Z’ectonophysics, 60 (1979) 89-105 89

0 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam -Printed in The Netherlands

RANDOM POINT DISTRIBUTIONS AND STRAIN MEASUREMENT

IN ROCKS

N. FRY

Department of Geology, University College, Swansea, SA2 8PP (Great Britain)

(Received February 13, 1978; revised version accepted October 24, 1978)

ABSTRACT

Fry, N., 1979. Random point distributions and strain measurement in rocks. Tectono-
physics, 60: 89-105.

Established methods of “nearest neighbour” or neighbour “centre-to-centre” studies

of objects in rocks can only give a true finite strain ratio in the peculiar circumstance that
it is possible to identify in the strained state which objects were closest before deforma-
tion. The theoretical possibility of measuring strain ratios from object distributions
exists more generally.
For “random” distributions in which the object positions are mutually independent,
there can be no possibility of strain measurement. If objects depart from this special case
in the direction of either clustering or anticlustering, any strain suffered should be deter-
minable, but the confidence of the determination increases the further the original depar-
ture from independence. Without knowledge of prestrain neighbours, studies of present
nearest neigbours or centre-to-centre distances cannot show whether this possibility of
strain determination exists. They produce ellipses with little or no correspondence to the
strain ellipse. A method, illustrated here for both simulated and actual object distribu-
tions, produces an ellipse of correct strain ratio by use of the centre-to-centre distances
separating every object from every other, within a limiting distance empirically deter-
mined for each sample. This method assumes an original isotropic distribution on the
sample surface, and will not work unless this assumption is approximately correct. Of
the practical limitations, the severest by far is the need for a planar homogeneous sample
bearing preferably 300 or more objects. Heterogeneities are likely to cause difficulties
with strain measurement for strain ratios greater than about 6 : 1.
If close rigid objects have jostled each other aside during bulk strain, this method is
no more able than other centre-to-centre methods to give a correct strain ratio. Visual
interpretation both of petrographic features of the rock and of the pattern this method
produces, remains an essential part of the strain determination.

INTRODUCTION

This paper investigates the possibility of recognising changes in random

distributions of objects in a rock which undergoes strain. This possibility
has been neglected, partly on account of continuing ambiguity in the use of
the term “random”.
 . .
I) . * . * . *
. **
. l

1 * ‘ *
. . * *. .
. . ‘.
.
I . .
.
. . .
. * . .
. . . .
.
0‘ * * *
l* * * l .
*
* . * * L

Fig. 1. Generated extremely anticlustered distribution. a. Unstrained. b. Object-object

separations in (a). c. Strained. d. Object--object separations in (c). e. Nearest neighbours
in (c).

Figure la shows a random pattern of objects, from which suitable treat-

ment, produces the isotropic pattern, Fig. lb. Figure lc is the pattern of
Fig. la subjected to a certain homogeneous strain. Treatment of this pro-
duces Fig. Id, in which the directions and ellipticity of the central blank area
are those of the finite strain ellipse of the transformation from Fig. la to
 91

Fig. lc. This papers considers why, how and in what circumstances finite
strains can be elucidated in this way.
Comparisons are drawn between the method producing Fig. Id and meth-
ods dealing with nearest neighbours, such as that producing Fig. le.
The problems of dealing with randomly distributed objects have been
mentioned in passing by Ramsay (1976, p. 8), and a somewhat similar
approach to that employed here was taken by Stone et al. (1976). See also
Barbier and Leymarie (1972) and Leymarie (1968).

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

“Random” configurations of objects in space can show great variety in

the properties they exhibit, For our purpose, the following distinctions are
essential :
(1) A configuration is stochastic, or “random” in the broadest sense,if
the properties of the whole field in which the objects lie contain no evidence
from which the position of any individual object can be specified.
(2) It is “homogeneous” in a broad sense (or of uniform density) if,
before the position of any individual object becomes known, the expecta-
tion that an object exists at a particular point (shown by density around the
point when positions become known) is the same at every point in the field.
(3) The configuration may be such that, on knowing the position of just
one object in the field, the (now conditional) probability of the existence of
an object at another point is a function of that point’s distance and direc-
tion away from the first object. If this function is independent of the first
object’s position, then the configuration is “homogeneous” in a stricter sense
than under (2) above.
(4) If on knowing the position of one object, the conditional probability
of the existence of an object at another point is a function of its distance
alone, independent of direction, then the configuration is “isotropic”.
(5) There is a special condition in which. the probability of the existence
of an object is constant throughout the field, and will remain constant
throughout the field however many object positions become known. This
special case, where objects are “independent”, is the case to which laymen
try to refer by terms such as “pure chance”, “most random”, etc. Probabilists
call it a Poisson process their jargon word “process” meaning little more
than “thing”. (For an introduction to the Poisson process see Meyer, 1970,
pp. 159-169.) This special case includes amongst its properties those of
being homogeneous, as under (3) above, and isotropic, with the conditional
probability now being invariant, neither a function of direction nor of dis-
tance.
Both conditions (3) and (4) above relate to spatial “clustering”, a concept
not covered by terms in common geological usage, (see, however, Matheron,
1975, and references). If the probability that a second individual item exists
is higher at small distances from the position of a known one than it is fur-
92

