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

net/publication/254542368

Proportional error of the Terzaghi correction factors

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS
2 1,336

2 authors:

Xiaohai Wang Matthew Mauldon

CH2M Hill Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
5 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   808 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Tennessee Rockfall Program View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiaohai Wang on 14 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ARMA/USRMS 06-1055

Proportional errors of the Terzaghi correction factor

Wang, Xiaohai
CDM, Suite 600W, 7611 Little River Turnpike, Annandale, VA 22003
Mauldon, Matthew
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0105

Copyright 2006, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at Golden Rocks 2006, The 41st U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS): "50 Years of Rock Mechanics - Landmarks and Future
Challenges.", held in Golden, Colorado, June 17-21, 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by a USRMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/USRMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of USRMS,
ARMA, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where
and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Rock fracture data is usually collected along scanlines or on rock slope surfaces, which are also regarded as linear
or planar samplings of fractures. Ruth Terzaghi (1965) pointed out that linear and planar samplings of fractures have directional
bias; and proposed a correction factor to correct it. In practice, however, using this correction factor may be difficult, especially
when the sampling domain (linear or planar) is or close to be parallel to the existing fractures, in which cases the term blind zone is
applied. In this paper the authors derive the proportional error of the Terzaghi correction factors due to the inaccuracy of angular
measurement and show mathematically and graphically the limits when applying the correction factors for linear and planar
samplings. In addition, the proportional error of the correction factor for cylindrical sampling (tunnel, shaft or borehole sampling)
of fractures is also derived. It is found that application of the correction factor in the case of cylindrical sampling produces much
less error regarding to the angular measurement inaccuracy, which may imply a broader application of the factor.

1. INTRODUCTION λ1′
λ1 = . (1)
Geologists and engineers have proposed many cosα
means to characterize rock fractures [1, 2, 3, 4].
Among these techniques, scanlines deployed on
rock mass exposures, borehole, and sampling
planes are the most widely used and have
produced a great amount of fracture data. Fracture set α
As R. Terzaghi [5] pointed out, the orientations of L
sampling lines, boreholes or planes usually lack
sufficient variety when estimating fractures. For n
instance, Fig. 1 shows a drill hole, as a linear
sampling line at angle α with the normal n to a set
of fractures. If λ1 is the fracture frequency Fig. 1 A drill hole has angle α with the normal to a fracture
measured along fracture normal and λ1′ is the set.
measured frequency along the drill hole, then the
bias caused by the sampling orientation can be The sampling bias in the preceding example is
corrected by [5] removed by multiplying the field-measured
frequency λ1′ by a correction factor η given by

1
 λ η2 =
1
= csc β .
η= (2) (5)
λ′ sin β
Terzaghi also pointed out that there will be no
For linear sampling, we have the particular case of intersections between the fracture set and the
η = η1, where sampling line or plane when the sampling domain
is parallel to the fracture set. The term blind zone
1 is applied to the orientations of the poles of
η1 = = secα (3) fractures in this situation [4, 6]. In practice, the
cosα blind zone limits the application of Terzaghi factor
[4, 6, 7, 8].
In the case of planar sampling, such as a natural or
excavated rock slope, fractures are sampled by a In this paper, the authors discuss the proportional
plane, which is fixed in orientation, therefore, error for the Terzaghi correction factor and derive
subject to orientation bias [5]. Correction factor the proportional error for cases of linear, planar
can be defined for this case. and cylindrical samplings of fractures.
Let β denote the angle between the sampling plane
normal F and the normal to a set of fractures n 2. PROPORTIONAL ERROR OF THE
(Fig. 2). CORRECTION FACTOR

n In general, proportional error quantifies the error

in output induced by the error in the input. For a
function y = f(x1, x2, …), the proportional error of
β
F the function caused by uncertainty of xi is defined
as [9]:

∂y ∂y dxi
= (6)
y ∂xi y
In the next three sections, we drive the
Beddings Rock slope face proportional error of the Terzaghi factors for
or fractures linear, planar and cylindrical sampling of fractures,
respectively.

