Rock Mechanics Rock Mechanics

and Rock Engineering 21, 21--51 (1988) and Rock Engineering

9 by Springer-Verlag 1988

Characterizing Rock Joint Geometry

with J o i n t S y s t e m M o d e l s
By
W. S. Dershowitz 1 and H. H. Einstein 2

1 Golder Associates, Redmond, WA, U. S. A,

2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, U. S. A.

1. Introduction

Rock joint system models represent a relatively recent development in

the characterization of rock mass geometry. It is the intent of this paper to
describe currently available models on the basis of the models' geological,
geometric, and rock mechanics implications. In this manner the reader will
not only see innovative developments but will also be provided with a
review of many currently available geometric rock characterization tech-
niques.
Geometric and mechanical characterization of rock joints is the basis
for most of the work of engineering geologists, civil and mining engineers
when dealing with rock masses. Also, such a characterization plays an
important role in investigations of joint genesis. However, the complete
description of joints is difficult because of their three-dimensional nature
and their limited exposure in outcrops, borings or tunnels. An ideal charac-
terization of jointing would involve the specific description of each joint in
the rock mass, exactly defining its geometric and mechanical properties.
This is not possible for a number of reasons: 1) the visible parts of joints
are limited, for instance to joint traces only, and thus prevent complete
observation; 2) joints at a distance from the exposed rock surfaces cannot
be directly observed; 3) direct (visual or contact measurements) and
indirect (geophysical) observations have limited accuracies.
For these reasons joints in a rock mass are usually described as an
assemblage rather than individually. The assemblage has stochastic char-
acter in that joint characteristics vary in space. Such variations may be
minute as in the case of the orientation of a set of approximately parallel
joints or they may be large if a particular property has substantial vari-
ability. It is important to note that spatial variability can but does not have
to imply random underlying mechanisms; spatial variability may just as
22 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

well be the result of a number of simultaneous or sequential but very

specific mechanisms.
Two major approaches have emerged to describe the assemblage of
geometric 1 joint characteristics in a rock mass: the traditional disaggregate
characterization and the more recent aggregate characterization. In the
former, each joint characteristic is described separately, for instance through
orientation distributions (pole diagrams), spacing distributions and others.
In the latter the interdependence of joint characteristics is captured through
the formulation of joint system models. A particular joint system model
represents a typical geometry. The individual characteristics are still
stochastically described but their interdependence is specified; for
instance, in an orthogonal model the mean orientations of three joint sets
are at right angles to each other, but some variability of orientation about
these means exists. Given the availability of a rather substantial literature
on disaggregate characterization, only a short review will be given on this
area. The joint system models which represent the newest developments
and to which the authors and their co-workers at MIT have made
significant contributions will be presented in greater detail.

2. Definitions

For the purposes of this review a joint is defined as a separation of

intact rock with two of its dimensions several orders of magnitude greater
than the third dimension.
Joints can be geometrically described by the primary characteristics
listed in Table 1. In addition, the secondary characteristics, joint termi-
nation and autocorrelation which will be defined later, are also useful.
The terminology describing geologic discontinuities in general and
joints in particular is not uniquely established; thus, the definitions used
here may be different from those used by others (see e. g. ISRM, 1978).

3. Disaggregate Characterization

This is the traditional procedure developed by structural and

engineering geologists (e. g. C l o o s , 1936; S t i n i , 1925; T e r z a g h i , 1929;
M u e 11 e r, 1933), and involves the application of statistical procedures to
characterize joint orientation (S c h m i d t , 1932). Recent work, as will be
seen below has extended the application of statistical procedures to many
other characteristics. Disaggregate geometric characterization will now be
briefly reviewed by discussing each of the characteristics and the appro-
priate stochastic representation.

1 Similar approaches can be used to describe mechanical characteristics; they

are not discussed in this paper.
 Characterizing Rock Joint Geometry with Joint System Models 23

Table 1. Geometric Joint Characteristics

Parameter Description

Shape Shape of joint boundaries can be polygonal, circular, elliptical or

irregular
Joints can be planar or non-planar in space and shape should
consider this fact also. Since joints are often planar, it is simpler to
associate "shape" with the two-dimensional appearance and treat
non-planarity separately
Planarity Character of the joint surface as related to an ideal plane. Deviations
from planar surfaces can be on several scales :
Roughness Deviation from planarity < 1 mm
Waviness Deviation from planarity > 1 mm
Joint Size Extent ofjointing, generally expressed as trace length on two dimen-
sional surfaces such as outcrops or as the surface area of individual
joints
Persistence An expression relating joint size to a reference size either the sum of
trace lengths li relative to the length of a colinear scan line L: Sli or
L
the sum of individual joint surface areas a i to the surface of a
coplanar reference plane A:
Zai
A
Co-Planarity Co-planarity expresses the fact that a n u m b e r of joints can be located
in the same plane
Location The location of the joint surface in space; often only the relative joint
location expressed through spacing or intensity is of interest
Spacing Distance between intersection points produced by a line perpen-
dicular to the joint mean attitude and the joints of a set where a set
consists of joints that are parallel or subparallel to each other
Intensity Number of joints per unit area or volume, or total joint trace length
per unit area, or total joint area per unit volume
Attitude Orientation of the joint plane in space expressed by strike and dip, or
(orientation) dip direction and dip, or pole orientation with spherical coordinates

3.1 Primary Geometric Joint Characteristics

Joint Shape and Planarity (see Table 1)

Exact information on joint shape is scant since even three dimensional
exposures like protruding corners in surface outcrops or tunnels do not
provide complete information on joint shape, only careful excavation of a
joint does so. Generally, the blocky (prismatic) appearance of rock masses
suggests polygonal shapes. However, elliptical joints have been observed
( B a n k w i t z , 1966; K u l a n d e r et al., 1979; B a r t o n , 1983), also, circular
joints have been produced through hydraulic fracturing in the laboratory
( C l e a r y , 1984).
In most mathematical descriptions joint shapes are considered to be
invariable within a particular rock mass. V e n e z i a n o (1978), however,
introduced a model by which joints are formed through a system of
Poisson lines. The resulting polygonal shapes are therefore stochastic (see
Section 4).
24 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H: Einstein:

Deviations from planarity can be described and mathematically

expressed by appropriate surfaces such as splines, sinusoids and surfaces
of rotation. Stochastic representation of non-planarity on the roughness
scale has been discussed by R o b e r d s (1979) and S w a n (1981). Again
complete observation in three dimensions is difficult.