ther away, then the full pattern contains more and closer clusters than in
the Poisson case, and there is said to be “clustering”. If the probability that
a second individual item exists is lower at small distances from the position
of a known one than further away, then the full pattern contains fewer and
more open clusters, and also fewer intervening gaps, than in the Poisson case.
So, spacing-out or “anticlustering” is said to exist.
Reality and mathematical exactitude are more complicated than made out
in the above paragraphs, but it is necessary to introduce as a starting point
the idea of “clustering”, together with the idea that both clustered and anti-
clustered patterns, because t,hey have some constraint on positions of indi-
vidual objects, are more ordered than Poisson ones in which positions are
unconstrained.
Fundamental theory tells us that in the absence of ordering a thing can-
not record or retain information. So with distributions of objects in rocks
which are Poisson type, we are unable to make a distinction between config-
urations which have been strained and those which have not. Patterns with
a degree of ordering can carry information, and the more order the more
exact the information. It is tempting at this stage to try to make these ideas
more palatable by saying there is a possibility of measuring the strain suf-
suffered by clusters. However, anticlustering is common in rocks, can be
used equally well, and is in danger of being neglected on account of the
doubtful acceptability of a concept of straining anticlusters.
There is no general agreement on terminology amongst the various disci-
plines which concern themselves with these concepts. Sometimes use of
the term “random” is restricted and applied only to the Poisson case. The
term “aggregated” may be used in place of “clustered”, and distributions
which are “anticlustered” may also be referred to as “uniform” or “overdis-
persed”.

THE “ALL OBJECT-BJECT SEPARATIONS” METHOD

The basis of the method to make clustering or anticlustering visible is

described below. Essentially, it provides a visual appreciation of the extent
to which there are preferences in the distances separating objects and the
extent to which this varies with direction.’ This is illustrated by application
to simulated patterns in Figs. 1, 2 and 3.
The patterns were produced by using a standard “pseudo-random number
generator” computer subroutine to generate lists of rectangular coordinates
of points. For Fig. 2a, all such coordinates were accepted. For Fig. la, each
coordinate pair was compared, on its generation, with all those already
listed. If it lay at less than a certain distance from any existing point is was
discarded. Otherwise it was added to the list. The resulting distribution is
isotropic and highly anticlustered. The positions as actually recorded in
Fig. la approximate to those of the coordinates, being the nearest line-
printer character positions to the exact point. This approximation allows
 93

‘
. . . *
. .
. . . * - .
* :

. . . . . .
: .
: * :
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .
. .:. .
.
. * *

* * I . *

* *. * - *
. .
. . :
. . .

. .
. . -.
. . L .
. .
‘. .
. * . .
. .
. .
* .
** . “. . . . . . . ..I. I.
. . * W” . . . . ” ” ““” . .
. I) . . . **,:,*..: “..“. ”
. w..““”
. . . . “..“” . . . . . . “. .I**
. . . . . .UI “. . . . . .”
. . . . ” . . . . . .““. . . .
. . . ” VU”. . ..” .”
. . . . I). . . . . I. . ..“““..:’
.
.
l . ..“..““.” .W”..”
* ** . * “... l. . f a” *

. .
. . -
. ‘ * “.“.W ” .“.“zz
a*.
. * .* “I ”
*...*.**“.*
I) . . ..* * ” .I
***I)
* .
..” . .“. . . . ._ . . ”
. *. -. 0 . “. . “.” . I.“...._”
. .._“I . . . . ” . *. .
. . . . . . . . “.. . .” . . . ”
. .
_: *. . *. . ..I. . . “. ” .

* ‘.
.
. . ..” U.. .
. . .“” . . . . . * “.“Y
. * . ” . . . . . “. . *...a.. 1)

’
* 0
. * ’ .. .._” ..”
. *.
. ““I... “” * . z”” :*
.
. .

. .
. .. .*1.* “. * .” .

. . . . a. b
. ... .. . . . . ’ cd
. -
.. .. . .
..“.
“. . ” . .l
““a.
7 ”
.
1’2”
. . .”
:.
”
. .
0..
a . .“. .“......U” “...“.
S..“.“., . * “. . . “..
* .
.
* *

. .
“.
.
*z-z.* .
. “a.”
.“I “.
.
*.t
”
“.

