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

net/publication/272509943

Factors affecting realism of DFNs for Mechanical Stability Analysis in Tunneling

Environment

Conference Paper · October 2014

CITATIONS READS

2 498

3 authors:

Ioannis Vazaios Mark S. Diederichs

Arup Queen's University
54 PUBLICATIONS   354 CITATIONS    258 PUBLICATIONS   7,199 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nicholas Vlachopoulos
Royal Military College of Canada
182 PUBLICATIONS   1,280 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

geotechinical engineering View project

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

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicholas Vlachopoulos on 23 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DFNE 2014 - 144

Factors affecting realism of DFNs

for Mechanical Stability Analysis
Vazaios, Ioannis
Diederichs, Mark S.
Vlachopoulos, Nicholas
Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT: The generation of geologically realistic and locally accurate Discrete Fracture Networks (DFNs) for
mechanical analysis is gaining ground over conventional equivalent material techniques based on heuristic structural
classification systems. The success of DFN creation and application is based on two significant factors: input parameter
selection and model reconstruction methodology. Input parameter selection (mean orientation, persistence and spacing
specified along with variability descriptors) for each discontinuity set involved in an analysis has to be reasonable and
correspond to the in-situ, field conditions. Therefore, data management and the necessary geological interpretation are
required when used in the DFN generation process. Additionally, the options for model reconstruction, after the initial
discontinuity data has been synthesized, include a deterministic approach matching observed conditions at a local site, or
a more statistical approach, blending discrete observations and creating a stochastic model of structure. Each of these
approaches comes with advantages and limitations. Deterministic DFNs are able to capture accurately local effects while
stochastic DFNs provide a more general overview of the rockmass behaviour. Generating mechanically valid DFNs for
stability and mechanical response analysis is a significant challenge. Issues and methodologies will be discussed and
compared. A granitic and a gneissic rockmass will be examined based, respectively, on data sets obtained from the
Bånkall tunnel in Norway, as well as the unlined rail tunnel of Brockville in Ontario, Canada.

