
spacing data were available from the boreholes in the
study areas, so the mean spacings in Table 10 for
field data are measurements made at the sample
sites. The fracture intensity measure Ž l. used for the
field data and the models of fresh and weathered
granite Žmodel intensity on Table 10. is slightly
different from the one used to determine intensity on
the simulated trace planes. l for the field data was
calculated by multiplying the mean trace length for
each joint set by the total number of joints in that set,
and dividing that figure by the size of the sampling
area. For vertical and dipping joint sets, this value
was weighted according to the proportion of the
outcrop in which that joint set occurred. For horizon-
tal joints, the length of the longest joint in that set
was used for weighting. l is additive, so the intensi-
ties for fresh granite and weathered granite were
determined by summing the intensities for the indi-
vidual joint sets used to generate the models. The
simulated l’s for the models are calculated as an
arearvolume measure.
On the simulated trace planes, the number of
fractures per meter and the fracture intensities indi-
cate that joint spacing is closer in weathered granite
than in fresh granite ŽTable 10.. The number of
fractures per meter is more than one-third greater in
weathered than in fresh granite, and the l’s are
about 25% greater. Model intensities, more than 50%
greater in weathered than in fresh granite, further
substantiate this relationship, as do the generally
higher RQDs for fresh granite. These RQDs are
somewhat fictitious in that they are significantly
higher than RQDs determined from the two bore-
holes in the study areas ŽPaul Fisher, UTD, personal
communication, 1996.. This difference is probably
due to the fact that RQD and joint spacing are not
directly relatable. According to Deere and Deere
Ž1988, p. 31., the equations given by Priest and

Table 10
Fracture statistics from three-dimensional models of fresh granite and weathered granite
Simulated data Field data Žwhere applicable.
Weathered granite Fresh granite Weathered granite Fresh granite
Horizontal trace planes
Number of fracturesrm2 3.24 2.00 – –
Termination percentage 15.74 6.50 – –
Intensity Žmrm2 . 6.98 4.41 – –
Mean trace length Žm. 2.15 2.21 1.33 1.09

Vertical trace planes

Number of fracturesrm2 2.90 2.17 – –
Termination percentage 19.66 9.20 21.39 12.35
Intensity Žmrm2 . 5.73 4.65 – –
Mean trace length Žm. 1.98 2.14 1.29 1.24

Horizontal boreholes
Joint spacing Žm. 0.18 0.30 0.26 0.37
RQD Ž%. 87.9 95.5 100.0 96.6