.z
I”” .I. - *“I *a
. * .” .I.. *. . . ..I” . .
* *. . . . . ..“..“..” *” .

. *. .“” . . . “. ” .
.

.
..
. . l

. .
.

. , . . ‘” *” “V
.., .‘.‘z” ,-z l..
. ’ . ** * ‘* ’ . . “.“”
” .“.““““”
. . .“.. “.
l .

.
. . . l ., : - “.” . :.. *** I”%.*
” ” .” a... *.a.. .
0 .” .” “..” * ““0 *.
l * * * f ..I ‘. .” . . a..._**
.s. l ..” *.-*-Be.
c * ..* ” *. l . . . *..a ”
.
. . . ...” . ” . ““:““r
. *. :
. . . . .
. * “. . . . . . . .

. . - l . . .
. . .
. . . . .
. *
l e
.
:

. ”
.
. .
.

* *
.

: f
. .
l .
: .
. .
. . *. . . *. *
. .
. .. : . *.
. . . . .
. l * “: “.. :
. ” “.“...

l..11”,“.
*
*
.
: . .
* . . ** .
. l . *
.
‘ * ‘ * l *
. . . *
. . . -
. .
” . .
. . . -

. : . . ‘2.

Fig. 2. Generated distribution. Poisson. a. Unstrained. b. Object-object separations in

(a). c. Strained. d. Object-object separations in (c). e. Nearest neighbours in (c).

easy output by line-printer, and applies to all parts of Figs. 1 and 2.

The method for deriving Figs. lb and 2b from Figs. la and 2a is as fol-
lows. One of the points is placed at the center of the derived plot, retaining
exact orientation. The position at which every other point of the original
pattern now lies is marked on the derived plot (unless beyond its bounds).
Then a second point of the original pattern is placed at the cemre of the
94

derived plot, and the resulting positions of all others are added to the derived
plot. This procedure is further repeated until all points of the original plot
have been used as the new centre. The accumulated pattern which results
shows the frequency with which points in the original pattern have neigh-
bouring points at different distances in different directions. Though the
method is fundamentally simple, there are modifications to avoid problems
such as edge effects while maximising the number of points used, as men-
tioned in the section on “constraints”.
The patterns of Figs. lc and 2c are those of Figs. la and 2a subjected to
a homogeneous strain (in this case a sinistral simple shear in a vertical direc-
tion with an “engineering” shear strain value, y, of 1, and any points moving

1
1 1 1

ii’ ;1
1 1 1 1 1 l1 2 l1 1
11 1
: 11
112 2fl 1 1i 1 1 1 2y1 1 1! l1 ll 1
1 1 1 11 1 2
1 1 111
1 1 1 1 1
; 1 1 111 )ll 1
15 1 11 11 1 A1
11 1 li : 1! 113 1
1 1 1v 11 1 12 1 221 1 1 1
1 1I 11 1 ;I 1 1
1 i ll jll 1 21r
l1 I
ll ! 1 2 11 1
i 111 1 1 1 1 11, I
1
1 11 111 l1
111 11 11 lf l1 1
I L
1 1
I1 111
2 1 11 li

1 i 1
I
1
1
1 i
11
1
113
11
1
1
12 1
11
I1
1 1 1 2 1
1 1
1 2 1 1

111
1 1,ll 1

If1 ll; 2 1 1
1 p1 111 l1 1
1
2 I1
11
i 1 q 1 11
1 1 15 11 1
11 5 1 1
11 8 1 ,ll 11 11 P . 1. 42
1 1
11 1 1
1
1
12 1 l1
11
1
t 15 2 i 11 11
121 1
1 1’ 1 3 1
2 2
2 1 11 11
1 A1
1 1% --1 1 1
1
1 5 l1 211 ll; 12 1 11 1 1 L II1 1
li 2 2 1’1
1 I’ll1
ll. 1 1 !’ i_ 1 1 l1 :
2
11 l1 i I1
Fig. 3. Object-bject separations in a strained, generated, extremely anticlustered dis-
tribution.
 95

