The Interpretation of Geologkal Factors

for use in Slope Theory

By A. >lacG. ROBERTSON*, B.Sc.(Eng)(Rand)
SYNOPSIS
Joints and other geoloyical discontinuities influence the strength. deformational and permertbility characteristics of a rock mass. They are detectable features and their orientation, spatial distribution and surface
properties may be measured in a field survey. The survey data can be processed and analyzed to determine the
nature of the joint population of the rock mass and zones of similar.properties or structural regions delineated.
A model representing the jointing in a rock mass is constructed and may be used to describe the nature of any
failure surface that forms in the mass. Apparent strength parameters describing the strength along such potential
failure surfaces, are postulated and a process for estimating the value of these parameters, from the data obtained
in the field survey, is developed.

I. INTRODUCTION

failure and for the synthesis of a rock slope stability analysis

method given by Jennings.

In order to perform an analysis leading to a numerical factor

of safety for a slope cut in a rock mass it is necessary to
know the properties of the rock mass in numerical form.
Of particular interest are those properties relating to shear
strengths. deformations and water pressure distributions in
the slope. These properties are largely controlled by the
geological discontinuities within the mass and, therefore, any
such descriptions must take due cognisance of the orientation,
spatial arrangement and properties of the discontinuities.
Rock mass properties may be determined in the following
ways:
(a) Large scale /ie/d fesfs which are of such a size that the
erects of all geological discontinuities are accounted
for.
(6) Small sea/e jeie(d rests which cover the effects of smaller
geological discontinuities but where the effects of larger
scale discontinuities must be assessed by modeling or
other means.
(c) Direct measurement of the discontinuities and their
properties and modeling of the rock mass to determine
its overall behaviour.
Method (a) would produce an exact answer but the size of
test required renders it impracticable, or at best, extremely
expensive. Method (b), although less costly, is only suitable
where the rock mass of interest has relatively homogeneous
properties: in this method reliance must still be placed on
the engineers ability to model the strength, behaviour
characteristics or other properties of the large geological
features not accounted for in the field test. Method (c) relies
entirely on the engineers ability to model the mass behaviour
from the properties of the rock material and the geological
discontinuities. It presumes that an accurate numerical
description of the orientation and spatial arrangement of the
discontinuities and the nature and properties of the discontinuities and intact rock material can be achieved. In constructing the model, the engineer must make use of all
available information including his own laboratory tests and
other suitable results published in the literature.
This paper accepts the last method as the one most likely
to provide a useful design approach. It outlines a survey
technique and data analysis procedures to enable the engineer
to determine rock properties both of the discontinuities and
of the intact rock. A basis for the model representing both
joints and intact regions within the rock mass is presented
and a process is developed in order that apparent strength
parameters along a potential failure plane in a rock mass,
may be estimated. This information is required for the
development of a model representing potential planes of

This approach is based on four of the five geological

propositions made by Piteau, viz:
(i) Thar structural di.tcontinuities are detectable features of
a rock mass and cat1 be described quantitatively.
The exact nature of the rock mass must be known
before it can be modelled. Intact rock properties are
relatively easily measured and described. The nature
and properties of the geological discontinuities, termed
joints in this paper, are however more difficult to
describe quantitatively. Where these properties are
not readily described in this manner it is necessary to
resort to qualitative descriptions, but in all cases it
has been found possible to assign quantitative values
to the effects that these properties have for use in the
stability calculations.
(ii) That structural regions exist in a rock mass.
The model, which may be either physical or mathematical, describes but a part of the rock mass. It is
only representative of those regions in the rock mass
in which the properties of the joints and intact
material are similar to those modelled. It is therefore
necessary to be able to divide the rock mass into
regions of similar properties or slrrrcflrral regions.
(iii) That a reliable model representing jointing of a rock
mass can be constructed.
The spatial arrangement and properties of the joints
in a rock mass will influence the nature of the failure
planes which form in it. Hence the accuracy with
which the model may describe the failure surfaces
depends on the accuracy with which it models the
jointing.
(iv) That failure surfaces will be essentially plane or combinations of planes.
Since geological discontinuities are generally planes
of weakness in the rock mass, a potential failure
surface will tend to form, preferentially, along them.
This implies that a failure surface will consist of
planes or combinations of planes formed by the joints
in the rock mass. As joints commonly occur in joint
Sets which have a common origin and hence similar
properties, including joint orientation, a failure surface
is often associated with such a set of sub-parallel
joints.
*Formerly Technical Assistant, de Beers Consolidated IMines,
Ltd. Presently Design Engineer, Frankipde South Africa (Pty.) Ltd.
55

2. SURFACES OF FAILURE
Rock slopes may fail in a number of direrent modes
(Jennings)- these involve concepts of potential failure along
a plane or combination of plane surfaces, formed largely
along the discontinuities or joints. Two basic forms illustrated
in Fig. 1 are recognised.

