ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Characterizing block geometry in jointed rockmasses

Katherine S. Kalenchuk, Mark S. Diederichs, Steve McKinnon
Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Miller Hall, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6
Accepted 5 April 2006
Available online 12 June 2006

Abstract

The intersection of discontinuities in a jointed rockmass creates in situ blocks of variable three-dimensional (3D) geometry. The size
and shape of rock blocks in a rockmass assembly have a dominant influence on the engineering properties of a rockmass, and control, for
example the failure geometry of a rock face and the optimum associated support and surface restraint strategy. The distribution of block
volumes within a rockmass can be effectively analyzed and communicated using a cumulative volume distribution curve. Integrated with
this analysis, a methodology has been developed to characterize the shape and volumetric shape distribution of rock blocks in 3D models
of jointed rockmasses. The proposed Block Shape Characterization Method takes into account two factors: the first, a, describes the
shortening of the minor principal axis of the block while b describes the elongation of the major axis. When merged with the block
volume distribution, the Block Shape Characterization Method can effectively describe and classify both the size and shape distributions
of any jointed rockmass and is not limited to orthogonal blocks or hexahedra. This methodology can classify any polyhedra and has been
developed and calibrated based on synthetic joint data and simulated block assemblies. A demonstration is given of its effectiveness in
characterizing block geometries in the field using mapped fracture data.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rock block shape; Block size distribution

1. Introduction threshold) commonly used to analyze the distribution of

Characterizing the size and shape of individual blocks
within jointed rockmasses has valuable application in rock
engineering. It is often important to parameterize the size
distribution of blocks in a rockmass and to understand if
the material is composed of shapes such as platy slabs,
elongated bars or equidimensional blocks.
The block size distribution can significant influence the
permeability and stability of a rockmass, and is a factor in
the design of reinforcement. The size distribution of rock
blocks can be described by joint spacing, utilizing indices
such as Rock Quality Designation (RQD) [1] or Volu-
metric Joint Count [2]. These methods of quantifying the
rockmass quality can provide average block dimensions,
however they give no accurate block volume and no
indication of block shape characteristics. A technique
involving the cumulative volume of blocks (below a size
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 6135336504; fax: +1 6135336592.
E-mail address: mdiederi@geol.queensu.ca (M.S. Diederichs).
soil grain size is applied in this study to simulated
rockmasses creating distributions of in situ block volumes.
The shape of individual rock blocks has a significant
influence on the engineering properties of a rockmass, such
as ease of excavation or wave propagation [3], as well as
structurally controlled overbreak, stability of excavations
and slopes, and reinforcement design [4]. Goodman and
Shi [3] discuss the geometrical properties and number of
blocks produced by a given set of joint families, recogniz-
ing that in most physical and numerical studies joint blocks
are depicted as orthogonal. The number of joint sets
present in a rockmass and their orientation relative to each
other result in blocks shapes that may be approximated as
cubes, rhombohedreons, tetrahedrons, sheets, etc. How-
ever, blocks are in fact often variable and irregular in shape
due to variability within joint sets and the non-orthogonal
nature of jointing in many rockmasses [5].
Knowledge of block size and shape distribution in a
rockmass has many applications. For instance, consider the
release and migration of a waste rock block through the

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.04.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225 1213

ore in a cave mining operation. The geometry of the block
controls the mechanisms of instability leading to dilution.
The size and shape of a waste block may significantly
influence the migration of this dilution to a drawpoint.
Fig. 1 shows an example of dilution mode controlled by
block shape. The blocks below point A are elongated
vertically while the blocks below point B are platy. The
difference is due to a difference, from one side of a
geological contact to the other, in joint spacing on one of
several joint sets. Work is ongoing to understand the role
of block size and shape in controlling the wall dilution
mode and migration behavior of waste blocks within the
broken ore volume during muck draw in this setting. To
this end, this research paper describes the development of a
tool that characterizes block sizes and shapes within
rockmasses. The method is developed and calibrated using
three-dimensional (3D) simulations and tested on field
outcrops.
2. Model development
The joint models used in this study have been generated
using the discrete element modeling software 3 Dimen-
sional Distinct Element Code (3DEC) developed by Itasca
[6]. A jointed rockmass is simulated by generating a joint
pattern that is statistically based on joint spacing,
orientation and persistence. It should be noted that the
techniques used and methodology introduced in this study