over the top edge reappearing at the bottom, as if on the surface of a hori-
zontal cylinder). Figures Id and 2d are derived from Figs. lc and 2c by the
same method as used to obtain Figs. lb and 2b from Figs. la and 2a. Fig-
ure 3 is generated similarly to Fig. Id, but more detail is displayed by enlarg-
ing the plot and dividing it into a rectangular array of small boxes. The num-
ber of points falling into each box is recorded and then printed at the cen-
tral point of the box, empty boxes remaining blank. This is the method
adopted for real distributions of objects on rock surfaces (Figs. 4 and 5).
It can be seen that the strain, though not visible clearly in Fig. lc, is dis-
played by Figs. Id and 3. The shape of the girdle of highest or lowest or, as
in this case, sharpest change in neighbour frequency is that of the strain
ellipse. The practicability and accuracy of measuring strain this way is depen-
dent on the sharpness of definition of the girdle, which in turn is dependent
on two factors, the degree of ordering (clustering or anticlustering) and the
number of points in the sample. For the Poisson case (Fig. 2) there’is no
ordering, and so the properties of the strained and unstrained distribution
are indistinguishable.
This method gives results for Figs. la and 3, because the original generated
patterns were homogeneous and isotropic. Homogeneity can be tested for in
a strained distribution. Original isotropy cannot. However, it seems intui-
tively likely that an original distribution lacking isotropy would possess a
non-elliptical pattern of neighbour distances. On finding a real case of an
elliptical girdle, the reasonable question to ask is at what stage there could
have been an isotropic distribution. If that question can reasonably be an-
swered, then the ellipticity of the girdle probably represents the strain ratio
of the finite strain accumulated since that stage.

EXAMPLES

Figures 4 and 5 are the results of applying the method described to real
distributions of objects visible on rock surfaces. Both show anticlustering.
In Fig. 4 the points used are the centres of 382 phenocrysts in a porphyritic
lava. The distribution illustrates the degree of definition commonly obtain-
able with this number of points. It would be interesting to know whether
with a larger sample the visible anisotropy would remain or diminish in this
plot. Were this rock to be subjected to a homogeneous deformation it would
be possible to make an approximate strain estimate from the strained equiv-
alent of the pattern in Fig. 4.
Figure 5 is the result of using this method on a deformed oolitic lime-
stone. The points used are the original centres of only 126 ooids. Deforma-
tion could be seen to be by pressure solution at contacts of originally packed
ooids of almost constant size. In this case, there was originally a very sharp
cut-off preventing ooids centres from coming closer than one ooid diameter,
and that is why far fewer objects than normal are needed to define the anti-
clustering strain ellipse. Although given here as an example of this method,
96

Fig. 4.Object-object separations in a porphyritic andesite.

the strain ellipse of this rock could easily be determined by established pro-
cedures, as discussed later.

THE WEAKNESS OF “NEAREST NEIGHBOUR” STUDIES

The method given in this paper could be described as a study of neigh-

bours whether they are nearest ones or not. It is easy to fall into the trap
of thinking that restricting study to nearest neighbours would simplify mat-
ters. The reverse is the case. Characteristics of “nearest neighbours” in differ-
ent kinds of dist~butions of objects can be extremely misleading. The situ-
ation is tberefore given in detail below for the Poisson case, with discussion
of cases of ~ti~luste~ng, in the hope that this will give some insight into the
problem.
 97

2 1 4 1 1 1 1 122 2 2 1 2 1 1
2 3 2 1 111312 1 2 1 1 13 1 21
2 3 311 33 1 21211111333
1 2 2 1 2 1 321 2 1 4 1 2 1 3
1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 12312212
4 3 31111 2 2 1 2 2 2
1242332 2 11111 1 1 1
1 2243122232212 12221221
3 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3
1 1 2 2 2 1 1 3211 11 4
1 2 2 3 1 111 4 2 1 1
1 22 2 4112 21
13121 21 1 2 1 2 1 3 1
1 2 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 1
1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1
4 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2221 1
3 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 311 3
12212221 2122322213422 1
1 1 1 11111 2 2332421
2 2 2 1 2 2 11113 3 4
21221321 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1
3 12141 2 1 2 3 121 2 2 1
33311111212 1 33 113 3 2
12 1 31 1 1 2 1 213111 1 2 3 2
1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2

Fig. 5. Object-object centre separations in a deformed oolitic limestone.

Our consideration of the Poisson process starts with two definitions. The
mean rate at which the number of objects inside a boundary is increased by
increasing the area within that boundary is designated h. This may also be
thought of as the overall density of objects. The probability that an area con-
tains no objects whatsoever is a function of the area’s extent a, and is here
designated f(a) (or for another area of extent b, f(b), etc.).
In the Poisson process, h and f(a) do not vary either with individual char-
acteristics of areas other than their extent, or with position in the field.
Therefore their values at any point cannot be changed by any amount of
deformation of the field. So what follows applies to both strained and un-
strained cases.
From the above, the following relationship applies:
f(c + 6) = f(c) * f(b)
Functions behaving in this way are exponential.
The rate at which increasing an area will decrease that area’s probability
of being object-free - i.e. -(df/da); is given by the product of the probabil-
ity that the area is object-free in the first place (f(a)) and the rate at which
98

increasing area causes objects to be encountered (h):

!!L --h . f(a)

da
Therefore:
f(a) = eP ‘a
At a = 0, where f(0) = 1; df/da = --X.