(iii) the properties of the joints and joint surfaces that

occur on the failure plane,
(iv) the properties of the intact rock material on the failure
plane, and
(4 the effects that each of these properties have on the
strength of the failure surface.

Fig. 1. Plane and stepped failures

Plane/uilure u b occurs in the plane a b which contains more

than one joint. It applies particularly to geological features
of great continuity such as beddings or faults and involves
shear failure for the entire surface. Where joints occur along
such continuous features, the proportion of joint surface to
intact surface may be determined by survey and analysis
techniques as described by Miiller and Pacher.
Sfepped fuilure c d occurs along a combination of joints
which scatter abouf the plane c d. They are associated with
failure through homogeneous rock types such as igneous and
massively bedded sedimentary rocks, or with stratified rock
types where failure is associated with cross joints which may
or may not act in combination with beddings or bedding
joints. Stepped failure surfaces may be observed in many
practical cases of failure: however this may not always have
been recognised as such.
Neither of these failure surfaces are necessarily planar.
An example of a failure surface that would be curved on a
section parallel to the slope crest is illustrated by failure along
contorted bedding planes which plunge out of the slope. An
example of a failure surface curved m any section through
the slope is illustrated by failure e d (Fig. 1). The figure
indicates the possible selective nature of a stepped failure
surface which selectively chooses cross joints which fail in
tension at the top of the slope, and joints which fail in shear
in the compression zone at the toe of the slope.
Fig. 2 represents a three-dimensional idealized illustration
of the stepped failure surface from which it is apparent that
the failure surface exhibits both tension and shear failure
through joints and intact rock. Before the strength along any
poten;ial failure plane can be determined, the proportion of
joint and intact rock surface as well as the proportions of
the types of failure (tension and shear) on each must be
known. These proportions may be determined from:
(i) the orientation, spatial distribution and size of joints
in the various joints sets that occur in the rock mass,
and
(ii) the properties of the model chosen to represent the
geometry of the failure surface that would occur in
the rock mass.
Knowing the composition of the failure surface the following
additional information must be available before an assessment
can be made of the strength along the failure surface:

ESY

Shror failure
jolt-31 surlorr

along

Fig. 2. Block diagram ojstepped faiture surface

The average joint properties (items (i) and (iii) ) for the
joints of a set define the average or design joint. These average
properties are obtained quantitatively from an analysis of
joint data obtained in a field survey of the joints occurring
in the rock mass.
The quantitative desi-en joint data from item (i) is introduced into a mathematical model (item (ii) ) to calculate
quantitatively the composition of any given potential failure
surface. Since the design joint properties (item (iii) ) and the
intact rock properties (item (iv)) have been obtained, the
effects that each of these properties has on the strength of the
failure surface, may be measured in laboratory tests (item
(v) ). Knowing the effect on strength of these properties and
the composition of the failure surface, an estimate may be
made of the total strength along the failure surfaces.
Jennings develops a model to represent the failure surface
and this aspect is not considered further.
3. THE JOINT SURVEY
The third geological proposition (Piteau) stating thaf u
reliable model represenring joinling of a rock mass can be
comrructed assumes that the nature of the joints and their
-spatial distribution is known or can be determined. Since it
is impossible to examine each and every joint in the mass
this information must be gained from o sumpIe ojfhe joints
which are selected in a joint sirrvey during which the various
properties of interest can be measured.
These samples must be sufficiently large to ensure that the
information determined from them is sufficiently accurate
for the third geological proposition to be justified. Where the
jointing patterns difTer for various regions (i.e. structural
regions) the sampling must be sufhciently extensive to permit
the detection and definition of joint sets and the definition of
joint properties for each of these structural regions. The
sample data required may be large, as illustrated by the