conditions at a local site, or a more statistical approach,

1. INTRODUCTION
The generation of geologically realistic and locally
accurate Discrete Fracture Networks (DFNs) for
mechanical analysis is gaining ground over conventional
equivalent material techniques based on heuristic
structural classification systems. The success of DFN
creation and application is based on two significant
factors: input parameter selection and model
reconstruction methodology.
Input parameter selection (mean orientation, persistence
and spacing specified along with variability descriptors)
for each discontinuity set involved in an analysis has to
be reasonable and correspond to the in-situ, field
conditions. This depends on the variability, precision
and measurement sample scale and resolution for field
data as well as on the applied techniques for
accumulating it (e.g. manual mapping, LiDAR,
boreholes etc.). Even with the best available
investigation data, however, it also requires a more in
depth knowledge of the geologic history and the actual
genesis mechanisms of the discontinuities, leading to
challenges and limitations for each specific site.
The applied methods for the reconstruction of the model,
after the initial discontinuity data has been synthesized,
include a deterministic approach matching observed
blending discrete observations and creating a stochastic
model of structure (Fekete and Diederichs, 2012). In the
first case, the jointed rockmass model is generated by
importing directly discontinuity input parameters
measured in the field, hence creating unique joint planes
defined by specific characteristics. Adopting this
approach seems favorable with the caveat that local
surfaces and observation directions create locally a
number of biases, which can impact the three
dimensional mechanical model in non-conservative
ways (with respect to a stability analysis for example).
Conversely, the statistical approach depends on the
statistical information collected from field measurement
data, minimizing the local-surface bias that may occur
with the discrete approach. However, depending on
mathematical assumptions, this method may result in
multiple generated networks with structural
characteristics and associations which are not necessarily
realistic, unless criteria based on the geological
conditions and history of a specific site are applied to
select the appropriate DFN.
Generating mechanically valid DFNs for stability and
mechanical response analysis can be rather challenging
and significant issues, which must be resolved, arise in
the simulation process. The aforementioned issues and
methodologies will be discussed and compared.
Different types of igneous and metamorphic rockmasses
will be examined based on data sets obtained from the
Bånkall tunnel in Norway, as well as the unlined rail
tunnel of Brockville in Ontario, Canada.
2. INPUT PARAMETER SELECTION
For DFN modelling, critical inputs of the generation
process include discontinuity orientation, fracture size
and intensity. Such data are accumulated by applying
various techniques including manual mapping of
exposed rockmass areas, virtual mapping of LiDAR
(Light Detection and Ranging) scanning data and
boreholes. However, data collection can be challenging
since the aforementioned techniques are subjected to
limitations due to the limited access to or exposure of the
rockmass (Palleske et al., 2013) depending on each
specific site, resulting in data sets which may be less
complete or taken over smaller ranges than the ideal for
a given rockmass.
If a joint survey is carried out in an area that has bedrock
exposures, with a great variety of orientations, available
for examination, the resulting discontinuity-orientation
data are likely to represent a reasonably fair sample of
the joints present in the area surveyed. However, if data
is to be collected from drill holes or rockcut exposures
with a nearly uniform orientation, it is unlikely to
provide even approximately correct information
concerning the abundance of joints of all sets present in
the locality. The challenge of making an adequate
number of observations under these circumstances
results from the fact that, for a given joint spacing, the
number of observations of a set is a function of the
intersection angle between the discontinuity set and the
borehole or rock face (Terzaghi, 1965).
Regarding the discontinuity spacing and length, it is
generally accepted that in most cases they vary over a
probability distribution for each rockmass, rather than
being constant (Palleske et al., 2013). Researchers
(Hudson and Priest, 1979; Mauldon, 1998) have showed
that fracture length values typically follow a negative
exponential or log-normal distribution as a result of the
interaction of fracture-generation mechanisms over the
history of the rockmass. Fracture spacing distributions
are typically approximated in the same fashion using a
negative exponential distribution (Priest and Hudson,
1976). However, determining the actual underlying
distributions may not be straight forward or even
possible, depending on the sample size (Mauldon, 1998).
Additionally, testing the assumptions about the
underlying distributions may be practically impossible;
hence understanding the implications of the adopted
assumptions about the collected data and making the
best interpretation of it for a specific application is
crucial.
One common criticism in the generation of DFNs is that
the resulting fracture patterns do not look geologically
realistic, as generation processes often do not account for
the genesis of fractures. On the contrary, they rely on
biased statistics extracted from the final state of the
fracture system. Fracture shape and size are influenced
by the surrounding lithology, presence of nearby
fractures and other heterogeneities, and the in-situ stress
conditions. Therefore, capturing the behaviour of the
existing fracture pattern, it is essential to describe the
generation process which includes fracture initiation,
propagation, interaction and termination (Gringarten,
1997).
For the purposes of this paper, LiDAR extracted data
from two specific sites was used in order to determine
discontinuity orientation, length and density as input
parameters for two different rock types including an
igneous and a metamorphic rock formation.
2.1. 3D Surface Model from LiDAR Scanning
LiDAR uses a transmitted and reflected laser beam
resulting in the recording of millions of points of high
accuracy in space, referred as the point-cloud (Figure 1).
Raw LiDAR point-clouds can be used for visualization
but for further analysis or measurement, data
management is required. Further process of point-cloud
data results in the creation of a 3D surface model (Figure
2) in which discontinuity orientation, fracture length and
density can be measured. Processing of the LiDAR data
was conducted using PolyWorks (InnovMetrics, 2009), a
general purpose package for range-image processes by
applying the following basic workflow (Fekete and
Diederichs, 2012):
(i) Data set is reduced to the area of interest.
(ii) Polygonal models are produced by meshing the
point-cloud.
(iii) Measurements and interpretation are conducted on
the polygonal models.
Fig. 1. View from ‘within’ LiDAR model of the Bånkall Test
Tunnel (Fekete and Diederichs, 2012).
2.2. Discontinuity Orientation Estimation
After processing the LiDAR data, the structural features
of the rockmass can be assessed. A discontinuity surface
is extracted from the data by fitting a plane to a selected
area where the joint surface lies after a visual inspection
of the 3D surface model (Figure 2). This best-fit plane
for each discontinuity surface is defined by the direction
cosines of a vector normal to it and an origin point. Dip
and dip direction of the joint surface can then be
estimated either relative to the tunnel alignment or
relative to the true North if the model is georeferenced or
the tunnel has a known alignment.
appears locally at the last section of the tunnel, therefore
for the generation of the DFN for this site it was not
taken into account as an input parameter. For the
identified joint sets and their division into groups further
process included the estimation of the average and the
standard deviation of the dip and dip direction, which
will serve as an input parameter for the DFN generator
software MoFrac (Mirarco, 2013). The results are
summarized in Table 1.