Though we may talk (as in an earlier section) of the “probability of an

object at a point”, the probability that a point representing an object’s posi-
tion lies within the infinitesimal area1 extent of a point defining a position
in the field is clearly infinitesimal. What we mean by such a phrase is really
the rate at which increasing the area around a point to some small finite
value will increase the probability of including the position of an object in
that area, i.e., X.
Considering now various probability functions of distance from an origin
such as a known object, care is necessary with the relationship between
distance and area. In the simplest case we can draw a straight line from an
original object, and then consider the probability that change in distance
along this line will cause encounter of an object lying within a small dis-
tance b about the line. This probability is constant, bh.
The probability that the line between origin and a point at distance d has
no object within small distance b of it is given by ePbhd.
The probability at any point of encountering there the nearest of the
neighbours to the original object to lie within b of the line is given by
bXeFbAd.
Alternatively, we could consider a circle of radius r about our original
object. The probability that increase in radius will cause the circumference
to encounter an object is given by 2nXr. The probability of such encounter
of an object occurring within a sector of angle 8 is %hr.
The probability of no object existing within a circle of radius r is e--rrhr2
Within a sector the probability of no included object is e-“20hr2
The probability of including the first neighbouring object at radius r by
increase in radius is given, for a circle, by 2=Xre*hr2, and for a sector by
0hreC1’2e”‘2. This function, by far the most complicated of all those consid-
ered here, is the one which specifies the probability of the “nearest neigh-
bour” as a function of distance.
The three functions specified as giving the probability of meeting the first
point (he-““; bhe-b”d. t9hre-“2e”P2) may b e confirmed by consideration of
the logic that they ark in each case minus the differential of the object-free
function with respect to the variable concerned (a, d, r).
The most important point about the nearest neighbour function is that it
has a peak at a distance of J1/2?rx in every direction (at r = m when
considering the nearest neigbour within each sector of angle 0). Therefore
 99

a study of nearest neighbours in any distribution which is Poisson, or close

to Poisson, will show a strong preference for nearest neighbours at the same
distance in each direction. It would be easy to take the quite spurious step
of thinking this shows strong positional dependence between objects and
that its isotropic nature refutes significant strain. Regardless of the extent
by which a Poisson distribution is strained, its nearest neighbours retain this
same circular girdle pattern.
It is far more convenient to avoid the more complicated functions of cir-
cle or radius, and particularly to avoid the exponential contribution of the
object-free area inherent in all nearest neighbour functions. By keeping to a
comparison of all objects within a suitable limit to distance, and by using
line probability/distance profiles, the Poisson case shows a constant probabil-
ity (either X or proportional to X). Significant preferences in distances
between objects, with any inherent anisotropy, then show up as variations
from a constant-density, though “noisy”, unordered background.
The Poisson case just considered may be contrasted with a hypothetical
extreme anticlustering case (Figs. 1 and 3), in which there is little preference
in inter-object distances beyond a cut-off value, but in which inter-object
distances shorter than this cut-off are totally absent. In the isotropic version
of this, the line probability/distance profile is the same in all directions and
has a step at the cut-off distance. Each object in the configuration has its
own object-free circle around it. After strain of the whole field each object
will lie at the centre of an object-free strain ellipse. In this case, this true
strain ellipse would be determined by nearest neighbour studies as well as
by studies of all object--object separations, though with less efficiency
(Fig. le).
Real anticlustered object distributions lie between these two extremes,
and will normally show a line probability/distance profile which shows grad-
ual rise and fall with distance. In this case we may consider there to be a
saucerlike depression in the density of neighbouring objects about every
object. Strain changes this depression from circular to elliptical. The method
of measuring all object-object separations will determine this elliptical
depression, which has the axial ratio of the strain ellipse. Nearest neighbour
methods will determine a “compromise ellipse” somewhere between the true
strain ellipse of extreme anticlustering and the strain-independent circle of
the extreme Poisson case. This ellipse will show correct principal directions,
but severely underestimate the strain value. Furthermore it will vary with
details of the method of study. In studies of the “nearest in any direction”
type the only objects to be recorded near ellipse ends will be the rare ones
which come within the range of preferred distances at the ellipse sides. The
result is not far off circular, with a lack of points in the principal extension
direction. Studies of the nearest neighbour within each angular sector are
more successful in defining a compromise ellipse, though the ellipse, once
defined, has no greater meaning. Consider a case in which the object-poor
depression round each object is largely taken up by an area in which the
100