Fig. 1. View of an open pit above a caving ore zone with a confluence of faults and a geological contact intersecting in the lower center of the image. Bench
height is 15 m. Lower image shows details of wall rock highlighting block shape differences between zone A (elongated) to the left of the intersection region
and zone B (platy) to the right.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1214 K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225

are not limited to 3DEC, and can be applied to any

numerical modeling code that is capable of providing the
volumes, surface areas (as per [7]) and vertex coordinates of
blocks within a jointed rockmass.
For the purposes of this study, joint spacings in artificial
rockmasses are assigned a negative exponential distribution
based on the discussion of Hudson and Priest [8]. Using a
random generator for a specified range of spacing, the
rejection method as described by Press et al. [9] has been
incorporated to ensure that these randomly generated
spacing values fall within the desired distribution. A data-
base of discontinuities is created by calculating and
assigning a spacing value to each individual joint within a
set.
For purposes of this initial study on artificial joint sets,
the assigned dip and dip direction values for each joint are
calculated from a specified normal distribution. The
analysis could also use other distributions such as Fisher
symmetric normal [10], bivariate [11], negative exponential,
Poisson, Gaussian or Weibull [12].
Persistence (joint continuity) is defined as the probability
that any joint cuts a block that lies in its path. For instance,
a persistence value of 0.5 indicates a 50% probability that a
given joint plane cuts any intersecting block. If several
blocks lay in the path of a joint, the probability of cutting is
assigned individually to each block. In this case, one joint
from each set was generated in a cycle to ensure no bias as
to cross cutting and terminations. If such bias is warranted,
as in the case of impersistently fractured limestone bedding,
then more continuous joint set(s) should be generated
before the less persistent sets to ensure the correct
superposition.