Joint Size
Joints usually occupy only a part of the joint surface (joint plane), a
fact that is represented by persistence (Table 1). Complete information on
joint size is difficult to obtain and one generally uses joint trace lengths
formed by the intersection of a joint with an outcrop surface as indicators
(or descriptors) of joint size.
Joint sizes and trace lengths can range from centimeters to many
thousand meters. Given the stochastic character of joint trace lengths, a
number of distributions have been proposed: Exponential (e.g.
Robertson, 1970; C a l l et al., 1976), lognormal (e.g. M a c M a h o n ,
1971; B r i d g e s , 1976; B a r t o n , 1978; E i n s t e i n et al., 1980), hyperbolic
( S e g a l l and P o l l a r d , 1983). The Gamma-1 distribution could also be
used (see D e r s h o w i t z , 1984), its advantage being that the exponential
distribution is a special case of it and the hyperbolic distribution can be
approximated with it. When proposing particular distributions, the just-
mentioned authors do also provide geologic evidence; actually in most
cases these authors collected data and then determined the best fitting
distribution. The wide variety of observed distributions is to some extent
caused by the fact that one observes surface traces and not actual joint
sizes, an issue which will be addressed in the next paragraph. Also,
different mechanical processes lead to different distributions, e. g. uniform
processes to exponential distributions, multiplicatory processes as they
occur in breakage to lognormal distributions and the continuity of the
process from smallest to largest sizes to hyperbolic distributions.
What one is actually more interested in, but cannot obtain, is the
distribution of joint sizes (rather than trace lengths). Exercises with circular
disk shaped joints ( B a e c h e r et al., 1977) have shown that both expo-
nential and lognormal radius distribution lead to lognormal trace length
distributions. W a r b u r t o n (1980 a and b) who developed methods t o
infer joint size distribution from trace length distributions for parallelo-
grams showed, for example, that lognormal trace length distributions lead
to lognormal size distributions for parallelograms with edges parallel to the
sampling surface. One should note, however, that if joint sizes were deter-
ministic and only rock joint location were stochastic the trace lengths still
would be stochastic.
To conclude this section, one can state that a variety of joint trace
distributions occur, that this variety may to some extent be caused by the
fact that one observes surface traces and not actual sizes, but that the
variety of underlying mechanical processes and therefore the geologic
materials and history are probably most responsible for the occurence of
 Characterizing Rock Joint Geometry with Joint System Models 25

different size distributions. A rigorous association of joint size distribution

with specific geologic processes and materials would be very valuable but
does not exist at present.

Joint Location and Spacing

Joint location can be described using the coordinates of joint center
points (or joint trace center points). Usually, however, the absolute location
is of less interest than the location relative to other joints, particularly those
within the same set. Spacing, the distance between two joints measured
along a line perpendicular to the joints (see e. g. ISRM, 1978) is then used
to describe location. Joint location can be a regular deterministic or
stochastic process. Examples for the former are grids with constant
distances (spacings) between joints (e. g. S n o w, 1965) or series (geometric,
exponential) of successively increasing spacings between joints. A prime
example of a stochastic process is the Poisson process in which joints are
located independently according to a uniform distribution (B a e c h e r et
al., 1978 ; Ve n e z i a n o 1978). The Markov process is another possibility;
in this case joint location depends on the location of the preceding one.
Both Poisson and Markov processes l~ad to exponential spacing distribu-
tions. Poisson process and exponential spacing distribution are supported
by extensive field observations ( S n o w , 1968; P r i e s t and H u d s o n ,
1976; C a 11 et al., 1976; Ei n s t e in et al., 1980). Other researchers e.g.
S t e f f e n et al. (1975) and B a r t o n (1978) support logarithmic spacing
distributions based on their observations. Similar to joint size, location
distributions have been developed from the observed physical evidence
which again shows a great variety.
As before, one can use the mechanical processes to support some of
these differences. A uniform stress field in which joints are independently
created corresponds to the Poisson process. Stress relief or temperature
related fields have stress gradients and may thus lead to a regular series of
spacings. On the other hand, if the interaction of jointing corresponds to
the multiplicatory process, lognormal distributions may result.
As was the case in the preceding section, one can only state at the
present time that these different distributions exist and that physical expla-
nations are possible. Why one distribution occurs in one case and another
one in another case requires more work.

Joint Orientation (Attitude)

Orientation (or attitude) of planar features 2 in space is described by
two angles with a wide variety of possibilities (see Table 1). Joint orienta-
tions are usually stochastic and probability distributions are used to
describe them. Not surprisingly, it is for this reason that statistical tech-
niques were introduced at an early stage to sample and evaluate joint

2 Orientation of non-planar joints is usually handled through approximation

by planar features (see B i 11i n g s, 1972).
26 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

orientation distributions (S c h m i d t , 1932). In the extreme case all joint

orientations in a particular mass could be described by a single
distribution. Usually, each set of joints is described with a particular
distribution about a mean value. Extensive studies on appropriate distribu-
tional forms (Uniform, F i s h e r (1953); (see also M a r d i a , 1972);
B i n g h a m (1964); F i s h e r - B i n g h a m ; Bivariate Normal) including the
development of a new distribution (Bivariate Fisher) have been conducted
by the MIT group ( D e r s h o w i t z , 1979; E i n s t e i n et al., 1980, and
others K o h l b e c k , 1985; G r o s s m a n , 1985a). The MIT work involved
comparison of field data from a variety of "geologies" and led to the
conclusion that in general, none of the currently used distributions provide
a statistically acceptable fit. The Fisher, Bivariate Fisher and Bingham
distributions each provided approximately an equal number of best fits.
Complicating this is the fact that clustering of joint poles is often necessary
as a first step and that existing clustering procedures are not entirely satis-
factory (D e r s h o w i t z, 1979). Analytical derivations show that bimodal
pole distributions can result from unimodal distributions of plane attitudes
(H e r d a e t al., in preparation).
A quick review of mechanistic causes for different orientations can be
used to explain some of the just described variety of distributional forms.
In a pure tension stress field one may expect axial symmetry about the
mean stress direction; tension gashes related to shearing (Ri e d e 1, 1929;
D e S i t t e r , 1956; W i l s o n , 1982) would reflect symmetry about a plane,
however. Contraction, stress relief and temperature related jointing very
much depend on isotropy or anisotropy of the process. As soon as a
number of mechanisms interact as in many folding or faulting related situ-
ations, joint genesis will be comparably complex. All this will be further
complicated by lithologic inhomogeneities and anisotropies.

Aperture
Aperture measurements have only recently become a part of joint
characterization, this mainly in the context of fluid flow through fractured
media. With regard to fluid flow, however, aperture per se may be an insuf-
ficient characterization in that roughness combined with aperture produces
channels. Some statistical studies on aperture have been conducted and
both lognormal (S n o w, 1965 ; G r o s s m a n, 1985 b) as well as exponential
distributions (B a r t o n, 1986) have been observed.

3.2 Secondary Geometric Joint Characteristics

Joint Termination
In observations, two main categories of joint termination can be
distinguished:joints that terminate at the intersection with other joints and
joints that terminate against intact rock. Direct observations by the MIT
group in the Porter Square Station Cavern and evaluations of Stripa obser-
 Characterizing Rock Joint Geometry with Joint System Models 27

vations have shown that 60 % of joints terminate at intersections. Similar

studies of over 25,000 joint terminations by Golder Associates (1986) show
42 % of joints terminating against other joints.
For joints terminating in intact rock Hodgson (1961) identified three
possibilities (termination without curving, termination with curving at the
end(s) and termination with bifurcation at the ends). Joint termination is
thus related to and can be expressed by the characteristics shape, planarity,
size and to some extent by location and orientation. As a disaggregate char-
acterization it is therefore often not needed. As will be seen later it is,
however, an important parameter in joint system models. Mechanically any
of the observed joint terminations can be explained. Curvature and bifur-
cation at the ends are often found in fracture propagation (B r a c e et al.,
1963 ; N e m a t N a s s e r et al., 1982). The existing joints can either shield
smaller joints from applied stresses or they stop fracture propagation
(J a e g e r and C o o k, 1979). On the other hand existing joints appropri-
ately oriented relative to the stress field may serve as fracture nuclei
( E i n s t e i n and H i r s c h f e l d , 1973).