Fig. 2 A rock slope (normal F) samples a set of fractures

(normal n). 2.1. Proportional error of Terzaghi correction
factor for linear sampling of fractures
Let λ2 denote the measured fracture frequency on For linear sampling of fractures, the proportional
the plane perpendicular to the fracture set and let error of η (Eq. (3)) can be written as
λ2′ denote the measured fracture frequency on the
rock slope (sampling plane). Then the bias caused dη1 dη1 dα
by the orientation of the sampling plane can be =
corrected as η1 dα η1
sin α
λ′ = cos αdα = tan α dα
λ2 = 2 . (4) cos 2 α
sin β
The correction factor η is given by η = η2, where (0 ≤ α ≤ π/2) (7)

The proportional error of the correction factor

increases significantly when α approaches π/2.

2
 Planar sampling Linear sampling
Proportional Error of Terzaghi 100%
90%
80%
Correction Factor

70%
60%
dβ = 10° dα = 10°
50%
40%
dβ = 5° dα = 5°
30%
dβ = 2° dα = 2°
20%
dβ = 1° dα = 1°
10%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Relative Orientation of Fracture(s) and Sampling Domain

Fig. 3 Proportional error of the Terzaghi correction factor for linear and planar samplings. The x-axis is the relative orientation of
fracture(s) and sampling domain (i.e., angle α between the sampling line and fracture normal for linear sampling, or angle β
between sampling plane normal and fracture normal for planar sampling).

Fig. 3 shows this proportional error vs. α (from 0

to 90°), assuming that the random error in α
measurement is 1°, 2°, 5°, and 10°. It can be seen
that the proportional error increases dramatically
when α is approaching 90°. In Fig. 3, the
proportional error increases from 10% to 100% at
dα = 1° when α increase from 80± to 89±.
2.2. Proportional error of Terzaghi correction
factor for planar sampling of fractures
For planar sampling of fractures, the proportional
error of η (Eq. (5)) can be written as

Since the blind zone limits the use of correction

factor, some research work has been done [4, 6] dη 2 dη 2 dβ
=
trying to control the effect of blind zone. An η2 dβ η 2
estimate range of blind zone has been
recommended. Yow [6] suggests that if the cos β
random error in discontinuity orientation = sin βdβ
measurements is expected to be ±1°, and a sin 2 β
maximum error of 20% in weighting factor is
allowable, then the resulting blind zone for the = tan −1 β dβ
data source is about ±10°. Priest [4] suggests to
(0 ≤ β ≤ π/2) (8)
use a maximum allowable weighting of 10,
corresponding to α = 84.3°, to avoid sampling in The proportional error of the correction factor
blind zone. These suggestions agree with the result increases significantly when β approaches 0. This
from proportional error analysis. proportional error is plotted in Fig. 3, assuming

3
that the random error in β measurement is 1°, 2°,
5°, and 10°. Note that the proportional error
increases from 10% to 100% when β increases
from 0± to 10± at dβ = 1°.
2.3. Proportional error of orientation bias
correction factor for cylindrical sampling of
fractures
Boreholes, shafts and tunnels provide data sources
for cylindrical sampling of fractures [7, 10].
Compared to linear and planar sampling domains,
the orientation bias in cylindrical sampling is the
function of both relative orientation and size of
sampling cylinder to the fractures (Fig. 4).
z (0 ≤ γ ≤ π/2)
Borehole
radius = c
n The computed proportional error for sampling bias
γ to fracture radius), assuming that the random error
Fracture
discs with
radius 1.0
Fig. 4 A borehole with normalized radius c samples a set of
fractures with normalized radius 1.0. γ is the angle between
borehole axis and the fracture normal.
Researchers have studied the orientation bias
caused by cylindrical sampling with the
assumptions fracture shape and size. The
orientation bias correction factor η3 is defined as
[7]:
probability of intersection with normal cylinder
η3 =
probability of intersection with cylinder at angle γ
(9)
For a set of circular fractures of normalized radius
1.0 sampled by the surface of a borehole with
4
normalized radius c (c ≤ 1), the correction factor η
is given by [7]
(1 + c) 2
η = η3 ≈ (10)
cos γ + 2c 1 + cos 2 γ + c 2
where γ is the angle between sampling cylinder
axis and fracture normal (Fig. 4). The
proportional error of the correction factor η3 with
respect to γ is then
2 cos γ sin γ
sin γ + c
∂η 3 ∂η 3 dγ 1 + cos 2 γ
= = dγ
η3 ∂γ η 3 c 2 + cos γ + 2c 1 + cos 2 γ
(11)
Note that when c = 0, indicating linear sampling of
fractures, the proportional error of the correction
factor η3 is simplified as tanγ dγ, which agrees
with the result in Eq. (7).
is plotted in Fig. 5 for a series of borehole sizes
from 0 (sampling line) to 1 (borehole radius equals
in γ measurement is 1°. The maximum
proportional error for c = 0.1 is less than 12%,
which greatly reduces the effect of the blind zone.
Compared with linear sampling (c = 0) and planar
sampling of fractures, sampling with a cylinder
has much smaller proportional error, which makes
it much feasible to apply the correction factor in
practice especially when the cylinder is close to be
parallel to the fracture set.
The relative radius of the sampling cylinder to the
fracture disks has an impact on the proportional
error. This issue is also illustrated in Fig. 6, in
which the proportional error of the Terzaghi
correction factor is compared for three cases of
cylinder radius (c = 0, c = 0.2, and c = 1.0). It
shows that the proportional error of the correction
factor decreases greatly with the increase of
borehole or tunnel radius.
3. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the authors use proportional error to
quantify the uncertainty in the value of the
 c=0 c = 0.1
10%