3. Block volume distribution

The model is used to generate synthetic blocks based on

Fig. 2. Simulated rockmass: (a) stochastically generated joint model
input data from measurements. Before describing the
(based on data from Table 1); (b) block volume distribution with D20, D40,
methodology for shape classification of the resultant etc., representing threshold block volumes with the subscript percentage of
blocks, a standard technique is needed to describe the the total volume composed of blocks smaller than the threshold.
volumetric distribution within a rockmass and the volu-
metric distribution of block shapes within a variable 3D
mass. Borrowing from soil analysis, the volume of blocks Table 1
(or grains) smaller than a given size threshold can be Joint parameters for simulated rockmass
expressed as a function of this threshold size [13]. The size Dip (1) Dip direction (1) Spacing (m) Persistence
range of interest can be expressed as a volume or as the
edge length of an equivalent cube [14]. Average Max Average Max Avg. Max.
As an illustrative example, consider the rockmass deviation deviation
shown in Fig. 2a. Table 1 summarizes the joint family 20 710 200 710 3.5 4.5 1.0
parameters, and Fig. 2b shows the block size distribution 80 710 130 710 3.5 4.5 1.0
and the division into volume ‘‘bins’’ for characterization. 75 710 55 710 3.5 4.5 1.0
For example, D20 corresponds to a block volume threshold
where 20% of the total volume of the rockmass is
composed of blocks smaller than the threshold. It should 4. Previous contributions to Block Shape Classification
be noted that only blocks internal to the joint model
(not intersected by a face) are considered when assessing While rockmass behavior is, in part, controlled by block
the size and shape distributions of jointed rockmasses in shape, very few studies have suggested standardized
this study. mathematical methodologies that characterize the shape
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225
of rock blocks for practical engineering purposes. Of these,
Franklin and Dusseault [15] describe quantitative aspect
ratio information using terminology such as cubic, slabby,
prismatic or columnar. For instance, a rock block with
aspect 1:5:7 would be slabby. Sen and Eissa [16] relate Jv,
RQD and block volumes for idealize block shapes such as
cubes, plates or bars. Smith [17] discusses the representa-
tion of block size and shape on a stereograph highlighting
the dihedral angle versus spacing for sequential joint pairs.
Palmström [18] suggested a division of block shapes based
on the ratio of short, medium and long edge lengths for an
orthogonal hexahedral block.
Rock block shape can also be described in terms of the
order of block shape, defined by the number of surfaces on
a block. For example, shapes such as tetrahedral,
pentahedral, hexahedral or heptahedral. This block order
can be used to asses the stability of an exposed rock face;
higher order blocks are generally less removable because
they are less likely to fully form and more likely to be stable
since non-parallel translation on shear surfaces and minor
non-convexities aid stability [3].
Wang [19] developed a 3D block shape index, l, to
describe the shape of ore fragments. This block shape index
is the ratio of block volume to the volume of a sphere
whose diameter equals the maximum block size:
6V
l¼ , (1)
pðl max Þ3
where V is the block volume, and lmax is the greatest
distance between two vertex points on the block. Wang
then classifies the shape of blocks into five categories
according to 3D shape index value: bar (o0.001), plate
(0.001–0.077), block (0.007–0.22), cube (0.22–0.37) and
sphere (0.37–1.0).
Palmström [20] introduced a shape factor b used to
determine the equivalent block volume in rockmasses with
few joint sets that do not form discrete blocks. There are
various equations that can be used to calculate this block
shape factor, such as
b ¼ 20 þ 7ðSmax =S min Þ,
b ¼ 20 þ ð21=nj ÞðS max =Smin Þ1þ0:1 logðSmax =Smin Þ ,
where Smax and Smin are the longest and shortest
dimensions of the block and nj is a rating for joint sets
(ranging from nj ¼ 1 for 1 set to nj ¼ 3 for 3 or more sets)
to characterize an equivalent block shape factor. The shape
factor values vary depending on which equation is used and
how many joint sets are present.
Shape characterization of soil particles is often defined
using the length of three orthogonal axes: long (L),
intermediate (I) and short (S). Various numerical combina-
tions of these axial lengths define several 2D indices for
describing shape. When a pair of indices are displayed
graphically, 2D data distributions will ideally group similar
shapes in data clusters [21]. Zingg [22] and Sneed and Folk
[23] have both developed well-known shape classification
1215
schemes. Zingg [22] introduced a Cartesian coordinate
system using S=I an I=L ratios. Sneed and Folk [23] use a
triangular diagram to plot a disk:rod index (DRI ¼ (L
1)/
(L
S)) and S=L. Palmstrom [18] also proposed a graphical
division of block shape domains. Fig. 3 presents a
summary of several previously proposed shape diagrams.
The Zingg diagram has four shape fields designated as
spherical, flat, elongated-flat and elongated (corresponding
to sphere, disc, blade and rod, respectively). Data displayed
on the Zingg diagram is generally not effectively distrib-
uted throughout the plottable space and is problematic for
many classification applications [21,23,24]. This ineffective
use of the entire grid and the use of a fourth and arbitrary
shape class (blade is not a unique end-member shape)
reflect the need for an alternative to the Cartesian
coordinate system as an effective means to represent shape
data. Triangular diagrams, as generated through different
parametric means by [23–25], appear to be a more
appropriate method for presentation of particle shape.
Particles plot on a continuum between equidimensional,
planar and elongated shapes that mark the corners of a
triangular diagram.
Despite the numerous methods proposed for shape
classification, no single method has been widely accepted.
All of these methods to classify rock block shape, with the
exception of Smith [17], rely on the assumption that a block
is approximately orthogonal, an assumption that is
acceptable in only a few rockmasses. Typical block shapes
are tetrahedral [26] or polyhedral [4]. The method proposed
(2)
(3)
Fig. 3. Examples of previous shape plots used in sedimentology for grain
size analysis: (a) after [23] and (b) modified after [21,22]. Note that the
‘‘Blade’’ definition used here is not a uniquely definable end member, An
example proposed for engineering geology is shown in (c) modified after
[18]. In all cases, the long (L), intermediate (I) and short (S) orthogonal
dimensions are used.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1216 K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225
by Smith [17] provides a good indication of rock block
shape with a description of size based on joint spacing;
however, this method relies heavily on manual stereonet
techniques and is difficult to automate. The proposed
Block Shape Characterization Method is appropriate for
determining in situ block shapes in 3D modeling applica-
tions, and can be applied to blocks of any shape, from
perfectly orthogonal to highly irregular. A triangular
diagram will be used as it is more appropriate to display
shape data with three end-member shapes.
5. The Block Shape Characterization Method
The Block Shape Characterization Method takes into
account the co-linearity of the longest vertex-to-vertex
distances, as well as a unit-less relationship between surface
area, average chord length (inter-vertex distance) and
volume. The application of this methodology to 3D
stochastic modeling is easy to automate.
5.1. Inter-vertex co-linearity
The first stage of the Block Shape Characterization
Method is to quantify the average angle between vectors
defined by the longest inter-vertex dimensions (chord
lengths) for a rock block (including consideration of all
edges, face diagonals and internal diagonals). Angular
relationships between the shortest of chords within a block
are not indicative of the block shape while long chords and
the angular relationships between them can be used to
determine whether the block is rod like (elongated). Once
all chord lengths are calculated, the median chord length is
determined and all orientation vectors with chord lengths
less than the median are disregarded. For the example
block in Fig. 4, the median unit chord length is 17.8 units.
The remaining chords are used to generate the factor