density of neighbours is (h/n), compared with a density (X) outside the

depression. Consider this to be strained until the ellipse semi-axes have a
ratio of more than 10 : 1. A sector including the principal extension direc-
tion will extend a long way in the object-poor ellipse, and so have most
nearest neighbours at a distance of nearly m. In the sector including the
principal compression direction, most of the profile will lie beyond the
object-poor ellipse, giving a nearest neighbour peak at just beyond m.
The compromise ellipse semi-axis ratio will approximate to m, being
dominated by the change in object-density, and having almost nothing
to do with the amount of strain. Clearly, such nearest neighbour ellipses
are most unhelpful in determining strain values.
Had the example dealt with above been one of clustering, rather than
anticlustering, not only would the compromise ellipse have not indicated
true strain, but it would have had its longer axis in the direction of principal
compression instead of’ extension. Therefore nearest neighbour ellipses
should not be relied upon even to indicate orientation of the true strain
ellipse.

CONSTRAINTS IN THE METHOD

Edge effects

Certain constraints become apparent during the process of using each ob-
ject position on a limited field as origin of a derived plot. Edge effects have
to be avoided. This requires a decision not to consider possible interaction
between objects which are more than a certain distance apart, i.e., to put a
limit on the size of the derived plot. Once this distance is chosen, it is possi-
ble to use as origins for the derived plot only objects lying further than this
distance from the edge of the original field. This prevents the apparent den-
sity of neighbours falling away with distance simply from failure to find
objects which lie outside the field of the sample.
If the exercise is undertaken manually, it is possible to use a circular
derived plot, with its radius the chosen distance limit, and to use original
sample fields with irregular boundaries. However, there are advantages in
digitising the rectangular coordinates of each object, and calculating the
coordinates on the derived plot as coordinate-differences on the original.
In this case it is easiest to put a limit on the coordinate-differences in each
direction, i.e., create a rectangular derived plot. In this case, avoiding edge
effects becomes far simpler if rectangular boundaries are imposed on the
original sample field.
With a rectangular field it is easy, without edge effects, to use more ob-
jects as origin of the derived plot than suggested above. For any pair of
objects, each lies, as a neighbour of the other, the same distance away,
but in exactly the opposite direction. Therefore the derived plot is an
attempts to define a pattern which is necessarily centro-symmetric. So, each
 101

such pair need only be recorded once, by limiting the derived plot to neigh-
bours which lie within a 180” sector (say, to the right side) of each new
origin. This allows origins to be used which lie right up to one edge (left in
this case) of the original field. If it is desired to view a full 360” derived
plot, instead of the half that is now produced, all that is necessary is to oper-
ate the centre of symmetry.
It is not possible to choose the optimum limits of the derived plot in the
first instance. For isotropic distributions, the Poisson nearest neighbour peak
at dm gives an idea of the required size. A suitable limit would be just
over twice this distance, say, for convenience, a However, this limit
itself needs to be extended in one direction and may be contracted in the
other in accordance with the strain ellipse it is desired to identify. The
best procedure is therefore to create a series of derived plots, the first of
which is large. It can then be seen to what extent dimensions may be
reduced, so as to increase the number of usable origins and therefore the
density of points which gives the new plot “definition”. This repetition
makes computer handling of digitised coordinates worthwhile. It should
also be clear at this point that fitting the dimensions of the new plot to an
identified ellipse is much easier if the coordinate axes parallel the ellipse
axes, as well as lying parallel to the boundary of the sample field. Therefore
care should be taken in original sampling to use lithological indicators such
as cleavage trace, shape fabric, mineral lineations, etc., to obtain an orig-
inal sample field with rectangular boundaries paralleling likely principal
strain directions.

Sample size

Some idea of the necessary size of a homogeneous sample field of ob-

jects can be gauged as follows. Taking the simplest case, a square with sides
of length d has n objects in it, and the derived plot required is also square.
The derived plot must sample at least (d/dn) in each direction from its cen-
tral origin. The minimum margin thus used avoiding edge effects has an area
of 3d(d/dn) - 2@/&2)2, or d*(3/4ln - 2/n), the number of lost origins is
about n(3/dn -2/n), or (3dln - 2). So the number of usable origins is
(n - 34ln + 2), say (n - 3Jn). For each origin, asquare quarter of the derived
plot, having area d*/n, will on average contain one object, so the total num-
ber in this square using all usable origins is about (n - 34ln). If we wish to
define an ellipse, or circle, well, we could demand that an average of ten
objects fall into each of an array of subareas having sides one tenth the
length of this square. This would require roughly n - 3Jn = 1000, or the
total number of objects II = 1,100, If we demand only a rough definition of
a pattern which shows marked ordering, then it might be acceptable to have
six objects per sub-area of length one sixth of the square. In this case n -
3d/n = 216, and the total number of origins required is about 260 in the orig-
inal sample. These figures are chosen to illustrate the practical limits with
102

objects in rocks. With less than 300 objects it is unlikely that quantitative
results can be obtained. With over 1000 objects, definition may be good
enough to simply measure up dimensions on a mildly ordered concentric
ellipse pattern to an accuracy competitive with other methods of strain
measurement. This requirement of a planar, homogeneous rock surface,
bearing such large numbers of objects, is a very severe practical limitation
on this method of strain measurement.