Vertical boreholes
Joint spacing Žm. 0.23 0.34 0.28 0.40
RQD Ž%. 92.6 96.8 94.7 96.1
Model intensity 8.79 5.75 8.78 5.70
 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45
Hudson Ž1976. for calculating RQD from line survey
data are only approximations of true RQD. The
lower termination percentages in fresh granite pro-
vide further evidence of the lower joint density and
wider joint spacing in these rocks. Joint spacings in
the simulated boreholes provide further substantia-
tion: joint spacings are at least one-third closer in
weathered granite than they are in fresh granite.
7. Discussion
In all but CW granite, and perhaps to some extent
in this material as well, the frequency and orientation
of fractures control the strength, deformability, and
geohydroligic characteristics of the rock mass. Frac-
ture data is used to determine block size and shape
which affects, among other things, slope stability and
failures in underground excavations. Discontinuity
spacings can also be used to determine rock quality
ŽRQD. from data collected from core, which allows
estimates of rock strength. In addition, fluid flow and
transport analysis based on three-dimensional simu-
lations of fracture data can be used to identify hydro-
logic pathways throughout the rock mass. Finally,
three-dimensional modeling of fracture data can be
used for exploration simulation to improve the de-
sign and interpretation of site characterization pro-
grams. The characterization of fracture patterns is
thus an important part of any engineering site inves-
tigation.
Although the various rock mass classification
schemes Že.g., Anon., 1981; Anon., 1995. suggest all
types of discontinuity data Že.g., orientation, aper-
ture, and length of individual discontinuities and the
spacing between discontinuities. should be collected
for each project, the type of data collected and how it
is analyzed typically depends on the application
ŽGamon and Finn, 1986; Cragg and Ingman, 1995..
The results presented here, however, suggest that any
collection effort, at least in weathered granites, can
be simplified regardless of the application. Three-di-
mensional models of selected data sets, one from
fresh granites and the other from representative ex-
posures of weathered granite, provide much of the
information needed to characterize discontinuities at
any site.
43
8. Conclusions
These results suggest that joint spacings in weath-
ered granite as a whole are significantly different
from joint spacings in fresh granite. This is true for
all three joint types, vertical joints, horizontal joints,
and dipping joints. Joint spacing data collected in
one grade of weathered granite should thus produce
results very similar to those in any other grade.
Notwithstanding, there are few statistically signif-
icant differences between the distributions, mean,
and median joint spacings among MW, HW, and
CW granite, there are visible differences, i.e., joints
in MW granites are always more closely spaced than
in any other weathering grade. Although it is possi-
ble that this could lead to incorrect conclusions if all
grades of weathered granite are treated as the same
statistically, it is unlikely because the individual
grades of weathered granite rarely occur in isolation.
A typical field occurrence consists of a jumble of
rock, with different parts of each exposure exhibiting
different weathering characteristics. Because of this
apparently chaotic arrangement of weathering grades,
it is therefore unlikely that incorrect results would be
obtained if data from all weathering grades are com-
bined in an analysis of joint characteristics in weath-
ered granite.
Mean joint spacing in fresh granite is more than
one-third wider than in weathered granite using the
tabulated classification. Using the visual classifica-
tion, mean joint spacings are at least one-third wider
in fresh granite than in weathered granite. Fractal
analysis of joint spacings shows a real difference
between fresh and weathered granite and these re-
sults are supported by the simulated fracture statis-
tics obtained from three-dimensional modeling. Nei-
ther classification scheme is wholly satisfactory, but
the tabulated classification scheme is more definitive
than the visual classification for identifying differ-
ences in joint spacing between and among weather-
ing grades. This suggests that differences in weather-
ing grade should be recorded as joint spacings are
measured in the field.
The knowledge that there are statistically signifi-
cant differences in fracture characteristics in weath-
ered granite among weathering grades, that jointing
in weathered granite is different from jointing in
fresh granites, and that detailed information about
44 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45
changes in weathering grade should be part of any
data collection effort may simplify geotechnical
characterization of these materials.
Acknowledgements
This work was partly funded by the Defense
Special Weapons Agency ŽDSWA.. The project was
a multi-agency effort involving personnel from the
DSWA, the US Geological Survey, and the US
Army Corps of Engineers Topographic Engineering
Center ŽTEC. and Waterways Experiment Station
ŽWES.. Other personnel from the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the University of Maine, the University of
Southern Mississippi, Applied Research Associates,
UTD, and Applied Theory, were under contract to
DSWA or WES to support this effort. Dr. Edward L.
Tremba and Paul Fisher provided helpful reviews of
this paper, and Jim Shine, TEC, assisted with distri-
bution fitting and gave general statistical advice.
References
Anon, Judy, 1970. The logging of rock cores for engineering
purposes. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 3, 1–24.
Anon, 1972. The preparation of maps and plans in terms of
engineering geology. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 5, 295–382.
Anon, 1981. Code of Practice for Site Investigation ŽBS5930..
British Standards Institute, London.
Anon, 1995. The description and classification of weathered rocks
for engineering purposes: Geological Society Engineering
Group Working Party Report. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 28, 207–242.
Barton, C.C., La Pointe, P.R., Malinverno, A., 1991. Fractals and
Their Use in Earth Sciences. Short Course Manual, Geological
Society of America Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.
Brady, B.H.G., Brown, E.T., 1993. Rock Mechanics for Under-