P 2
ða  bÞ2
b ¼ 10 P . (4)
jjajj2 jjbjj2
Fig. 4. Simple block shape used for sample calculations (unit dimensions).
The factor in Eq. (4) is related to a power function of the
average inter-vertex direction cosine (dot product divided
by product of vector lengths). The squaring of terms within
the summations results in a weighting in favor of longer
chord inter-relationships while the external squaring is a
scaling operation for graphical representation. The b value
for the example block in Fig. 4 is 7.3.
For elongated shapes, the longest vertex-to-vertex
coordinates are nearly parallel returning a maximum b
value of 10. In a blocky equidimensional object, the longest
inter-vertex contacts are distributed in three dimensions;
for a perfect cube, b is equal to 0.82. In a flat planar object
(i.e., a slab), the longest vertex-to-vertex contacts are co-
planar, returning a range of b values and therefore a
second function is needed to differentiate between ‘‘cubes’’
and ‘‘slabs’’.
5.2. Relating surface area and volume
Slabs have a higher surface area to volume ratio than
cubes. A relationship between the surface area and volume
of an arbitrary object has been defined as
As l avg
a¼ , (5)
7:7V
which is a dimensionless parameter that relates block
volume, V, surface area, As, and the average chord length,
lavg. A numerical factor of 7.7 is used to normalize a to a
value of 1 for a cube.
The a parameter reflects the flatness of an object. A
perfect cube has a ¼ 1, as the aspect ratio of an object
increases the a value can approach infinite bounds. It is
possible to achieve ao1;a values for equidimensional
polyhedra with more than 6 sides fall between 0.52 and
1. A perfect sphere yields a ¼ 0:52, as the average chord
length of a sphere is 4r/3 [27]. If the a value was normalized
for a sphere, the denominator constant would have to be 4.
For comparison, the normalizing denominator for a
tetrahedron would be 12O(3/2). However, in terms of rock
block shape, a sphere would be an extreme case, and for
engineering simplicity, the cube was selected as the limiting
shape for practical application. For the simple block
example in Fig. 4, a is equal to 5.
5.3. Block Shape Diagram
The b and a parameters are now combined on the Block
Shape Diagram in Fig. 5 to completely classify block
shape. The b value is used to distinguish the elongation of
an object, while the a parameter characterizes the flatness
of a block. Orthogonal block analogs are shown for
comparison although the diagram effectively classifies
shape of arbitrary blocks.
Note that the b-axis is truncated at a lower bound value
of 1, blocks with b values less than one are then plotted on
the lower axis of the diagram. For engineering applica-
tions, it is extremely rare to have polyhedral rock blocks
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225 1217

to extremely elongated and flat. The first two blocks are

Fig. 5. Block Shape Diagram showing zones that encompass basic shapes
and the simple sample block.
that are effectively spheroidal. The a-axis is truncated at a
minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 10. If a block
has an a value outside of these bounds it is plotted on the
boundary of the Block Shape Diagram as in the case of
very thin sheets (a410) and near-spherical blocks (ao1).
5.4. Formulating the Block Shape Diagram in a spreadsheet
In order to create the triangular plot of the Block Shape
Diagram in a spreadsheet environment, it is necessary to
map the b and a values into an x–y coordinate system. This
can be accomplished with some simple transform equations
as descried below. The center of the lower axis of the Block
Shape Diagram is positioned at the origin of the x–y
coordinate system (0,0). The base of the plot has a total
length of x and the central height of the plot is Z (e.g., in the
case of a unit equilateral triangle: x ¼ 1 and Z ¼ sin 601).
The bottom corners of the plot are at (
x/2,0) and (x/2,0)
while the top corner is at (0,Z). The y-coordinate for a
block with known b values, ranging from 1 to 10, is
calculated as
 
b
1
y¼ Z.
10
1
The x-coordinate is based on a such that log10a ranges
from 0 to 1 and is defined as
  