Autocorrelation and Correlation

Any joint property whether geometric, mechanical or hydrological can
be correlated. As a matter of fact any of these properties can be correlated
as a function of distance between joints, i. e. they are autocorrelated. Auto-
correlation of rock mass properties such as bulk hydraulic conductivity,
strength and ore grade have been studied extensively by Kriging
( M a t h e r o n , 1975; A g t e r b e r g , /976) and a significant body of mathe-
matical tools have been developed for this purpose. Some autocorrelation
studies have also been conducted on jointing. M i l l e r (1979) and L a
P o i n t e (1980) found autocorrelation of joint orientation over distances of
20 m, while C a 11 et al. (1976) and E i n s t e i n e t al. (1980) studied orien-
tation and trace length but found no significant autocorrelation.
From a mechanistic point of view one may expect that many of the
joint characteristics are autocorrelated. For example, a large joint may
prevent the creation of another large joint next to it. Similarly, correlation
can exist between joint size and orientation if two joint sets are created by
different mechanisms. In spite of this mechanistic logic, the empirical
evidence, as mentioned before, does not unequivocally support the exis-
tence of autocorrelation and correlation.

3.3 Relevance of Obserued Distributions

On many occasions in the preceding sections comments were made

that the observed distribution may not be the actual distribution of the
particular feature in the rock mass. This is a well known problem not only
in rock mass characterization but in many cases where statistical character-
ization has to be applied. The causes range from the differences between
sample, sample population and underlying population to sampling biases.
28 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

By developing appropriate sampling plans and through the application to

bias corrections, it is usually possible to statistically characterize the
feature under consideration. A detailed review of these problems and
possible solutions is given in E i n s t e i n et al. (1980) and an extensive
summary is provided in E i n s t e i n and B a e c h e r (1983 b).

3.4 S u m m a r y - - Disaggregate Characterization

Joint geometry in a rock mass can be described and corresponding

mathematical expressions exist for exact or approximate representation.
The stochastic character of joints is widely recognized; and statistical
sampling and evaluation and probabilistic descriptions are in general use.
However, in many instances not enough empirical evidence can be
obtained from reality to confirm the particular characterization, and many
of the characteristics have thus a significant speculative component. In
addition, distributional forms and autocorrelation processes for most char-
acteristics have not been established in a definite way. What is also unsatis-
factory is the fact that a real rock mass on the one hand represents an entity
of several characteristics while, on the other hand, one separates these
characteristics when describing the rock mass in a disaggregate manner. To
provide an example: If a rock mass looks like an assembly of cubical
blocks, one would like to have a description which makes this geometry
readily apparent. The aggregate characterization of rock joint geometry
through joint system models is an attempt at more transparent descriptions.

4. Aggregate Characterization - - Joint System M o d e l s

Joint system models describe primary and secondary joint character-

istics as an entity. Since there are so many geometric joint characteristics
and thus a seemingly infinite number of combinations, one could produce
a corresponding number of joint system models. On the other hand, reality
shows a relatively limited number of predominant rock mass geometries.
The joint system models which will be described below can represent
many, although not all real joint geometries. In each model some charac-
teristics have specific relationships with each other, but can otherwise vary.
(For instance, joints are orthogonally oriented with exponential spacing
distribution.) By capturing the relationships of joint characteristics, joint
system models can represent rock mass geometry as an entity.
Table 2 summarizes the rock joint system models discussed in the
following. Each of the five models consists of a particular combination of
the rock joint system characteristics in Table 1. Joint planarity is specified
as planar for all joint system models, and any joint location and autocorre-
lation process is permissible within each model. Any component character-
istic specified as being stochastic may also be deterministic.
 C h a r a c t e r i z i n g R o c k J o i n t G e o m e t r y with J o i n t S y s t e m M o d e l s 29

Table 2. Joint System Models

Model Joint characteristics considered in model

Joint Joint Termination Co- Orientation

shape size at intersect, planarity of sets

1. Orthogonal Rectangle Bounded no -- Parallel

(Section 4.1) Unbounded yes yes Parallel
Unbounded no yes Parallel
2. Baecher Circle Bounded no no Stochastic
(Section 4.2) Ellipse
3. Veneziano Polygon Bounded in joint yes Stochastic
(Section 4.3) planes 8hly
4. Dershowitz Polygon Bounded yes yes Stochastic
(Section 4.4)
5. Mosaic Polygon Bounded yes yes Regular
Tessellation Stochastic
(Section 4.5)
Note:
For all models, joints are planar, and any location or autocorrelation process is possible. Joint
locations are usually stochastic. Bounding of joints implies that joints smaller than the region
under consideration can be represented. -- Joint sizes are usually stochastic either specified
directly or indirectly through stochastic location or orientation. -- The difference between
regular and stochastic tessellation will be explained in Section 4.5.

4.10rthogonal Model

Background and Definition

The earliest models developed for rock joint systems were based upon
the assumption that all joints can be defined by three sets of unbounded
orthogonal joints (Fig. 1). This model was characterized by I r m a y (1955),
C hi 1 d s (1957), S n o w (1965), and others for applications in hydrology.
Recent applications of the model have been reported by S c h w a r t z and
S m i t h (1980).

Fig. 1. Three dimensional orthogonal model

30 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

The distinguishing feature of the orthogonal joint system model is the

assumption that joints are contained in two or three mutually orthogonal
sets of parallel joints. Within this assumption, a variety of other assump-
tions can be made to increase the range of applications for which the
model is realistic.
The basic orthogonal joint system model as defined by S n o w (1965)
consists of orthogonal sets of parallel unbounded joints, with a constant
spacing between the joints within each set (Fig. 1). In a two dimensional
trace plane, this model is expressed as two orthogonal sets of
unbounded, parallel joint traces. This model can be described completely
by the spacing between joints in each set, measured on a normal to the
set, i. e.:

$1 = spacing between joints in set 1

$2 = spacing between joints in set 2
$3 = spacing between joints in set 3.