Visual interpretation

When looking for concentric elliptical girdles on the new plot, we are
looking for a shape which relies for definition on density variations which
arise from contributions from all parts of an original sample field. It is possi-
ble that strain will vary a little across the field. If strain is low, the slight
blurring of definition of the pattern will not be detectable above the blur of
statistical variations in densiby. If the strain ellipse semiaxis ratio is 6 : 1 or
more, a small number of sampled object--object separations are relied on to
define ellipse ends, Small variations in strain, particularly in the direction of
principal extension, can cause ellipse girdle ends to become indefinable. This
problem increases with strain, and although avoidable by substituting a more
homogeneous sample, cannot be compensated for by sample size. There are
mathematical methods of overcoming this difficulty and evaluating strain.
However, while we rely upon visual appreciation, an elliptical girdle pattern
must be identifiable. This requires either than the strain be represented by
an ellipse with less than 6 : 1 semiaxis ratio, or that the strain be remark-
ably homogeneous.
There is a general problem of visual interpretation. It is the inability of the
human eye to identify concentric elliptical girdles of even quite startling dif-
ferences in object densities (e.g., 2 : 1) when girdle widths are small com-
pared to the average spacing of objects at the densities concerned. Again, this
difficulty is susceptible to mathematical treatment, but it can also be allevi-
ated in visual interpretations by contouring the density on the new plot.
Counting statistics are too bad for neatly concentric contours to be the
result of this process. Nevertheless it can assist the human eye in recognising
girdles of differing density.
To those worried about statistical significance, all that can be said at this
stage is that the human eye is so inept at seeing artifically created patterns
of high significance, that indentification of insignificant girdles seems highly
improbable.
Emphasis here has been on visual interpretation. If it could be assumed
that all object distributions in rocks started as perfectly isotropic clustering
or anticlustering, and that all strains were perfectly homogeneous, then we
would be justified in using mathematical methods which assume elliptical
girdles. However, we know that there will be many types of object distribu-
tion which were not originally isotropic and which did not deform homo-
gcneously. Until some understanding is accumulated of the nature of differ-
ent distribution types in different rocks, visual interpretation of results
remains necessary for judging whether or not each sample warrants use as
a strain measure.

COMPARISOh’ WIT11 OTHER TECIINIQUES

This method belongs clearly in the realm of those types of strain deter-
mination which in the first instance define relative dimensions of a two-
dimensional strain ellipse by accumulating large numbers of individual
measurements (such as the methods given by Ramsay, 1967, pp. 202-221,
for dealing with deformation of originally non-spherical objects). Their
general applicability is either where individual strain markers, e.g., reduc-
tion spots, do not exist, or to provide independent corroboration of their
results.
Amongst such methods, the one described here falls into the same cate-
gory as the established centre-to-centre method (method 3, pp. 195-197,
of Ramsay 1967, and variations), in that it deals only with object position,
and so is not dependent directly on assumptions or evidence of relative com-
petence of the objects and their surroundings. The centre-to-centre method
assumes that each object used has a group of neighbours which are identifi-
able as having been its closest neighbours before deformation, and that the
original pattern was isotropic. In the terminology of this paper, these neigh-
bours would, if all plotted out from a common origin, have defined a circu-
lar girdle. Strain of the rock results in this girdle taking on the relative
dimensions of the strain ellipse. However, new neighbours, not originally
in the closest set, may now lie in the compression direction just as close as
the original ones now do in the extension direction. Identifying the partic-
ular girdle representing the strain ellipse relies upon the ability to omit new
close neighbours from centre-to-centre measurement while retaining those
previously close neighbours moved apart in the extension direction. If this
cannot be done unambiguously the resulting girdle will be unreliable, depen-
dent either on subjective criteria in the choice of which neighbours to use
(and so in resulting ellipticity), or on the objective criterion of present near-
est neighbours discussed earlier. Therefore the centre-to-centre method
should only be used where there is no ambiguity as to the originally nearest
neighbours. By comparison, the method of this paper is theoretically usable
whether or not original neighbours are identifiable. In practice it is found in
cases where both methods have been applied that the centre-tocentre
method gives greater accuracy from a small sample, but that the method of
this paper is nevertheless quicker in cases of large sample size. Where objects
are widely dispersed in a nearly homogeneously deforming matrix, a study
of object to object distances may show the strain experienced by the matrix.
If the objects remain rigid, this could give a finite strain value not dependent
on the strain path, as are orientation methods involving theories of rigid
104