Z
y x
x¼ log10 a
. (7)
Z 2
very flat plotting in the platy portion of the diagram.
Blocks 3 and 4 are equidimensional. Number 3 illustrates a
cube where both b and a are equal to one, number 4 is less
extreme. Block 5 shows a transitional shape between block
and platy plotting near the bottom center of the diagram.
The b value increases for increasing elongation of block
shape. Block 6 shows a platy shape that is slightly
elongated in one dimension. Block 7 is an equidimensional
block that also shows a slight elongation. Block 8 is an
elongated shaped plotting in the upper right-hand portion
of the plot. Block 9 is extremely sharp elongated block
returning a very high b value. When a block becomes
extremely elongated, the a value has less impact on the
block shape characterization than shapes with lower b
values.
The blocks in Fig. 8 demonstrate that the number of
vertices and the orthogonal or non-orthogonal nature of a
rock block do not influence the validity of the Block Shape
Characterization Method. There is a wide variation in the
number of vertices between these blocks, and all of them
are irregular in shape reflecting the variable and irregular
nature of jointed rockmasses due to variation within sets
and the non-orthogonal nature of jointing.
5.6. Combining volume and shape distributions
The Block Shape Characterization Method is ideal for
determining the block shape distribution for a jointed
rockmass simulated in a 3D model. When the individual
blocks of an entire rockmass are plotted on the diagram
data point clusters indicate the dominant block shapes
within the jointed model.
(6)

5.5. Examples of Block Shape Diagram use

To illustrate where blocks of various shapes fall on the

Block Shape Diagram, individual blocks have been
arbitrarily chosen from the example rockmass (with the
exception of number 3, a perfect cube) in Fig. 2 and plotted Fig. 6. Block Shape Diagram showing individual rock blocks arbitrarily
in Fig. 6. These shapes range from blocky-equidimensional chosen from the example rockmass shown in Fig. 2.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1218 K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225

At this point in the analysis of rockmass geometry, it is

important to identify the block volume distribution in
order to properly assess the in situ block shape character-
istics. Large blocks are often shaped differently than the
smaller particles. The average joint set orientations depict
the general shape of larger blocks. The variance in
orientation between individual joints within the same set
form smaller particles that can have entirely different shape
characteristics, for instance at the intersection of joints
which are not perfectly parallel.
Fig. 7 illustrates the entire example rockmass from Fig. 2
plotted on the Block Shape Diagram. When all blocks are
plotted with no distinction between block volume, the
rockmass appears to have a wide distribution of block
shapes. Fig. 8 illustrates the same rockmass sorted into five
bins based on the block volume distribution. Each block
volume bin contains approximately 20% of the model
volume. The distribution of block volumes on a shape plot
(Fig. 8a) and the distribution of shapes within the volume
‘‘bins’’ (Fig. 8b) illustrate that the larger blocks in this
example are dominantly equidimensional, while the smal-
lest blocks range between all block shapes.
Differentiating between block size and shape can play an
important role in rock engineering, as smaller (gap-filling)
blocks are often of less concern since they generally fail
during blasting and excavation, or can be retained with
wire mesh or shotcrete [26]. Larger blocks control the
macroscopic stability behavior or, as in the caving example
in Fig. 1, pose the greatest challenges in waste flow control.
A histogram is used to illustrate the distribution of block Fig. 8. Same data as Fig. 7 with (a) shape categorization combined with
block volume and (b) corresponding shape distribution with block volume
shapes within each block volume bin, Fig. 8b. The percent ranges defined in Fig. 2b.
of total model volume within each shape category is plotted
for each bin of block volumes. The letter labels placed here
on the oD20 bin correspond to the respective shape Table 2
categories on the Block Shape Diagram. This histogram Joint set parameters for rockmasses generated to simulate distinct block
shapes
representation of block shape distribution by volume
shows the variation of block shapes ranging from small Joint set Dip (1) Dip direction Mean Max. spacing
to large block sizes. The smallest blocks are distributed (1) spacing (m) (m)

1 80 170 0.4, 0.1, 1.0 0.4, 0.2, 1.6

2 10 170 0.4, 4.2, 1.0 0.4, 4.7, 1.6
3 80 80 4.0, 4.2, 1.0 4.5, 4.7, 1.6

The triplets of values for spacing refer to the examples in Figs. 9, 10 and 11
respectively.

between all shapes, dominated by elongated-blocky. As

block volume increases, the cumulative volume of platy
and elongated blocks within this rockmass decrease and the
dominant shape shifts from blocky and slightly elongated
to blocky and equidimensional.