Fig. 2. Section of the Bånkall Test Tunnel 3D surface

model. The illustrated triangle shows a highlighted
discontinuity.

By repeating this process for all the planes detected and

identified as joint surfaces within the model, a plane
orientation statistical sample is created for every single
tunnel section or for the total length of it. This statistical
sample can then serve as input to a cluster analysis using
stereographic projections. If the spacing of joints of all
sets observed in the tunnel is notably less than the
diameter of the tunnel, adequate data can be obtained
concerning these joints. However, if the spacing of
blind-zone joints is close to or greater than the tunnel
diameter, will result in a disproportionately small
number of observations of the orientation of blind-zone
joints and the polar diagrams will have to be corrected in
order to remove this kind of bias (Terzaghi, 1965).
The previously mentioned process was applied for both
the Bånkall tunnel in Norway and the Brockville railway
tunnel in Ontario, Canada. The extracted plane
orientation data using PolyWorks resulted in a statistical
sample of joint dip and dip directions values which was
used as input for the program Dips by Rocscience
(Rocscience, 2013) in order to perform the cluster
analysis and determine the dominant joint sets from the
identified discontinuity planes. The results of the cluster
Fig. 3. Discontinuity structural analysis for Bånkall (top)
analyses performed for both tunnels, using data from
and Brockville (bottom) tunnels extracted from LiDAR
their total length, are illustrated in Figure 3. The pole
data.
concentrations indicate that for the case of the Brockville
railway tunnel three (3) dominant joint sets can be
identified in the rockmass. For the Bånkall tunnel the
cluster analysis showed that four (4) joint sets are
present. However, the fourth joint (730/1630) only
Table 1. Joint orientation parameters used as input in the DFN distribution curves, illustrated in Table 2. This best-fit
generation algorithm. slope of individual fracture groups are used to define the
Dip size distribution and expected number of the various
Dip (0) joint sets within the volume of interest, with an internal
Joint Direction (0)
Site algorithm converting the 2-dimensional information to
Set
Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev
an equivalent 3-dimenional volume. However, for joint
1 82 5 039 14 sets which are oriented approximately parallel to the
Bånkall 2 24 9 132 23 mapping axis, estimating the trace length is very
3 76 7 103 7 difficult, if not impossible. More particularly, for the
1 83 5 077 12 specific study cases of Bånkall and Brockville tunnels,
Brockville 2 12 6 168 82 joint sets 3 (760/1030) and 1 (830/0770) respectively, are
3 81 7 006 6 sub-parallel to the tunnel axis; hence, creating
unfavorable conditions to estimate the fracture length
2.3. Discontinuity Length and Density Estimation distributions. For the purposes of this paper, the length
Where spacing is on a similar scale to the trace lengths, distributions for these discontinuity sets were calibrated
fracture frequency is a more straight forward in order to generate a DFN model as realistic as possible
measurement. Fracture frequency, which can be by visual inspection for each case respectively.
described as the number of fractures per unit area and/or
the total trace length per unit area, can be used as part of
the rockmass description providing a less subjective and
more complete description of the rock visible in two (2)
dimensions. Depending on the origin of the
discontinuities and their resulting spacing distributions,
providing fracture frequency or creating subsets per
discontinuity provides important information about the
fracture system (Palleske et al., 2013).
Furthermore, fracture size is one of the most difficult
parameters to estimate or measure for a given rockmass,
as only fracture trace lengths can be measured when
mapping on an exposed surface. In a 2-dimensional Fig. 4. Fracture traces mapped on the 3D surface model of a
window, the average fracture size distribution is section of the Bånkall tunnel.