Within the orthogonal joint system model, the assumption of constant

spacing Sj can be relaxed, and replaced by any assumption for joint
location. The most common assumption is that joints in each set are
located by a Poisson process. In this case, the location of joints can still be
described by the distance between joints in each set, defined by spacing Sj,
with Sj now a random variable. For a Poisson process with intensity
parameter ~,, the spacing between joints is exponential:

f ( Sj) = Ae-XSJ [11

The mean and variance of spacing following a Poisson process are:

E [ S A = 1/;~
V[SA = 1/;~2 [21

If joint location is assumed to be a Markov process, instead of a

Poisson process, joint spacing Sj will also be distributed exponentially.
Orthogonal joint models may also be defined with bounded joints.
M u e 11 e r (1963) introduced a version of the orthogonal joint model for
rock mechanics applications in which joints are defined as coplanar on
joint planes. When joints are bounded, it is necessary to define joint
shapes, sizes, and termination processes. Joint terminations can be
assumed to be systematic at joint plane intersections, or independent of
joint plane intersections. When joints are assumed to terminate at joint
plane intersections, joint shapes are rectangular, and the size of joints is
defined by the spacing distribution between joint planes (Fig. 2 a).
When joints are assumed to terminate independently of joint plane
intersections, joints may theoretically have any shape. However, to
maintain the simplicity of the orthogonal model, joint shapes are usually
restricted to rectangles and squares of constant size (Fig. 2b).
 Characterizing Rock Joint Geometry with Joint System Models 31

j\
\/
%

\/
\

A. Joints Defined by Joint Plane B. Joints Defined without Respect to

Intersections Joint Plane Intersections

Fig. 2. Definition of Bounded Joints in Orthogonal Joint System Model

Applicability
The most fundamental assumption of the Orthogonal model is that it
consists of three mutually perpendicular sets of parallel joints. As a conse-
quence of this assumption, rock blocks are all rectangular prisms. Actual
rock jointing patterns involve substantial scatter in joint orientation, and
are usually not exactly represented by the Orthogonal model. However, the
Orthogonal model provides a reasonable approximation for many jointing
patterns ( W e i s s , 1972) in which most blocks can be approximated by
rectangular prisms.
By definition of the orthogonal joint system model, only very minor
variations in joint orientation are permissible. As a result, this model is
only appropriate where joint formation processes are sufficiently regular as
to produce subparallel jointing. Complicated mechanisms such as complex
folding, subsequent shearing, or superposition of other jointing patterns
could introduce sufficient dispersion so as to make the orthogonal joint
system model inappropriate. Also the orthogonal joint system model
assumes planar joints; since many mechanisms can produce non-planar
jointing, this requirement is another significant limitation of the model.

4.2 Baecher Disk Model

Background and Definition

This model was developed by B a e c h e r et al. (1978) and simulta-
neously by B a r t o n (1978). The model has been used in rock mechanics
applications by E i n s t e i n et al. (1980), W a r b u r t o n (1980a and b),
 32 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

L o n g (1983), and L o n g et al. (1985). Any combination of joint size,

location, and orientation assumptions is possible.
The fundamental feature of the Baecher model is the assumption of
circular or elliptical joint shapes (Fig. 3). The size of circular joints is
defined completely by a single parameter, the joint radius Rj. Joint radius
may be defined deterministically, as a constant for all joints, or stochasti-
cally by a distribution of radii f(Rs). Since joint radii distributions have not
been measured in situ, the selection of a distribution form is primarily a
matter of convenience. Appropriate distribution forms for joint radius
i n c l u d e the exponential and lognormal distributions, both of which
produce lognormal distributions of joint trace length.
The size of elliptical joints is defined by two parameters, the minimum
and maximum chord lengths, Cmaxand Cmin, for chords through the center
of the joint. The length of a chord C~ through the center of the joint
oriented at an angle from the maximum chord is,

Ca = {(1 + tan 2(a) ) / ( 1 / Cmax2 "-[-tan 2(a)/C min2)}0"5 [31

These parameters (Cmaxand Cmin)may also be defined by any distribu-
tional form, and may be either independent or correlated random variables.
Joint location may be defined by a regular (deterministic) pattern or a
stochastic process. The simplest stochastic assumption is a Poisson process,
in which joint centers are located by a uniform distribution in space. Joint
orientations may also be defined by any orientation distribution, or by a
constant orientation. As a result of the joint location, shape and size
process of the Baecher model, joints terminate in intact rock and intersect
each other as shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Baecher joint system model

 C h a r a c t e r i z i n g R o c k J o i n t G e o m e t r y with J o i n t S y s t e m M o d e l s 33

ii! "Li

A j -..------ A'

I ' if! ~!IJ

11
t mela~
~-o.s
I
I J 1i
, I

L (
llI'/~ J

i f
i
B
) B'
i
/ :. r I ! ,/i I: i~ T i
i

i, i o-
I I ~ ~=

' o! ,~.oI !
] f
,i t/
/
i,! o~
I
i
,J
I
I

~ - - FRACTURE- SHOWING DIP

.... -- ....... APPROXIMATE

< CONTiNUiTY
UNCERTAIN

~ ~_L APLITE DIKE

~LEFT L A T E R A L
--- STRIKE SEPARATION ( c m )
~ =J,-.~ NO STRIKE
O SEPARATION

Fig. 4. Joint trace map, Sierra Nevada, California (from S e g a 11 and P o I I a r d, 1983)
34 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

Applicability
The applicability of this model hinges on the existence of circular or
elliptical joint shapes. As discussed in Section 3 such shapes have been
observed and many documented cases exist and can be explained from a
fracture mechanics point of view. Direct observation of joint shapes (and
sizes for that matter) whether elliptical, circular or polygonal will always be
difficult because of the limited exposure. Indirect inferences can be drawn,
however. Disk shaped joints can only form blocks if they are large
compared to the region under consideration; for instance in Fig. 3 the disk
dimensions would have to be equal or greater than the cubic region. Thus
the often observed blocky appearance of rock masses implies either that
the joints are not disk shaped or, if they are disks, that they are (or were at
one time) greater than the visible part of the rock mass. In cases where
joints terminate in intact rock, disks of any size are possible. Fig. 4 from the
Sierra Nevada is an example of an outcrop in which almost all joint traces
are planar, and terminate to a point (rather than against another joint).
Such traces could be produced by elliptical or circular joints; the evidence
is, however, not sufficient to draw definite conclusions. Another restriction
is the fact that joints have to be planar which eliminates a number of joint
formation mechanisms which can result in non-planar jointing.

4.3 Veneziano Model

Background and Definition

This model was developed by V e n e z i a n o (1978). It has been applied
to slope stability problems by E i n s t e i n e t al. (1983 a), and to the hydrology
of jointed rock masses by R o u l e a u (1984). Both of these applications
utilized the Veneziano model in a two dimensional trace plane only, since the
geometry of the Veneziano model is quite complex in three dimensions.
The Veneziano model is based on Poisson plane and Poisson line
processes. P r i e s t and H u d s o n (1976) were the first researchers to
recognize the similarity between the geometry of rock joint systems observed
in the field and the geometries of Poisson planes and lines studied by mathe-
maticians in the field of "stochastic geometry". (Stochastic geometry,
pioneered by Blaschke at the University of Hamburg in the 1930's, is the study
of the statistical properties of intersecting curves and regions in n-dimen-
sional spaces.) The availability of analytical solutions from stochastic
geometry, especially those of M i 1e s (1971) and S a n t a 1o (1976) make the
Poisson line -- Poisson plane model convenient to use. P r i e s t and
H u d s o n represented joints as Poisson planes with a uniform distribution of
orientations. In a two dimensional trace plane, this model produces a system.
of joints represented by Poisson lines (Fig. 5) which corresponds well to
observed rock joint systems in a number of geologies. Priest and Hudson have
utilized their model for evaluation of the distribution of rock block sizes
(H u d s o n and P r i e s t, 1979), and for interpretation of borehole and scan-
line statistics ( P r i e s t and H u d s o n , 1981; H u d s o n and P r i e s t , 1983).
 Fig. 5. Poisson lines joint system model