5.7. Comparison of shape-dominated rockmasses

In order to further illustrate the functionality of the

Block Shape Characterization Method, three ideal rock-
Fig. 7. Example of block shape characterization for stochastically masses with approximately orthogonal joint sets have been
generated rockmass shown in Fig. 2. generated. These simulated rockmasses all contain joints
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225
sets of the same orientations, varying only the spacing
parameters in order to simulate jointed rockmasses
dominated by elongated, slabby and equidimensional block
shapes. The orientation and spacing parameters are
summarized in Table 2. Once again it should be noted
that no rock blocks touching the outer boundaries of any
model are incorporated in the size and shape characteriza-
Fig. 9. Illustration of a simulated rockmass dominated by elongated bar-
shaped rock blocks. The upper portion of the Block Shape Diagram is
densely clustered with data points. The histogram of block shape distribution
within each block volume bin indicates that smaller blocks occur in all shape
types, while larger blocks are completely dominated by elongated shapes.
1219
tion of that rockmass. This is to ensure that distribution of
block geometry for blocks defined by discrete joints is not
skewed by the outer blocks truncated by the model bounds.
Fig. 9 illustrates a rockmass model dominated by
elongated block shapes. The histogram indicates that as
volume increases, there is less variance in block shape. If
the spacing of joint set 3 was increased relative to the
Fig. 10. Illustration of a simulated platy rockmass. While most blocks
cluster in the lower left-hand portion of the Block Shape Diagram, there is
a slight trend towards elongated shapes, these blocks are generated due to
variances in dip and dip direction of individual joints, these blocks fall
primarily in the smallest block volume bin.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1220 K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225
spacing of joint sets 1 and 2, the aspect ratio of the rock
blocks would increase forcing the larger blocks even closer
to the upper corner of the Block Shape Diagram.
The rockmass illustrated in Fig. 10 is dominated by platy
shapes with some blocks trending towards more elongated
shapes. The elongated blocks are generally smaller than the
platy blocks due to the intersection of non-parallel joints.
Increasing the spacing of joint sets 2 and 3 relative to joint
set 1, the aspect ratio of the blocks would increase in the
Fig. 11. Illustration of a simulated rockmass with three orthogonal joint
families equally spaced. The lower right cluster of data points indicates
that this rockmass is primarily composed of approximately equidimen-
sional blocks. Due to variances in joint spacing and orientation, some
elongated and platy blocks are also generated.
plane of the joint orientation, and the larger blocks would
cluster closer to the lower right-hand portion of the Block
Shape Diagram.
Fig. 11 shows a rockmass with three equally spaced joint
sets. The smallest blocks range between all shapes and the
larger blocks are primarily equidimensional-blocky. This
variation in shape between different block volumes once
again illustrates the influence that variability in joint
orientation has on rock block geometry.
Fig. 12. Simulated rockmass with persistence values equal to 1.0 for two
joint sets and 0.5 for the third set. This variation in joint spacing changes
the block shape distribution of the rockmass to be elongated in the
direction normal to the impersistent joint family.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225 1221

6. Influence of persistence on block shape and volume
The persistence of joints strongly influences the size and
shape of in situ rock blocks, as well as the likelihood of
discrete blocks even forming [28]. To illustrate the
application of the Block Shape Characterization Method,
a brief case study compares the influence of joint
persistence on block volume and shape distributions. Using
the same joint orientation and spacing data as the example
model illustrated in Fig. 2, Fig. 12 shows the size and shape
distributions for persistence values that are not equivalent
for all joint sets. Two of the joint sets have persistence
values of 1.0 while the third has a persistence equal to 0.5.
For this model, the D40 and D60 volumes increase slightly
and the block shapes become more elongated (compare
Fig. 12 to Fig. 8). This change in block geometry reflects
the impact that joint persistence has on the aspect ratio of
the resulting rock blocks. As a joint set becomes less
persistent, the aspect ratio of rock blocks increases in the
direction normal to that joint set orientation, the block
volumes also increase accordingly.
on its accessibility and the quality of joint exposure. A total
of 114 joints were mapped at Site 1, then statistically
analyzed using DIPS [29] and a symmetrically normal
distribution about the mean pole orientation [10]. Fig. 13
shows a stereographic projection of the sampled data, the
mean joint set planes and the distribution envelopes used
for stochastic modeling. Table 3 summarizes the joint
orientation and spacing data for Site 1.
For the 3DEC simulation of the rockmass joint
orientation, data were assigned a normal distribution with
maximum deviation truncated at a variability limit of
68.28%. Unlike the artificial rockmass described earlier,
the joint spacing data for Site 1 was not negative
exponentially distributed. In this case, the joint spacing
data are better fit to a normal distribution. This distribu-
tion for joint spacing was also used by Sen and Eissa [16].
The best-fit normal distribution was truncated at the
recorded minimum and maximum values as in Fig. 14. All
joints have been assigned a persistence value of 1.0 for this
study as most joint traces mapped were continuous over
the mapping surface.