assumed to be represented by the distribution of traces.
Generally, field data is truncated at some lower bound,
below which recording data is either difficult or
considered unimportant skewing the length distribution
slightly towards higher values. Additionally, very short
fractures are less likely to intercept the mapping surface
than longer ones, even if there are more short fractures
(Palleske et al., 2013). This results in the collected trace
data to be skewed toward slightly larger fractures.
Though, only a small number of the small fractures is
recorded, small fractures are less likely to intersect one
another, leading to a smaller impact of this bias (Palleske
et al., 2013).
Having determined the dominant joint sets, the user can Fig. 5. Cumulative length distribution of fractures mapped in a
identify fracture traces which belong to specific joint section of the Bånkall tunnel within the LiDAR data,
sets within the LiDAR data using PolyWorks (Figure 4). separated according to two of the three dominant joint sets.
Following the identification of the fracture traces, their
total number per joint set over a specific rectangular 3. DFN RECONSTRUCTION METHOD
window and their length was calculated. This enables the
Generating a realistic DFN lies both on the selection
user to determine a length distribution for each joint set,
representative input parameters and the applied
as illustrated in Figure 5 (Srivastava, 2006). This
reconstruction method which includes a deterministic
methodology was applied for both tunnel cases in order
and a stochastic approach, with one of them offering
to satisfy the required input parameters for MoFrac by
specific advantages but also subjected to limitations for
determining the best-fit slopes of the generated length
each unique case under examination.
 Table 2. Fracture length properties based on best fit slopes. (iv) Fracture trace data: They define the locations
Set 1 where the DFN is going to be generated using a
Site Point Frac/Area deterministic technique.
Length (m)
(1/m2)
1 0.4 0.01
Bånkall
2 1.0 0.005
3.1. Deterministic generation of DFNs
1 0.2 0.015 A deterministic generation method requires
Brockville
2 1.0 0.006 determination of joint location, orientation and
Set 2 persistence. As previously mentioned, MoFrac uses both
Site Point Frac/Area
Length (m)
(1/m2) deterministic and statistical techniques in the generation
1 1.0 0.01 of the discrete fracture network. Therefore, in order to
Bånkall
2 2.0 0.005 generate a purely deterministic DFN model the
1 0.2 0.015 stochastically generated fractures have to be eliminated;
Brockville
2 1.0 0.006
Set 3 hence the deterministic generation tools have to be
Site Point Frac/Area enhanced over the stochastic processes taking place.
Length (m)
(1/m2) This can be achieved by increasing the number of the
1 1.0 0.02
Bånkall mapped fracture traces used as an input parameter.
2 6.0 0.004
1 0.2 0.015 Increasing the number of the deterministically generated
Brockville
2 1.0 0.006 fractures at specific locations leads to a decrease in the
number of the stochastically generated ones. However,
For the purposes if this paper, the DFN generation the rest of the volume of interest will have to be filled
software MoFrac was used. This particular software with stochastically generated fractures until the assigned
enables the user to generate 3-dimensional discrete length distribution requirement is satisfied. By reducing
fracture networks that explicitly include mapped the volume of interest stochastically generated fractures
fractures. The mapped discontinuity traces are used to decrease and a deterministic DFN model is generated
‘seed’ a fracture propagation algorithm based on the (Figure 6).
statistical values of orientation, fracture density and
length for each respective joint set. The discrete fracture
network is then generated by the fracture propagation
engine over a volume of interest. Therefore, a ‘hybrid’
approach is employed by the code of the program which
includes both deterministic and statistical techniques to
generate a DFN based on the available data.