(A.) 2-D Poisson

Line Process

(B.) Marking of
Polygonal Joints

[C.) 3-D Poisson

Plane Process

Fig. 6. Generation of Veneziano joint system model

36 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

However, the simple Poisson plane joint model is based on the assumption
of infinite extent of joints, which makes it unsuitable for modelling of
bounded joints. V e n e z i a n o (1978) introduced a method for adaptation
of the concept of Poisson plane joints to bounded joints. Fig. 6 illustrates
the generation of a Veneziano rock joint system model. The model requires
three consecutive stochastic processes. First, joint planes are generated as
Poisson planes. These joint planes are located in space by a uniform
distribution, but may have any desired distribution of orientation. Second,
a Poisson line process on each joint plane divides joint planes into poly-
gonal regions. Finally, a portion "PA" of these polygons is randomly
marked as jointed, while the remainder is defined as intact rock where
"PA" corresponds to persistence as defined in Table 1. With this model,
joint shapes are polygonal, and joint sizes are defined by the intensity of
the Poisson line process and the proportion of polygons marked as joints.
The use of joint planes as a first step in the generation of joints results in a
tendency toward coplanar jointing.
In a two dimensional trace plane, the Veneziano model resembles the
Baecher model, except that joints are represented by coplanar line
segments or fibers (Fig. 7) rather than independent fibers. In addition,
V e n e z i a n o (1978) demonstrated that his model leads to an exponential
distribution of joint trace lengths, which contrasts with the lognormal
distribution found with the Baecher model. As a matter of fact by selection
of extreme values of characteristics, the Veneziano model can be trans-
formed to the Priest and Hudson and orthogonal models, and approximate
the Baecher model (see D e r s h o w i t z, 1984).

l ,
Fig. 7. Two Dimensional Veneziano Model

With regard to joint termination, in the Veneziano model, joints in

each joint plane are defined by an independent Poisson line process.
Therefore, the definition of joints on each joint p l a n e is independent of
joint plane intersections.
 Characterizing Rock Joint G e o m e t r y with Joint System Models 37

Applicability
Polygonal shapes as defined by the Veneziano model can often be
observed in nature. As long as the polygons are rectangles (or squares) and
the orientation of joint sets is approximately constant and perpendicular
between sets the Orthogonal model is applicable. In the many cases where
other polygonal shapes and orientation distributions occur the Veneziano
model is more appropriate, particularly if the joints are coplanar (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Rock blocks, Butte Mountain Formation, California. Many coplanar joints but not
orthogonally oriented sets. The Veneziano model can represent such geometries.)

Rock blocks can be created with the Veneziano models if the joints are
100 % persistent and unbounded; in such a case joints will cross each other
and not terminate (like the pure Poisson model, Fig. 5). In the case of non-
persistent, bounded joints the Veneziano model can, but will usually not,
produce blocks. This is so because joints are defined by Poisson lines on
precedingly defined Poisson planes; intersections between joints on
different joint planes, therefore, do not often match joint edges.
38 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

4.4 Dershowitz Model

Background and Definition

D e r s h o w it z (1984) remedied the disadvantage of the Veneziano

model that joint intersections and joint edges do not coincide. Like the
Veneziano model, the Dershowitz model is based upon a system of Poisson
planes representing joint planes. Rather than requiring three separate
processes, however, the Dershowitz model is generated by two processes
(Fig. 9). The first process is the definition of joint planes by a Poisson
plane process of uniformly distributed locations, and by orientations
following a specified distribution. The intersections between these planes

[A.] 3-D Poisson

Plane Process

(B.) Poisson Line

Process Formed
by Intersections

(C.) Marking of ~~.~-~\

Polygonal Joints

Fig. 9. Generation of Dershowitz joint system model

 Characterizing Rock Joint Geometry with Joint System Models 39

define a process of lines on each joint plane, which divides each plane into
polygons. The second process is the marking of a persistent portion of
polygons on each plane as joints, and the remainder as intact rock. As in
the Veneziano model, this is done by a stochastic process in which each
potential joint has an equal probability of being marked as an open joint.
Thus joint edges are defined by joint plane intersections, and as a result all
joint intersections occur at joint edges. Also, joints correspond directly to
the faces of the polyhedra defined by joint planes. As a result, polyhedra
faces are either completely intact or completely jointed and rock blocks
can be modelled relatively easily.

Applicability
Since joint edges correspond to joint intersections in the Dershowitz
model, distinct rock blocks can be defined at any scale, regardless of the
proportion of each joint plane which is defined as jointed. Thus the

Fig. 10. Joint termination, Sidewinder Mountain, California

40 W.S.L Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

Dershowitz model has the advantages of the Orthogonal model for

definition of distinct rock blocks, but has the additional advantage of
flexible orientation distributions, such that a variety of polygonal joint
shapes and polyhedral block shapes can be modeled. As a result, the
Dershowitz model is a more accurate representation than any of the
preceding models for joint systems like that shown in Fig. 10 which exhibit
distinct rock blocks, bounded polygonal joints, and orientation dispersion.
The Dershowitz model may also be used for joint systems where distinct
rock blocks are not seen but where bounded joints occur. This requires the
following artifact: Sets of joints with zero persistence are defined such that
they do not contribute additional jointing to the joint system, but do
provide joint plane intersections. This is illustrated in two dimensions in
Fig. 11 for a single set of subparallel joints. A virtual joint set with zero
persistence is used to define the terminations of the single joint set with
fifty percent persistence. Without the virtual set, joints could not be
bounded, because the single joint set is sub-parallel, and joint

~- 4 /Subsequent joint
I L__ i~i------i I - - - J s e t , 50% open

i I

Impersistent (Closed) Joint Set to Create

Joint Terminations in Rock

Resulting Joint System with All Joint

Termination in Rock
Fig. 11. Use of joint planes with no open joints (impersistent joints) to define joint termination
in rock with the Dershowitz model
 Characterizing Rock Joint Geometry with Joint System Models 41

planes do not intersect within the scale of the problem. The virtual joint set
does not add additional jointing, but does add the required joint plane
intersections. This provides the Dershowitz model with the flexibility to
approximate the properties of the Veneziano model. Difficulties are caused
by the fact that polygon (block face) sizes are controlled by the intensity of
intersecting joint plane processes. As the intensity of the plane process
increases, the number of intersecting lines on each plane increases, and
therefore the size of polygons defined by the lines decreases. If joints are
defined as a constant percentage of each plane, the increase in plane
process intensity results in a larger number of smaller polygons.
As in the Veneziano model, joints in the Dershowitz model are
coplanar, and the model is not accurate for models with bounded, non
coplanar joints. However, by a reduction in the proportion of each joint
which is defined as jointed, the effect of coplanarity can be reduced, and
the Dershowitz model can be used as an approximation. As this proportion
is reduced, however, rock block formation and the proportion of joints
terminating at joint intersections is also reduced, such that the model will
then have the same strengths and weaknesses as the other non-coplanar
model, the Baecher model.