9%

8%

7%
Proportional Error

6%
c = 0.2
5%

4%
c = 0.3
3%

2%
c = 0.5

1%
c=1

0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
αγ (degrees)

Fig. 5 Proportional error of correction factor η with respect to angle γ between borehole axis and the fracture normal.

The proportional error is derived for the cases of

γ = 80° 0.8% error linear, planar and cylindrical samplings of rock
3.6% error fractures, respectively. It provides a means to
Fracture better understand the range of blind zone and the
9.9% error limits of the Terzaghi correction factor for linear,
planar and cylindrical samplings. It is found that
Sampling cylinders cylindrical sampling, compared with linear and
planar samplings, has much less induced error
from measurement; therefore, has much smaller
γ = 85° 0.8% error γ = 88° 0.7% error blind zone when applying the correction factor.
4.3% error 4.9% error

20.0% error 50.0% error

REFERENCES
Sampling cylinders Sampling cylinders 1. Baecher, G.B., H.H. Einstein, N.A. Lanney. (1977).
“Statistical description of rock properties and
sampling”. In Proc. 18th U.S. Symp. Rock Mech.,
Fig. 6 Comparison of the proportional error of correction Colorado School of Mines. 5C: 1-8.
factor η for cases of different sampling cylinder size (three 2. Warburton, P.M. (1980). “A stereological
cylinders from outer to inner, c = 1.0, c = 0.2, and c = 0). interpretation of joint trace data”. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 17: 181-190.
Terzaghi correction factor that is induced by 3. Hudson, J.A., S.D. Priest. (1983). “Discontinuity
uncertainty (measurement error) in the relative frequency in rock masses”, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
orientation of fracture(s) and sampling domain. Geomechanics Abstracts, 20: 73-89.

5
4. Priest, S.D. (1993). “Discontinuity Analysis for Rock
Engineering”. Chapman and Hall, London.
5. Terzaghi, R.D. (1965). “Sources of errors in joint
surveys”. Geotechnique. 15: 287-304.
6. Yow, J.L. (1987). “Blind zones in the acquisition of
discontinuity orientation data”. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and
Geomechanics Abstracts. Technical Note. 24: 5, 317-
318.
7. Mauldon, M., J.G. Mauldon. (1997). “Fracture
sampling on a cylinder: from scanlines to boreholes
and tunnels”. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.
30: 129-144.
8. Mauldon, M. (1994). “Intersection probabilities of
impersistent joints”, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics
Abstracts, 31(2): 107-115.
9. Protter, M. H., and Morrey, C. JR.. (1977). “College
Calculus with Analytic Geometry”. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, Berkeley
10. Wang, X. (2005). “Stereological Interpretation of
Rock Fracture Traces on Borehole Walls and Other
Cylindrical Surfaces”, Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia
Tech, VA.

View publication stats

6