Generating a Discrete Fracture Network using MoFrac,

the following parameters are required:
(i) Volume of interest: The extents of the fracture
realization are defined by a rectangular prism
volume in Cartesian space.
(ii) Discontinuity orientation: As discussed in section
2.2, for each joint set the average value and the
standard deviation of the dip and dip direction are
determined, assuming that these quantities follow
a normal distribution.
(iii) Fracture length distribution: The cumulative
number of fractures per mapped area is used as the
basis for the fracture size and density distribution
for the generation algorithm. As discussed, a linear
distribution is adopted for each separate joint set
in order to define the size distribution and
expected number of fractures within the volume of
interest. The generation of the DFN is also
governed by assigning a minimum fracture size in
conjunction with the length distribution.
Fig. 6. Deterministically generated DFN of a section of
the Bånkall tunnel.
The deterministic approach is advantageous in that it
represents real, discrete structural features, which may
not be captured in rockmass classification, i.e. weak fault
zones which are discrete features and may be crucial for
the stability of a tunnel. For cases where the stability is
governed by non-repeatable structures, an adopted
deterministic approach recreates the field conditions
explicitly, as the deterministic reconstruction
concentrates the generated fractures around the tunnel
circumference where the excavation has taken place and
the exposed rockmass can be mapped by employing
either traditional mapping or virtual mapping processes
using LiDAR data. Unless other information becomes
available in order to simulate the far field conditions i.e.
boreholes etc., discontinuities cannot be generated
deterministically.
3.2. Stochastic generation of DFNs
While a deterministic DFN reconstruction approach
requires an explicit description of the present joints
locally, a stochastic reconstruction requires additional
steps with increased user interaction and available data.
The obtained discontinuity data must be interpreted
using stereographic projection techniques into joint sets
with statistically variable orientation. However, in order
to create a realistic DFN model by employing statistical
techniques, the natural joint generation sequence must be
understood. Therefore, for different rockmass cases a
unique approach has to be adopted to generate a DFN
corresponding to the in-situ conditions applying in the
area of interest, i.e. a tectonized igneous rockmass and a
bedded sedimentary rockmass will have to be treated
differently during the DFN generation process. As
previously discussed, MoFrac uses a normal distribution
to simulate the different orientations of the joints during
the generation process, thus dip and dip direction are
controlled by the mean and the standard deviation, while
in terms of the length and density assumptions a linear
distribution governs the relationship between these two
quantities.
A stochastic rockmass reconstruction method is more
appropriate in for general rockmass stability rather than
the analysis of a specific tunnel section. Analyzing the
data statistically and reconstructing fracture spacing and
orientation depending on the adopted distributions, the
user can consider structure deeper within the rockmass.
However, this reconstruction method depends highly on
the mathematical assumptions made regarding
variability distributions of the input parameters and these
assumptions need to be validated (Fekete and
Diederichs, 2012).
For the generation of a purely statistical discrete fracture
network using MoFrac cannot be generated. However,
by reducing the deterministically generated fractures, the
stochastically created become the dominant in the
generation process when filling the volume of interest.
By employing a large volume of interest and reducing
the number of the mapped traces used to ‘seed’ the
deterministic features. In Figure 7 the stochastic DFN
for the Brockville railway tunnel is illustrated.
4. CONTRUCTING REPRESENTATIVE DFNS FOR
ROCKMASSES FOR MECHANICAL STABILITY
ANALYSIS WITHIN CASE STUDIES
Being part of the national Heritage of Canada, the
Brockville Railway Tunnel was built between 1854 and
1860 to connect the Brockville industrial waterfront area
to the outlying areas. Extending for 520m, it is the oldest
railway tunnel in Canada. Brockville tunnel has
primarily an arch-shaped cross-section, measuring
4.25x4.50m.
Fig. 7. Stochastically generated DFN of the Brockville
tunnel.
The tunnel was excavated by employing three different
techniques; including (i) cut and cover, (ii) unsupported
and (iii) top heading and bench excavation; due to the
variability of the geological conditions along the tunnel
axis (Diederichs et al., 2013). Bånkall test tunnel is
located in the Oslo region of Southeast Norway. It is a
60m long, 6m diameter testing facility. The tunnel was
excavated by employing the drill and blast method,
affecting the final geometry of the tunnel walls (Fekete,
2010).
4.1. Geology
The geology of the Brockville tunnel is predominantly
Precambrian quartzite (paragneiss) (Figure 8), although
the presence of granitic gneiss or syenite is possible as
the tunnel sits in a folded regime with these three
lithologies (Diederichs et al., 2013). Later bedded
Ordovician sedimentary rocks, like sandstones,
dolomites and limestones, lying unconformably above
the tunnel or nearby to the east are also possible. The
behaviour of the rockmass is dominated by pervasive
joint sets running parallel to the tunnel axis. A regional