body rotation. If the objects deform, this study may provide an alternative
strain measure to that of object shape. As such, it may be useful as a test of
homogeneity of deformation, and it may give the better measure of overall
strain. It may suggest two phases of deformation, in only the first of which
the objects remained rigid. In this case it provides a value of total finite
strain where object shapes give that of the later phase alone. It is even possi-
ble that metamorphic reaction has completely obliterated all previous fabric,
except for the grain positions of just one metamorphic mineral species which
has nucleated on the site of an earlier mineral. Study of the mineral positions
may give the finite strain since a stage earlier than any other object or com-
positional heterogeneity now in the rock. Because of the separation of ob-
jects, identification of earlier neighbours is not possible without ambiguity.
Therefore the method of this paper is the one which provides the possibility
of making such strain measurements.
If a rock consisting mainly of packed objects has deformed homogene-
ously, there should be no difference in strain as measured by object shape
and as measured by a centre-to-centre method. Because the criterion of
touching in this case identifies the original neighbours, the established cen-
tre-to-centre method gives good results from fewer objects than the method
described here. If deformation is by pressure solution at object boundaries,
the two methods should again give similar results, though in this case the
problem of original neighbours arises again.
In a rock composed of packed objects, which has deformed even partly
by sliding at object boundaries, a similar strain value will be arrived at by
studying object shape, centre-to-centre distance of touching neighbours, or
the method described here. Each method is essentially measuring the vari-
ation with direction of the distances from centres of objects to their edges,
whether this be as the edge-to-edge length through the centre of individual
objects, or the centre-to-edge-to-centre lengths between pairs of objects.
Such measurements do not take the boundary sliding component of strain
into account. Each method will underestimate strain by the amount of this
unknown component and therefore be equally unsatisfactory.

CONCLUSION

The method described provides a means of measuring strain from appar-

ently random patterns of objects in rocks. Nearest neighbour studies cannot
do so as satisfactorily. A number of assumptions have to be made about
conditions before deformation, but if use is restricted to rocks now showing
a good concentric elliptical girdle pattern of preference in object-object sep-
aration, the assumption of original isotropy necessary for the validity of the
method is probably justified. The limitations in the method restrict its use-
fulness considerably, and it is certainly no panacea to problems of strain
measurement.
To be suitable for this method of study the objects in a rock should be
 105

well dispersed so that they may be treated as passive markers in a homogene-

ously deforming matrix. They must be of a type likely to be distributed in
the first instance isotropically and homogeneously. The rock strain must be
roughly homogeneous over a planar sample area big enough to contain many
hundreds of objects, and of not too high a strain value. Likely candidates
appear at the present time to be objects on sedimentary bedding planes
amongst which some degree of clustering or anticlustering could be expected,
and mineral distributions in homogeneous igneous and metamorphic rocks.
In the latter, a useful application would be to determine relative strain values
on schistosity planes from porphyroblast distributions.
Visual interpretation to some extent limits recognition of patterns by this
method. Mathematical methods exist which increase the accuracy of the
strain measurement. However, it is not easy mathematically to distinguish
between those elliptical girdle patterns which are deriveable from isotropic
originals and all conceivable anisotropic alternatives. Visual interpretation
plays this role. The main need at present is to discover to what extent nat-
ural object distributions are suitable for strain measurement by this method
and so for the present this visual interpretation is of considerable impor-
tance.

REFERENCES

Barbier, J. and Leymarie, P., 1972. Disposition reguliere de certaines mineralisations ura-
niferes. Bull. Bur. Rech. Geol. Min. (Fr.), Sect. 2, 1: 1 l-18.
Leymarie, P., 1968. Une methode permettant de mettre en evidence le caractere ordonne
de la distribution de certains gites mineraux. Miner. Deposita, 3: 334-343.
Matheron, G., 1975. Random Sets and Integral Geometry. Wiley, New York, N.Y.,
288 pp.
Meyer, P.L., 1970. Introductory Probability and Statistical Applications. Addison-
Wesley, Reading, Mass., 2nd ed., 367 pp.
Ramsay, J.G., 1967. Folding and Fracturing of Rocks. McGraw-Hill, New York, 568 pp.
Ramsay, J.G., 1976. Displacement and Strain. Philos. Trans. R. Sot. London, Ser. A,
283 : 3-25.
Stone, D., Dales, G.R. and Schwerdtner, W.M., 1976. Strain analysis by means of undis-
rupted inclusions with unknown primary shapes. Geol. Miner. Assoc. Can., Progr.
Abstr., 1: 52.