7. Field data analysis

In order to test the credibility of the Block Shape Table 3

Characterization Method, field data were collected and Joint orientation data for Site 1
statistically analyzed. 3DEC was used to simulate the Set Dip (1) Dip direction (1) Variability (1) Average spacing (m)
outcrop, and output data from the joint model were
assessed for block size and shape distributions. 1 90 212 16 0.23
Joint data was mapped from two locations on a road cut 2 82 318 9 0.17
3 80 086 7 0.44
through a quartzite rockmass located approximately 45 km 4 6 260 10 0.27
east of Kingston, Ontario. This location was chosen based

Fig. 13. Stereographic projection of joint sets identified at Site 1.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1222 K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225

The cumulative volume distribution was defined using 8. Conclusion

the 3DEC output, which was also used to calculate the b
and a values. Fig. 15 illustrates the resulting block size and Understanding the block shape characteristics of a
shape distributions. The Block Shape Characterization rockmass has important application in the field of rock
results indicate that most of the larger blocks in the engineering. The Block Shape Characterization Method is
mapped rockmass were blocky, ranging from equidimen- a useful tool in identifying the shape characteristics of
sional to slightly elongated. These results correspond very individual blocks as well as the shape distribution of an
well to a visual inspection of the rockmass, Fig. 16a. entire rockmass. Two parameters have been derived; the
The joint families of a second rock face were also first, a, describes the shortening of the minor (short)
mapped; Table 4 summarizes the joint orientation and principal axis of the block while b describes the elongation
spacing parameters. Site 2 was mapped in less detail to test of the major (long) axis. When combined with the block
the system application using more crudely estimated volume distribution on the Block Shape Diagram, any
parameters. The orientation and spacing parameters were
assigned normal distributions between the upper and lower
bounds of the recorded data ranges. Visual inspection of
the second site indicated that rock blocks at Site 2 were
generally larger than those at Site 1 and also fairly
equidimensional, Fig. 16b. The resulting block size
distribution and Block Shape Characterization for Site 2
confirmed these visual observations, Fig. 17.

Fig. 15. Block Shape Diagram for Site 1. The size and shape distributions
Fig. 14. Truncated normal distributions of joint set spacing for Site 1. of Site 1 are confirmed by visual observation, Fig. 16.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225 1223

Fig. 16. (a) Upper image pair shows site 1 of test case. (b) Lower image shows rock face detail in Site 2.