trend for minor shear zones and dykes trending
perpendicular to the tunnel axis within the Precambrian
bedrock also exists. Furthermore, minor shears (5-10cm
wide) striking (intersecting the roof) at high angles to the
tunnel axis have been detected. The predominant natural
fracture patterns are sub-vertical and striking within 30
degrees of the tunnel axis. Additionally, there is a strong
horizontal joint set in the roof of the tunnel and the
combination of these two discontinuity sets results in the
squaring of the tunnel profile in sections. The vertical
joint set rotates away from the tunnel axis towards the
north resulting in small tetrahedral wedges. Sections of
poorer rock quality, particularly at the south end of the
rock segment were detected.
The Bånkall tunnel is in massive plutonic rock, Permian
in age. This intrusion is one of many large batholiths that
formed in the Oslo area approximately 270-250 ma
following rifting. More particularly, the tunnel is
excavated in quartz-bearing syenite with grey
plagioclase, having a characteristic pink color (Figure 9).
In that region, syenitic rocks of this composition are
termed “nordmarkites”. It is a generally a very coarse-
grained unit and in zones porphyritic (Fekete, 2010).
Fig. 8. Unsupported rock section of the Brockville Tunnel
(Diederichs et al., 2013).
Fig. 9. Bånkall test tunnel in massive quartz-bearing syenite,
“nordmarkite” (Fekete, 2010).
4.2. Generation of DFNs-Advantages and Limitations
regarding a Mechanical Stability Analysis
approach
For the purposes of this paper, the authors mainly
focused on exploiting LiDAR data sets in obtaining the
input parameters required in the DFN generation process
using software MoFrac, in order to create DFNs for two
specific tunnel sites in two different rock types.
Furthermore, the methodology of obtaining and creating
an appropriate input data set was discussed in the
previous sections, along with the appropriate
reconstruction method of a Discrete Fracture Network
depending on either focusing to a specific area or an
overall estimation of the rockmass behaviour is required.
As discussed in section 4.1, the Bånkall tunnel was
excavated in an igneous rock formed by an intrusion in
the host rock. Primary joints and shear fractures evolve
in plutons as a natural response to the thermodynamics
of intrusion. Therefore, it is desirable to try and to
distinguish primary fractures related to the
thermodynamics and kinematics of intrusion from
fractures created by the regional stress regime. However,
making such a distinction is not always possible (Davis
and Reynolds, 1984). Fundamental types of primary
fractures include cross fractures, longitudinal fractures
and starching surfaces (Cloos, 1922; after Davis and
Reynolds, 1984). For the Bånkall tunnel site joint set 3
(760/1030) can be identified as cross joint through visual
inspection within the 3D-surface model, since the cross
joints are long, planar and evenly spaced fractures. This
planar, structural features are particularly well developed
near the roof of the pluton in the zone where stretching
is enhanced by surges of magma from below. Therefore,
since direct measurement of the fracture size is very
difficult, as this specific joint set runs parallel to the
tunnel axis, by considering the geological regime of this
fracture type, the length distribution can be calibrated in
order to produce geologically reasonable results.
Regarding the Brockville tunnel site, it was mentioned in
section 4.1 that it was excavated in a metamorphic rock
mainly consisting of a quartzite. With the behaviour of
the rockmass dominated by pervasive joint sets running
parallel to the tunnel axis (joint set 1 830/0770)
(Diederichs et al., 2013), as in the Bånkaal tunnel case,
direct size measurement of the fracture traces is
impossible. However, knowledge of the fact that this
particular joint set is to maintain high persistence within
the area of interest imposes a geologic constraint which
the generated DFN has to satisfy.
Using the Bånkall data set, a deterministically generated
DFN was produced (Figure 6) focusing on a specific
section of the tunnel. The DFN generated using MoFrac
was processed further using ParaView (Kitware). Using
Paraview, the DFN was modified to a polygonal model
which served as an input to PolyWorks for further
process by superimposing it on to the 3D surface model
of the tunnel (Figure 10). By identifying the joint
surfaces for each set, the extracted planes were used to
intersect the tunnel opening in order to determine the
location of the planes and secure the validity of the
DFN. In Figure 11 the intersection lines on the
polygonal model (white) show approximately the exact
locations of the discontinuities mapped on this particular
section. Absence of intersection lines at specific
locations occurred due to the absence of mapped traces.
Therefore, deterministically mapped fractures were re-
generated, confirming the validity of the generation
process.
Fig. 10. Deterministic DFN of Bånkall tunnel superimposed
on a specific section of the 3D surface model.
Fig. 11. Intersecting lines (white) illustrating the plane
locations of the generated DFN of a specific Bånkall tunnel
section.
Furthermore, the stochastic DFN reconstruction was
applied on both LiDAR data sets in order to examine
how the input parameters affect the generation process
and the final form of the DFN in a mechanical analysis
approach. It was illustrated for both tunnels that three (3)
joints sets dominate along the tunnel axis (Figure 3).
Therefore, and since both tunnels are located close to the