ground Mining. 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London.
Chandler, R.J., 1969. The effect of weathering on the shear
´
strength properties of Keuper Marl. Geotechnique 19, 321–334.
Cragg, D.J., Ingman, J., 1995. Rock weathering descriptions:
current difficulties. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 28, 277–286.
Dearman, W.R., 1974. Weathering classification in the characteri-
sation of rock for engineering purposes in British practice.
Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geol-
ogy 9, 33–42.
Dearman, W.R., 1995. Description and classification of weathered
rock for engineering purposes: the background to the BS5930:
1981 proposals. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 28, 267–276.
Deere, D.U., Deere, D.W., 1988. Rock Quality Designation ŽRQD.
after Twenty Years. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Deere, D.U., Patton, F.D., 1971. Slope stability in residual soils.
Proceedings of the 4th Pan-American Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Juan, Puerto
Rico 1, 87–170.
Dershowitz, W., Lee, G., Geier, J., Hitchcock, S., La Pointe, P.,
1995. FracMan, Interactive Discrete Feature Data Analysis,
Geometric Modeling, and Exploration Simulation, User Docu-
mentation, Version 2.42. Golder Associates, Seattle, WA.
Ehlen, J., 1991. Significant geomorphic and petrographic relations
with joint spacing in the Dartmoor Granite, southwest Eng-
land. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 35, 425–438.
Ehlen, J., 1994. Classification of Dartmoor Tors. In: Robinson,
D.A., Williams, R.B.G. ŽEds.., Rock Weathering and Land-
form Evolution. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 393–412.
Ehlen, J., 1996. Predicting fracture characteristics using three-di-
mensional modeling. In: Abrahart, R.J. ŽEd.., Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on GeoComputation, Leeds,
England 1 pp. 227–247.
Ehlen, J., 1998. A proposed method for characterizing fracture
patterns in denied areas. In: Underwood, J.R., Guth, P.G.
ŽEds.., Military Geology in War and Peace, Geological Soci-
ety of America Engineering Geology Reviews, pp. 151–163.
Fookes, P.G., Dearman, W.R., Franklin, J.A., 1971. Some engi-
neering aspects of rock weathering with field examples from
Dartmoor and elsewhere. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 4, 139–185.
Gamon, T.I., Finn, R.P., 1986. Simplified descriptive scheme and
classification system for the logging of cut slope faces. In:
Hawkin, A.B. ŽEd.., Site Investigation Practice: Assessing
BS5930. Geological Society, pp. 253–260, Engineering Geol-
ogy Special Publication No. 2.
Gerrard, A.J.W., 1974. The geomorphological importance of joint-
ing in the Dartmoor granite. In: Brown, E.H., Waters, R.S.
ŽEds.., Progress in Geomorphology. Institute of British Geog-
raphers, pp. 39–50, Special Publication No. 7.
Hencher, S.R., Martin, R.P., 1982. The description and classifica-
tion of weathered rocks in Hong Kong for engineering pur-
poses. Proceedings of the 7th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference, Hong Kong, 125–142.
International Society for Rock Mechanics ŽISRM., 1978. Methods
for the quantitative description of rock masses and discontinu-
ities. International Society for Rock Mechanics, Mining Sci-
ence and Geomechanics Abstracts 15, 319–368.
International Society for Rock Mechanics ŽISRM., 1981. Basic
geotechnical description of rock masses. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics, Mining Science and Geomechanics Ab-
stracts 18, 85–110.
Irfan, T.Y., Dearman, W.R., 1978. Engineering classification and
index properties of a weathered granite. Bulletin of the Inter-
national Association of Engineering Geology 17, 79–90.
Irfan, T.Y., Powell, G.E., 1985. Engineering geological investiga-
tion for pile foundations on a deeply weathered granitic rock
in Hong Kong. Bulletin of the International Association of
Engineering Geology 32, 67–80.
Ifran, T.Y., Woods, N.W., 1988. The influence of relict disconti-
nuities on slope stability in saprolitic soils. In: Publications
Committee of 2 ICOTS ŽEds.., Geomechanics in Tropical
Soils. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Geomechanics in Tropical Soils, Singapore 1, 267–276.
 J. Ehlen r Geomorphology 31 (1999) 29–45
Lee, S.G., de Freitas, M.H., 1989. A revision of the description
and classification of weathered granite and its application to
granites in Korea. Q. J. Eng. Geol., London 22, 31–48.
Martin, R.P., Hencher, S.R., 1986. Principles for description and
classification of weathered rock for engineering purposes. In:
Hawkin, A.B. ŽEd.., Site Investigation Practice: Assessing
BS5930. Geological Society, pp. 299–307, Engineering Geol-
ogy Special Publication No. 2.
Moye, D.G., 1955. Engineering geology for the Snowy Mountains
scheme. Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Australia 27,
281–299.
Murphy, W.L., 1985. Geotechnical Descriptions of Rock and
Rock Masses. Vicksburg, MS, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report GL-85-3.
Newbery, J., 1971. Engineering geology in the investigation and
construction of the Batang Padang hydroelectric scheme,
Malaysia. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 3, 151–181.
Ollier, C., 1984. Weathering. 2nd edn. Longman, New York.
Priest, S.D., Hudson, J.A., 1976. Discontinuity spacings in rock.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science
and Geomechanics Abstracts 13, 135–148.
45
Ruxton, B.P., Berry, L., 1957. Weathering of granite and associ-
ated erosional features in Hong Kong. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 68, 1263–1292.
Thomas, M.F., 1966. Some geomorphological implications of
deep weathering patterns in crystalline rocks in Nigeria. Insti-
tute of British Geographers Transactions 41, 173–193.
Thomas, M.F., 1994. Geomorphology in the Tropics. Wiley,
Chichester.
Thorp, M.B., 1967. Joint patterns and the evolution of landforms
in the Jarawa granite massif, northern Nigeria. In: Steel, R.W.,
Lawton, R. ŽEds.., Liverpool Essays in Geography. Longman,
London, pp. 65–83.
Velde, B., Dubois, J., Touchard, G., Badri, A., 1990. Fractal
analysis of fractures in rock: the Cantor’s Dust method.
Tectonophysics 179, 345–352.
Wakeling, T.R.M., 1970. A comparison of the results of standard
site investigation methods against the results of a detailed
geotechnical investigation in the Middle Chalk at Mundford,
Norfolk. Proceedings of the Conference on In Situ Investiga-
tions in Soils and Rocks, London, 17–22.