Table 4 individual block or entire rockmass can be assigned block

Joint orientation data for Site 2 shape characteristics.
The Block Shape Characterization Method has been
Set Dip (1) Dip direction (1) Average spacing (m)
formulated and calibrated with artificial joint data.
1 0–10 0–360 0.570.35 Simulated rockmasses of elongated, platy and blocky
2 80–90 145–160 0.570.10 shapes illustrate the functionality of the Block Shape
3 79–88 219–236 0.670.20
Characterization Method. Analysis of field data demon-
4 83–85 61–76 1.070.25
strated the application and validity of the Block Shape
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1224 K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225
Fig. 17. Block Shape Diagram for Site 2. The rockmass for Site 2 has
larger than Site 1 and also dominated by equidimensional block shapes.
These results are confirmed by visual observation, Fig. 16.
Characterization Method by comparison with visual
inspection. The validity of this approach in quantifying
the variation in joint orientation and spacing is not directly
associated with the choice of statistical distribution for
joint set parameters. Different distributions can be used
where the measured variability of the jointing character
dictates. The analysis of various joint persistence values
demonstrated one of the many challenges in correctly
simulating jointed rockmasses.
The application and usefulness of this methodology is
wide spread in the field rock engineering. The Block Shape
Characterization Method is accurate and simple, facilitat-
ing easy automation. These aspects of the methodology
make it ideal for practical rock engineering applications
where alternative shape classification methods may lack
precision and simplicity. Future research will involve
consideration of genetic sequence for joint set develop-
ment, related to the geological history, and the effect on the
resultant block shape distribution. The associated controls
on pit wall failure mode and practical support design will
be studied as well as the shape effects on dilution and waste
rock mobility within broken ore volumes in a block-caving
environment. Further applications could also include
anisotropic rockmass modulus, hydraulic flow or fluid
absorption properties (as in [30], for example) or strength
determination.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Marlène Villenueve and Rob Harrap
for their input and feedback throughout this study, and
their criticisms and revisions during the writing of this
paper. This work has been conducted with the financial
support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC), the Provincial Research
Excellence Award Program (PREA) and the Ontario
Graduate Scholarship Program. Thanks also to BHP
Ltd. for support in the ongoing study of block shape and
caving mechanics.
References
[1] Deere DU. Technical description of rock cores for engineering
purposes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1964;1:17–22.
[2] Palmström A. Characterizing the degree of jointing and rock mass
quality. Internal Report, Ing. A.B. Berdal, Mariesvei 20, 1322 Hovik,
Oslo, 1975. p. 1–26.
[3] Goodman R, Shi G. Block theory and its application to rock
engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1985.
[4] Windsor CR. Rock reinforcement systems. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1997;34:919–51.
[5] International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM). Commission on
standardization of laboratory and field tests: suggested methods for
the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1978;15:319–68.
[6] Itasca. 3DEC: 3 Dimensional Distinct Element Code. Modeling
software, version 3.0. Itasca Consulting Group; 2003.
[7] O’Rourke J. Computational geometry in C. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 1994.
[8] Hudson JA, Priest SD. Discontinuities and rock mass geometry. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1979;16:339–62.
[9] Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT. Numerical
recipes in C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.
[10] Fisher R. Dispersion on a sphere. Proc R Soc London A
1953;A217:295–305.
[11] Marcotte D, Henry E. Automatic joint set clustering using a mixture
of bivariate normal distributions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2001;39:323–34.
[12] Weibull W. A statistical distribution function of wide applicability.
J Appl Mech 1951;18:293–7.
[13] Das B. Fundamentals of geotechnical engineering. Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning; 2000.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.S. Kalenchuk et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 1212–1225
[14] Peaker SM. Development of a simple Block Size Distribution Model
for the classification of rock masses. MSc thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1990.
[15] Franklin JA, Dusseault MB. Rock engineering. New York: McGraw-
Hill; 1989.
[16] Sen Z, Eissa E. Rock quality charts for log-normally distributed
block sizes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1992;29:1–12.
[17] Smith JV. Determining the size and shape of blocks from linear
sampling for geotechnical rock mass classification and assessment.
J Struct Geol 2004;26:1317–39.
[18] Palmström AA. Measurement and characterization of rock mass
jointing. In: Sharma VM, Saxena KR, editors. In-situ characteriza-
tion of rocks. Rotterdam: Balkema; 2001. p. 49–97.
[19] Wang L, Yamashita F, Sugimoto F, Tan G. A methodology for
predicting the in situ size and shape distribution for rock blocks.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 2003;36:121–41.
[20] Palmström A. Rmi—a rock mass characterization system for rock
engineering purposes. PhD thesis, Oslo University, Oslo, 1995.
[21] Oakey RJ, Green M, Carling PA, Lee MWE, Sear DA, Warburton J.
Grain shape analysis—a new method for determining representative
particle shapes for populations of natural grains. J Sediment Res
2005;75:1065–73.
1225
[22] Zingg T. Beitrag zur Schotteranalyse. Schweiz Mineral Petrol Mitt
1935;15:39–140.
[23] Sneed ED, Folk RL. Pebbles in the lower Colorado River, Texas, A
study of particle morphogenesis. J Geol 1958;66:114–50.
[24] Hofmann HJ. Grain-shape indices and isometric graphs. J Sediment
Res 1994;A64:916–20.
[25] Graham DJ, Midgley NG. Graphical representation of particle shape
using triangular diagrams: an Excel sreadsheet method. Earth Surf
Proc Landforms 2000;25:1473–7.
[26] Grenon M, Hadjigeorgiou J. Drift reinforcement design based on
discontinuity network modeling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2003;40:833–45.
[27] Jokisch DW, Patton OW, Pajon DA, Inglis BA, Bolch WE. Chord
distributions across 3D digital images of a human thoracic vertebra.
Med Phys 2001;28:1493–504.
[28] Grenon M, Hadjigeorgiou J. Open stope stability using 3D joint
networks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2003;36:183–208.
[29] Rocscience. DIPS: geographical & statistical analysis of orientation
data. Geotechnical analysis software, version 5.1. Rocscience; 2004.
[30] Zimmerman RW, Bodvarsson GS. Effective block size for imbibition
or absorption in dual-porosity media. Geophys Res Lett 1995;22:
1461–4.