4.5 Mosaic Block Tessellation Models

Background and Definition

Mosaic tessellation is defined in two dimensions by A r a b a r c u m j a n
(1974) as a process of "random subdivision of the plane into non-over-
lapping convex polygons". This definition can be generalized to three
dimensions as any stochastic process of subdivision of space into non-over-
lapping convex regions, i. e., polyhedra. In the mosaic tessellation model,
the faces of these polyhedra define block joints, and the polyhedra are
blocks bounded by joints.
Although the classical definition of Mosaic Tessellation requires that
regions defined be convex, and that the process of division of space be
stochastic, the term mosaic tessellation will here be used more loosely for
any process of division of space into non-overlapping regions, whether the
process is stochastic or not. By this definition, Orthogonal, Veneziano, and
Dershowitz models can all be considered as special cases of Mosaic Tessel-
lation in which space is devided by a process of joint planes.
Space may also be divided into regions by regular or stochastic grids
of interlocking polyhedra where the polyhedra faces do not have to be on
joint planes. This form of tessellation is referred to as "Mosaic Block
Tessellation", since the tessellation is based upon the definition of blocks
containing the space rather than upon the definition of joints which inci-
dently divide space into blocks.
A variety of Mosaic (Block) Tessellations have been characterized in
the stochastic geometry literature. Figs. 12 and 13 illustrate a variety of
42 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

deterministic and stochastic tessellations in two and three dimensions,

respectively. In each of these models, the faces of rock blocks are used to
define joints. Mosaic tessellations may be either regular (deterministic) or
stochastic. In the former, all blocks and joints are identical, and are
repeated in a systematic pattern. In the latter, blocks are formed by a
specific stochastic process, and both joint and block shapes may vary
according to a distribution.

~x\ / "x\ / z~ I \ t \ ,
, / , /

-4---

--4- -k._

I
t ~ ...................... :'
Orthogonal Hexagonal Triangular

a) Regular (Deterministic) Tessellation

i j I~
j
/^
k / ,~ / J 17-. 3

/ ;'-. --7, \ ] .

Poisson Lines Regular Homogeneous Homogeneous Isotropic

Isotropic Process Process

b) Stochastic Tessellation

Fig. 12. T w o - d i m e n s i o n a l mosaic tessellations

Regular two dimensional mosaic tessellations include quadrilateral,

hexagonal, and triangular grids. These two-dimensional tessellations
represent sections through three-dimensional tessellations of rectangular
and orthogonal prisms and pyramids.
 Characterizing Rock Joint Geometry with Joint System Models 43

/R--/K

Orthogonal Hexagonal Triangular

a. Regular (Deterministic) Tessellations

Poisson Planes Polyhedra

b. Stochastic Tessellations
Fig. 13. Three-dimensionalmosaic tessellations

Stochastic tessellations are generally based upon a process of defining

block centers or vertices, the "seeds", with a specific process for definition
of blocks based upon those "seeds". Fig. 14 illustrates the variety of combi-
nations of stochastic and deterministic seed points and block processes
which can be used to define a stochastic tessellation in two dimensions.
When both the location of seed points and the growth rate from those
points are deterministic, a deterministic tessellation results. If either the
location of points or the growth rate from points is stochastic, the resulting
tessellation is also stochastic.
Two tessellations which are standard in both stochastic geometry and
crystallography are the Voronoi and Delaunay tessellations. The Voronoi
(1908) tessellation is defined by a Poisson process of joint centers, with a
constant growth rate from each center. The Delaunay tessellation is also
defined by a Poisson point process, but with the points representing block
vertices rather than block centers. All block faces are triangles, with edges
defined by line segments connecting adjacent points. Voronoi, Delaunay,
and other mosaic block tessellations are discussed in S a n t a 1o (1976) and
in S e r r a (1982). Creation of block centers or vertices through a Poisson
44 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

\ /
\ /
\ ' 9 I

A. Deterministic Points B. Stochastic Points

Deterministic Growth Deterministic Growth

J \ /

9 F--- 9

C. Deterministic Points D. Stochastic Points

Stochastic Growth Stochastic Growth

Fig. 14. Stochastic mosaic tessellations

process is, however, not always adequate. Points created by a Poisson

process can lie very close to each other. This would not be appropriate if a
columnar jointing pattern such as the one shown in Fig. 15 had to be
modelled. Stoyan et al. (1980) therefore, applied a so called Matern hard
core process (see Stoyan et al., 1987) to generate the vertices. This process
starts out with a Poisson point generation, it applies then a "thinning rule"
which essentially eliminates points within a given radius of their neighbors.
In rock joint system models based upon Mosaic Block Tessellation,
not all block faces need be defined as joints. Models can be constructed in
which a portion of the polyhedra faces from the mosaic block tessellation
are marked as jointed (persistent), while the remainder are considered as
intact rock. This corresponds to the concept of the Dershowitz model, since
joints are defined coincident with polyhedron faces. This increases the flex-
ibility of the mosaic block tessellation model, since the systematic,
completely connected system of block faces can thus be converted to a
stochastically connected system of rock joints. Correspondingly, the regu-
larity of the jointing system can be reduced directly by reduction in the
persistence of joints on block faces.
 C h a r a c t e r i z i n g Rock Joint G e o m e t r y with Joint System M o d e l s 45

~ 26 b :;.j

~A 46 A ~7 - \ 7 ~ ~r.o J. 2~ ,p:,-

:!,- I .~~ ~ - , "~;~ ; ~ J

i ; s2 J _"--4. -I" ~ I

;r- ~ ~, wV ~ ,, \, I ' 19 c ~oS sO I

72 17~ SO

5g
64

~" el s 14 =c . . . . ~.-~/////

so ~ 56
r 63

(~r SO 13
57
57
62

61
o4 12
c 56
55

74 ~a 11 2
e/ ~ NO X 54 . .
73

i \

Fig. 15. Columnar Jointing at Burg Stolpen, taken from Stoyan 1980, after Koch, 1974
46 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

Applicability
Mosaic Tessellation, and specifically Mosaic Block Tessellation, intro-
duces a class of rock joint system models which has not been utilized
before in rock mechanics. Mosaic Tessellation models feature polygonal
joints, with terminations at the edges of rock blocks, and systematic joint
intersections. These two features make mosaic tessellation similar to the
Dershowitz model. However, unlike the Dershowitz model, Mosaic Tessel-
lation offers the capability to model joints which are not coplanar. This
provides a new level of flexibility in joint system modeling.
Another interesting but somewhat problematic feature of Mosaic
Block Tessellation is the generation of rock blocks first, followed by rock
joints derived from the faces of the blocks. This feature is distinctly
different from the process used in models discussed previously. Since
joints are modeled only indirectly, joint sizes, shapes, locations, and orien-
tations are also modeled indirectly. It is, therefore, not possible to directly
use sampled distributions of joint characteristics to construct a particular
block tessellation model. Specification of distributions for these properties
must be done indirectly, as part of the definition of the process of block
formation. For example, in order to obtain a specific distribution of joint
shapes, an appropriate combination of processes for location of the seeds
and for block growth must be determined. Similarly, in order to obtain a
desired orientation distribution, the process of block seed location and
block growth must be controlled simultaneously.
Since jointing in Mosaic Block Tessellation models is defined by the
faces of a process of non-overlapping blocks completely containing the
rock mass, they are appropriate for joint systems which are actually the
result of a process of block formation in a rock mass. One example of such
a joint system is jointing in columnar basalts. However, columnar jointing
can in most cases only be modelled with Stoyan's (1980) approach and not
with Voronoi or Delauney tessellations.
The primary limitations on the application of Mosaic Block Tessel-
lation models are requirements for joint and block shapes. Mosaic Block
Tessellation model joints are the faces of polyhedral blocks, and as a result
must always be polygonal. Ample geological evidence has been presented
for polyhedral rock blocks and polygonal jointing. For cases which do not
display polyhedral blocks, and polygonal joints, Mosaic Block Tessellation
models may not be appropriate.
To our knowledge, only the Stoyans (1980) have applied mosaic Block
Tessellation to the characterization of rock mass geometry. The other
models have so far not been used.