de Beers mine survey where 9 000 joints with the measurement of 14 features of interest on each joint were required to
determine the joint population for only one lithological
strata type for approximately half of the mine circumference.
The geologist undertaking the. joint survey will have
intimate contact with the rock mass and long hours spent
observing and recording joint data will give him a good
understanding of the properties of the rock mass and how
these may vary from place to place. His assessment of structural regions, or regions likely to cause instability, and of
the effects of other geological features are of utmost importance.
Field survey
Sampling may be conducted on exposed rock faces of
various forms. If the surface is large the number of joints
exposed may also be large and some form of selection may
;have to be applied to reduce the sample size. Techniques
,which rely on the geoIogirts judgment for recognising the
joint sets of importance can greatly reduce the volume of
data and allow the effort to be concentrated on the
apparently significant joint sets, but there is always the risk
of missing or discounting sets which are nevertheless of
considerable importance. This risk is greatly reduced when
using sampling techniques which sample all the joints that
i intersect a face of limited size or line of limited length. Line
jsanrp/itrg, in which all the joints which intersect a given line
j are sampled, has the advantage that the mathematics for the
data analysis is simpler and hence more easily extended than
that for area or surface sampling. For a sampling face or
line of given length the latter yields a smaller sample and
hence is more economical to implement where extensive
surfaces are available for sampling. A more detailed discussion of the method of sampling is presented by Piteaur and
the accuracy of area (surface) and line sampling is further
considered in Section 7.
The bulk of data in measurements of particular properties,
such as roughness on a joint surface and the complex nature
of many of these properties. make it necessary to resort to
classitications which are qualitative rather than quantitative.
i Since numerical values are required for use in the stability
! calculations, it is necessary to determine quantitatively, by
laboratory testing. the ef%cts that each qualitative classification has on the strength along the joint. Such testing permits
the assignment of quantitative values to describe the effects
on strength of each class interval of the qualitative classitication of properties used in the field.
The strength along a potential failure surface is primarily
controlled by its orientation and position in relation to the
slope under consideration and by the amount of intact rock
that must be sheared through. Since the size, number, spatial
orientation and distribution of joints in the rock mass
determine these factors, these are the joint properties which
are of primary interest. The joint features that determine
these properties should be measured with as great an accuracy
as possible. All other features may be coarsely measured by
comparison. Hence, dip and dip direction angles and joint
trace lengths should be individually measured. The other
properties are grouped into classifications of tive class intervals (five finger classification) wherever possible. Such a
grouping has been found to be readily followed in the field
by staff with a minimum of training since the two extreme
values, the middle and the two intermediate values, soon
become apparent.
Sampiing considerarions
Joint surveys are conducted on rock faces associated
outcrops, exposed slope faces, trenches, tunnels, shafts,
hole sides and bore hole cores. In all these cases the
sampled is limited by physical limitations, with the

available decreasing in the order mentioned. The joints

measured (the sample), which may only be a portion of the
joints exposed (the sampled population), are considered to be
representative of the joints within the entire rock mass (the
target population) (Krumbein). Each of these survey faces
may produce biased samples (Terzaghi?). Outcrops, as they
occur, may be controlled by differences in resistance to
weathering of the underlying bedrock which includes effects
of jointing. The creation of faces, tunnels and bore hole
cores disturbs the surface to be sampled, and distinguishing
between natural and artificially induced fractures may be
difficult. Soft gouge is lost during core recovery and information relating to the continuity of joints is minimal in bore
hole surveys. Where economically possible it is desirable to
use trenches, slope faces or tunnels which allow careful direct
visual inspection of the joints on a fairly substantial face,
at depth, in the desired lithological strata where the surface
effects of weathering are no longer appreciable.
Since the sample may be taken from the sampled population by any sampling process, inferences can in general be
made on a rigorous basis from sample to sampled population.
Any extensions that are made of these inferences to the target
population are judgment decisions on the part of the
engineer. Such an extension does not seem unreasonable
provided sampled and target populations are within the same
structural region. Unfortunately analysis of the sampled data
can only define the points at which the sampled population
changes, i.e. the structural region boundaries to the sampled
population. The extent and limits of these boundaries about
the target population remains a judgment decision.
Errors in survey dota
Errors in data collection are of two forms: error of property
measurement and error of sample selection. The most
significant measurement errors are those associated with the
angular measurement of dip and strike. These errors vary
with the inclination of the joint, the strike becoming indeterminate as the joint tends to horizontal (Pincusl). Re-exposure
and re-measurement of joint sets which were of consequence
on the side slopes of Bomvu Ridge mine, Swaziland, indicated
that the maximum errors that could reasonable be expected
in the measurement of dip and dip direction angles were
5 and 10 respectively (Jennings-personal communication).
An examination of the de Beers results appears to indicate
a similar possible error range but no detailed analysis has
been made.
Joint trace lengths can be accurately measured provided
the point at which the trace terminates can be accurately
defined, but such trace lengths are not necessarily a measure
of joint size. The errors in classification of other joint
properties, e.g. hardness, should not exceed one class interval.
Errors due to selection are numerous, and some of the
most significant are: small joints are often disregarded; very
large fracture surfaces may be measured more than once;
fractures almost parallel to foliation or bedding may be
overlooked; details of sample selection may vary between
personnel; the direction of sampling results in a sample bias
(TerzaghiL).
4. JOINT SAMPLE DATA-MANIPULATION
AND ANALYSIS
Joints are characterized primarily by their orientation in
three-dimensional space. This is defined by two angles, the
dip and dip direction. The dip direction is defined by the
horizontal angle 0 between north and the projection of the
line of dip, and varies between 0 and 360 referenced clockwise positive. Dip is defined by the vertical angle 8 between
the horizontal and the line of dip and ranges from 0 to 90.
The only way in which the orientational distribution of