ground surface, possible mechanical stability problems
include block or wedge failures due to intersection of the
present joint sets (Marinos, 2007).
For the Bånkall tunnel case and by importing two
mapped traces, of a total length of 36m, the objective of
the generated DFN was to forecast the upcoming
conditions in the next section, of 14m, along the tunnel
axis in terms of mechanical stability. In Figure 12, the
white traces are the lines occurring due to the
intersecting planes of the DFN to the tunnel opening. It
can be observed that the stochastic generated fractures
form the base of a wedge, as highlighted, which is
similar to size to existing wedge bases within the 3D-
surface model, providing a considerable advantage over
traditional stability approaches. In Figure 13, a stability
analysis for this particular tunnel cross-section and
dominant joints sets is performed using Unwedge by
Rocscience. In an analysis with Unwedge (Rocscience)
and depending on the orientation of the planes, the most
unfavourable wedges in terms of size are created. This,
however, may result in rather conservative results and
therefore an unrealistic support system for specific in-
situ fracture conditions. On the contrary, a realistic DFN
generated stochastically can provide results which can be
used in the design of a support system corresponding to
the field conditions, assuming that the available input
data is adequate and reasonable.
Fig. 12. Intersecting lines (white) illustrating the plane
locations of the stochastically generated DFN of Bånkall
tunnel. The blue triangles are the wedge bases detected in the
surface model, while the yellow wedge base has occurred due
to the DFN plane intersection.
For the Bånkall tunnel case, it can be observed that an
analysis using a stochastic DFN provides a failure
mechanism which is closer to the observed in-situ
conditions, rather than following a more traditional
approach which is more conservative. However, the
methodology is not yet complete as the generated DFN
could not capture other structures within this section.
Factors affected in this case the generated stochastically
fractures, thus leading to important limitations, were the
non-removal of the biases during virtual mapping,
regarding the assigned length distributions to each joint
set, as well as the MoFrac imposed assumption that the
length distribution has to be linear. Furthermore,
inability to determine length distributions of
discontinuities running approximately parallel to the
tunnel axis adds more challenges in the generation of a
realistic DFN. However, the potential of the
methodology over traditional methods is clearly
illustrated.
Fig. 13. Wedge stability analysis of the Bånkall tunnel
performed with Rocscience Unwedge.
For the Brockville tunnel case, only one trace was
imported, having a length of 13m, in order to forecast
the conditions of a section of 11m. In this case a single
trace was used in order to decrease of bias from the
deterministically generated fractures and enhance the
stochastic generation process. In Figure 14, the joint
planes of the DFN intersecting the 3D-surface model are
illustrated by white lines. In this case the stochastically
generated fractures seem to correspond better to the in-
situ fracture pattern capturing both the wedge failure
mechanism (yellow triangles) and the density of the
fracture system. However, this occurred after calibrating
the length distributions for each joint set, and more
specifically for the approximately sub-parallel joint set
(Joint set 1, 830/0770) which cannot be directly estimated
from the LiDAR data set. As in the Bånkall tunnel case,
a DFN mechanical stability analysis approach results in
less conservative results regarding the size of the
produced wedges due to the intersecting joints, when
compared to a more traditional stability analysis using
Unwedge (Figure 15), resulting to a significant impact
on the design of the support system to prevent wedge
failures. However, as previously mentioned, limitations
exist. Additionally, the effect of the number of the
mapped traces used as an input is also another critical
parameter, as deterministically generated fractures
should not dominate the DFN model, a fact that is also
directly connected to the volume of interest employed in
the analysis. In the Brockville tunnel case by using only
a single fracture trace close to the section of interest was
able to simulate the field conditions better. Therefore, a
balance has to exist between mapped traces used as an
input and the maximum volume of interest being
applied. However, for sections away from the examined
area results started to lack in accuracy; hence, better
calibration of the input parameters and improvement of
the generation process are required.
Fig. 14. Intersecting lines (white) illustrating the plane
locations of the stochastically generated DFN of Brockville
tunnel. The blue triangles are the wedge bases detected in the
surface model, while the yellow wedge bases have occurred
due to the DFN plane intersections.
Regarding the discontinuity orientation as an input
parameter and its effect on a stability analysis, the
accumulated sample was adequate and it did not affect
negatively the generation process, despite the fact that
MoFrac adopts by default the assumption that dip and
dip direction follow a normal distribution. However, in
other cases it may be proven to have a rather significant
impact, also depending on the amount of the exposed
rockmass available for mapping. In cases like these,
further data process is required in order to eliminate
possible biases, as mentioned earlier (Terzaghi, 1965).