4.6 S u m m a r y - - Joint System Models

Joint system models capture the fact that geometric rock mass prop-
erties are related to each other and that some relationships predominate.
Observations such as the blocky appearance of many rock masses or, in
 Characterizing Rock Joint Geometry with Joint System Models 47

other cases, the evidence of subparallel joints which terminate in intact

rock can be represented by joint system models. The stochastic nature of
the joint system models makes it possible to describe the natural spatial
variability in a rigorous manner. Although joint system models advance the
state of the art of geometric rock mass description, further development is
needed. Notably, autocorrelation and modelling of non-planar joints have
to be included. One has to also be aware of the fact that each characteristic
is individually sampled as it is done in the disaggregate characterization.
With regard to applicability it was shown that each of the models
corresponds to actually encountered rock mass geometries. What is of
interest to the user and possibly not satisfactory at present is the selection
of an appropriate model in a particular case. This has to be done subjec-
tively; it is not the direct result of field sampling procedures. Following the
selection it is possible and necessary to compare the statistics of the model
simulation with the sampled statistics and then update the model selection.
Each of the models discussed before, except for the Mosaic Block Tessel-
lation models have been practically applied in this manner.

5. Conclusions

Representing the joint geometry of rock masses can, at the present

time, not be done by specifically describing each joint within a particular
rock mass volume. Therefore rock joints are usually described as an assem-
blage with stochastic character, possibly even further simplified to regular
assemblages. The standard descriptive procedure to date is the so called
disaggregate characterization in which each of the major joint character-
istics, joint orientation, joint location or spacing, joint size or trace length
and aperture is represented by a typical distribution.
As shown in this paper another possible representation is through the
aggregate characterization in the form of joint system models. These
models build upon the same major geometric characteristics and field
sampling procedures as the disaggregate description. They go substantially
further, however, in that they capture the interdependence of a number of
characteristics and thus describe rock mass geometry as an entity which is a
more complete representation of reality.

Acknowledgements

The research in which this paper is based was supported by ARO

under Grant No. DAAG29-83-K-0016. Preceding work was supported by
the U.S. Bureau of Mines and NSF. The authors would also like to
acknowledge the work by their colleagues G. B. Baecher and D. Veneziano
which has been summarized in this paper. Also a number of former MIT
students have been involved in this work, notably, Dr. E. F. Glynn and Mr.
K. J. O'Reilly.
48 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

References
A g t e r b e r g, E. P. (1976): Geomathematics, Elsevier, New York.
A m b a r c u mj a n, R. V. (1974): Convex Polygons and Random Tessellations.
In: H a r d i n g , E. F., K e n d a l l , D. G. (eds.), Stochastic Geometry, Johan Wiley &
Sons, New York, 176--191.
B a e c h e r , G.B., L a n n e y , N.A. (1978): Trace Length Biases in Joint
Surveys. Proceedings of the 19th U. S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Vol. 1,
56--65.
B a e c h e r , G.B., L a n n e y , N.A., E i n s t e i n , H . H . (1977): Statistical
Description of Rock Properties and Sampling. Proceedings of the 18th U.S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, 5C1-8. . .

B a n k w i t z , P. (1966): Uber die Kltffte II. Geologie 15, 896--941.

B a r t o n, C. C. (1983): Systematic Jointing in the Cardium Sandstone along
the Bow River. Alberta, Canada, P h . D . Thesis, Yale.
B a r t o n, C. C. (1986): Personal Communication on Aperture Measurements
Performed at Yucca Mountain.
B a r t o n, C. M. (1978): Analysis of Joint Traces. Proceedings of the 19th U. S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, American Institute of Mining Engineers, 39--40.
B il 1in g s, M. (1972): Structural Geology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
B i n g h a m, C. (1964): Distribution on the Sphere and on the Projective Plane.
P h . D . Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven.
B r a c e , W. F., B o m b o l a k i s , E. Z. (1963): Crack Growth in Compression. J.
of Geophysical Research, Vol. 68.
B r i d g e s, M. C. (1976): Presentation of Fracture Data for Rock Mechanics.
Proceedings 2nd Australian-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
Brisbane, 144--148.
C a l l , R. D., S a v e l y , J., N i c h o l a s , D. E. (1976): Estimation of Joint Set
Characteristics from Surface Mapping Data. Proceedings 17th U. S. Symposium on
Rock Mechanics, 2B2-1--2B2-9.
C hi 1d s, E. C. (1957): The Anisotropic Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil. J. of
Soil Science 8 (no. 1), 42--47.
C 1e a r y , M. P. (1984): Internal Progress Report on Joint Industry Research,
MIT.
C 1o o s, H. (1936): Einf~hrung in die Geologie, Borntraeger, Berlin.
D e S i t t e r, L. U. (1956): Structural Geology, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
D e r s h o w i t z , W. S. (1979): A Probabilistic Model for the Deformability of
Jointed Rock Masses. M. S. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
D e r s h o w i t z , W. S. (1984): Rock Joint Systems. P h . D . Thesis, Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
E i n s t e i n , H . H . , B a e c h e r , G.B., V e n e z i a n o , D. et al. (1980): Risk
Analysis for Rock Slopes in Open Pit Mines -- Final Technical Report. Publication
No. R80-17, Order No. 669, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
E i n s t e i n , H. H., H i r s c h f e l d , R. C. (1973): Model Studies on Mechanisms
of Jointed Rock, ASCE Journal of the Geotech. Division, Vol. 99, SM3.
E i n s t e i n , H.H., V e n e z i a n o , D., B a e c h e r , G.B., O ' R e i l l y , K.J.
(1983a): The Effect of Discontinuity Persistence on Rock Slope Stability. Int. J.
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 20 (no. 5), 227--236.
 Characterizing Rock Joint Geometry with Joint System Models 49

E i n s t e i n , H.H., B a e c h e r , G.B. (1983b): Probabilistic and Statistical