Fig. 15. Wedge stability analysis of the Bånkall tunnel
performed with Rocscience Unwedge.
5. CONCLUSIONS
A realistic stochastically generated DFN can be proven
to be rather useful in a mechanical stability analysis
especially for an underground project, such as a tunnel.
Forecasting, as accurately as possible, the field
conditions and interactively adopt the necessary support
system corresponding to them during the excavation
process, can result in better and more viable design when
compared to more traditional stability analysis
approaches which can be rather conservative. However,
limitations exist, as the accuracy and right interpretation
of the input parameters used in the DFN generation are
crucial for a realistic discrete fracture network and its
use in a mechanical stability analysis, as results may be
proven misleading unless specific criteria and the
geological constraints for a specific site are satisfied.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Nuclear Waste
Management Organization of Canada and the National
Science and Engineering Research Council who have
supported this work. Stephanie Fekete and Matthew Lato
contributed to early LiDAR work at these sites.
REFERENCES
1. Fekete, S., M.S. Diederichs. 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.
View publication stats
2. Palleske, C., M.J. Lato, D.J. Hutchinson, D. Elmo, M.S.
Diederichs. 2013. Impacts of limited spacing and
persistence data on DFN modelling of rockmasses. In
Proceedings of GeoMontreal 2013, Montreal, 29
September – 3 October 2013.
3. Terzaghi, R.D.. 1965. Source of error in joint surveys.
Geotechnique. 15 : 287-304.
4. Hudson, J.A., S.D. Priest. 1979. Discontinuities and
Rock Mass Geometry. Int. J. of Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr . 16: 339-362.
5. Mauldon, M.. 1998. Estimating Mean Fracture Trace
Length Density from Observations in Convex
Windows. Rock Mech. Rock Engng. 31(4): 201-216.
6. Priest, S.D., J.A. Hudson. 1976. Discontinuity Spacings
in Rock. Int. J. of Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.
Abstr. 13: 135-148.
7. Gringarten, E.. 1997. Geometric modeling of fracture
networks. PhD thesis. Department of Petroleum
Engineering, Stanford University, USA.
8. InnovMetrics. PolyWorks, V11.0.4 Quebec City, 2009.
9. Rocscience. Dips, V.6.010 Toronto, 2013.
10. Mirarco, MoFrac, V1.0, Sudbury, 2013.
11. 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.
12. Srivastava, R.M.. 2006. Field verification of a
geostatistical method for simulating fracture network
models.. In Proceedings of the 41st US Rock Mechanics
Symposium, Golden, Colorado, 17 – 21 June 2006.
13. Fekete, S.. 2010. Geotechnical applications of LiDAR
for geomechanical characterization in drill and blast
tunnels and representative 3-dimensional discontinuum
modelling. MASc thesis. Department of Geological
Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen’s
University, Canada.
14. Diederichs, M.S., M.A. Carter, M.J. Lato, J.B. Bennett,
D.J. Hutchinson. 2013. LiDAR surveying for liner
condition, rock stability and reconditioning assessement
of Canada’s oldest railway tunnel in Brockville,
Ontario. In Proceedings of GeoMontreal 2013,
Montreal, 29 September – 3 October 2013.
15. Davis G.H., S.J. Reynolds. 1984. Structural Geology of
Rocks and Regions. 2nd ed. USA: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
16. Cloos, H.. 1922. Tektonik und Magma. Bd. 1 Abh. D.
Preuss. Geol. Land. 13:89.
17. Kitware. Paraview, V4.1.0, <http://www.paraview.org>
18. Marinos, V.. 2007. Geotechnical classification and
engineering geological behaviour of weak and complex
rockmasses in tunneling. PhD thesis. Department of
Civil Engineering, NTUA, Greece.
19. Rocscience. Unwedge, V3.020 Toronto, 2011.