Methods in Engineering Geology. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 16
(no. 1), 39--72.
F i s h e r , R.A. (1953): Dispersion on a Sphere. Proceedings, Roy. Soc. of
London, Series A, Vol. 217, 295--305.
Golder Assoc. (1986): Fracture Flow and Solute Transport Modeling. Project
Technical Report to Battelle-OCRD.
Grossman, N.F. (1985a): The Bivariate Normal Distribution on the
Tangent Plane at the Mean Attitude, Proc. Int. Syrup on Fundamentals of Rock
Joints, 71--75.
G r o s s m a n, N. F. (1985 b): Personal Communication on Aperture Measure-
ments Performed by LNEC.
H e r d a , H., E i n s t e i n , H. H. (in preparation): Pole Distribution of Strata
with Variously Inclined Dips.
H o d g s o n, R. A. (1961): Regional Study of Jointing in Comb Ridge-Navajo
Mountain Area, Arizona and Utah. Bulletin of the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists 45 (no. 1), 1--38.
H u d s o n , J.A., P r i e s t , S.D. (1979): Discontinuities and Rock Mass
Geometry. Int. J. of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 16 (no. 6), 339--362.
H u d s o n , J.A., P r i e s t , S.D. (/983): Discontinuity Frequency in Rock
Masses. Int. J. of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 20 (no. 2), 73--90.
International Society for Rock Mechanics, Commission on Standardization of
Laboratory and Field Tests (1978): Suggested Methods for the Quantitative
Description of Discontinuities in Rock Masses. Int. J. of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 15, 319--368.
I r m a y , S. (]955): Flow of Liquids Through Cracked Media. Bull. Water
Resources Council, Israel 5A (no. 1), 84.
J a e g e r, J. C., C o o k, N. G. W. (1979): Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics.
London, Chapman and Hall.
K o c h , R. A. (1974): Zur Frage der Quantitativen Klufterfassung von s~iulig
abgesondertem Eruptivgestein (Nepelinbasalt von Stolpen), Abhandlungen des
Staatlichen Museums fiir Mineralogie und Geologie (Dresden), V. 21, 1--37.
K o h l b e c k , F. (1985): Density Estimation in the Sphere Suitable for Appli-
cation to Rock Joints. Proc. Int. Syrup. on Fundamentals of Rock Joints, 71--75.
K u l a n d e r , B. R., B a r t o n , C. C., D e a n , S. L. (1979): The Application of
Fractography to Core and Outcrop Fracture Investigations, U. S. Dept. of Energy
Report METC/SP-79/3, Morgantown Energy Research Center, pp. 174.
L a P o i n t e , P.R. (1980): Analysis of the Spatial Variation in Rock Mass
Properties Through Geostatistics. Proceedings, 21st U.S. Symposium on Rock
Mechanics.
L o n g , J. C. S. (]983): Investigation of Equivalent Porous Medium Perme-
ability in Networks of Discontinuous Fractures. Ph. D. Dissertation, Earth Sciences
Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley.
L o n g , J. C. S. (1985): A Model for Steady Fluid Flow in Random Three-
Dimensional Networks of Disk Shaped Fractures. Water Resources Research 21
(no. 8), 1105--1115.
M a r d i a , K. V. (1972): Statistics of Directional Data. Academic Press, New
York.
M a t h e r o n , G. (1975): Random Sets and Integral Geometry. John W. Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York.
M c M a h o n , B. (1971): A Statistical Method for the Design of Rock
50 W.S. Dershowitz and H. H. Einstein:

Slopes. Proceedings 1st Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,

314--321.
M i 1e s, R. E. (1971): Poisson Flats in Euclidean Spaces, Pt. 11: Homogeneous
Poisson Flats and the Complementary Theorem. Advances in Applied Probability
3, 1--43.
M i l l e r , S.M. (1979): Determination of Spatial Variation in Fracture Set
Characteristics by Geostatistical Methods. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Arizona,
Tucson.
M ti 11e r, L. (1933): Untersuchungen fiber statistische Kluftmessung. Geologie
und Bauwesen 5, 185.
M i111e r, L. (1963): Der Felsbau, Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart.
Nemat-Nasser, S., H o r i i , H. (1982): Compression-Induced Nonplanar
Crack Extension with Application to Splitting, Exfoliation, and Rockburst, J.
Geophysical Research 87 (no. B8), 6805--6821.
P r i e s t , S. D., H u d s o n , J. (1976): Discontinuity Spacings in Rock. Int. J.
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 13, 135--148.
P r i e s t , S. D., H u d s o n , J. (1981): Estimation of Discontinuity Spacing and
Trace Length Using Scanline Surveys. Int. J. Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
18, 183--197.
R i e d e l , W. (1929): Zur Mechanik Geologischer Brucherscheinungen.
Centralblatt fiir Mineralogie, Geologie.
R o b e r d s , W. (1979): Numerical Modelling of Rock Joints. Sc. D. Thesis,
M. I. T.
R o b e r t s o n, A. (1970): The Interpretation of Geological Factors for Use in
Slope Stability. Proceedings, Symposium on the Theoretical Background to the
Planning of Open Pit Mines with Special Reference to Slope Stability, 55--71.
S a n t a 1o, L. A. (1976): Stochastic Geometry and Integral Calculus. Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts.
S c h mi d t W. (1932): Tektonik und Verformungslehre. Borntraeger, Berlin.
S c h w a r t z , F. W., S m i t h , L., C r o w e , A. S. (1983): A Stochastic Analysis of
Macroscopic Dispersion in Fractured Media. Water Resources Research 19, No. 5,
1253--1265.
S e g a l l , P., P o l l a r d , D. D, (1983): Joint Formation in Granitic Rock of the
Sierra Nevada. Geological Society of America Bulletin 94, 563--575.
S e r r a , J. (1982): Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology, Academic
Press, New York.
S n o w, D. T. (1965): A Parallel Plate Model of Fractured Permeable Media.
Ph. D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
S n o w , D.T. (1968): Anisotropic Permeability of Fractured Rocks. In:
R. J. M. D e Wi e s t (ed.), Hydrology and Flow Through Porous Media, Academic
Press, New York.
S t e f f e n , O. K. H., J e n n i n g s , J.E. (1975): Recent Developments in the
Interpretation of Data from Joint Surveys in Rock Masses. Proc. 6th Regional
Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering I1, 17--26.
S t i n i , J. (1925): Die Ausftihrung der Kluftmessung. Der Geologe, Nr. 38.
S t o y a n , D., K e n d a l l , W. S., M e c k e , J. (1987): Stochastic geometry and
its applications. Wiley: Chichester and N.Y.C.
S t o y a n , D., S t o y a n , H. (1980): Gedanken zur Entstehung der S~iulen-
formen bei Basalten. Zeitschrift fiir geologische Wissenschaften (Berlin), V. 12,
1529--1537.
 Characterizing Rock Joint Geometry with Joint System Models 51

S w a n, S. (1981): Tribology and Characterization of Rock Joints. Proc. 22nd

U. S. Symp. in Rock Mechanics, 402--407.
V e n e z i a n o, D. (1978): Probabilistic Model of Joints in Rock. Umpublished
manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
W a r b u r t o n , P. M. (1980a): A Stereological Interpretation of Joint Trace
Data. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 17,
pp. 181--190.
Warburton, P.M. (1980b): Stereological Interpretation of Joint Trace
Data: Influence of Joint Shape and Implications for Geological Surveys. Interna-
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 17, pp. 305--316.
W e i s s , L. E. (1972): The Minor Structures of Deformed Rocks. A Photo-
graphic Atlas. Springe>Verlag, New York.
W i l s o n , G. (1982): Introduction to Small-Scale Geological Structures,
George Allen and Unwin, Boston, 1982.