with
bore
area
area
5

)en

,af -n
eticz
3per

mze
W..
itor.
n In
.ium
rn Ir 1
and
SOI-

nld e
?ady
ninir
jeep
vita
,lanr.
clear
dami
fori
ory p1
lines

joints can be described with uniformity of all features is on a

referenced sphere. Since it is desirable to present this information on a planar surface some form of projection is used with
the loss of some of the basic data relationships.
The use of Wulff and Schmidt projections (John) are
commonly made for the presentation of joint survey data
(Friedman) and has been adapted for computer printout
(Rosengren). The use of these stereo plots is a powerful
tool in the analysis of jointed rock mass since they preserve
some of the properties of the geometric relationships between
the joint planes.
The rectangular plot is formed by a cylindrical equal-spaced
meridional projection as depicted in Fig. 3 (Pincusis. 1).
In its final form it is rectangular and is particularly suitable
for computer construction (Broadbent). In the form used
here it is a projection only of the upper hemisphere with a
convention as illustrated in Fig. 4. The nature of the
projection is shown in Fig. 5, and Fig. 6 provides a c o m parison of the rectangular and stereographic plots. The form
of the printout developed for the de Beers project is given
in Fig. 7. Any figure on the table represents the number of
joints with dip angles which are equal to or less than 5
greater than the value of the row in which it appears and
which have dip direction angles equal to or less than 10 less
than the column value in which it appears; the column values
are those at the top of the plot for the upper half of the plot
and those at the base for the lower half of the plot. In Fig. 7
for example the single joint circled has a dip direction angle
of between 240 and 250 and a dip angle of between 40
and 45.

-------o_
180
Ia)

Dip

360

direction

(bl

Fig. 5. The physical inrerpretalion of the rectangle plot

he F.
_ r.
<atIc
4
npoj:
,inee 1
;
aspi,

Fig. 6. Comparison of the stereo attd rectangle plots (offer Pincuss)

Fig. 3. Cy&zdricalequal-spaced meridional projection (afier Pincust4)

i
,cctioo
.

The use of a plot such as the rectangular plot, that can be

produced by a computer and which displays the data in a
form in which it can be rapidly assessed by visual inspection,
considerably increases the volume of data that can be processed.
Fig. 7 displays only the uncorrected data as sampled. These
data are not truly representative of the joint population and
a correction must be applied to allow for the sample bias
which results from the relative joint and sample line attitudes.
This bias results in a greater number of joints which are
normal to the sample line being sampled, while joints exactly
parallel to the line are missed entirely. The data in any class
interval must therefore be corrected to give the number of
joints which a line, equal in length to the sample line, would be
expected to encounter had it had an orientation normal to
the plane of the joints considered. Referring to Fig. 8, if the
sample line defined by dip and dip direction 61 and Or w a s
used, and if a number N6#, joints fall into the class interval
defined by midpoints 6~ and 01 then the corrected value
N6fej would be
NSpvj

Fi,q. 4. Upper hrmi>phere of rcfhcnce sphere

NV9
cos le, - e,1 c o s I(& + 6j) - 901

..(I)

D E S I G N J O I N T SURYEY

F O R D E B E E R S XINE

UF A L L .lOKNTS

SECTION

0.1
5.t
L0.C
L5.L
7u.t
:5.1
10.t
3S.!
V0.C
b5.C
5O.C
55.c
i0.C
i5.i
70.:
1S.C
3U.C
85.C
95.c
S0.C
75.c
7o.c
65.0
50.0
55.0
50-u
US.0
UU.0
15.0
30.0

PLOT CORRECTED FOR DIRECTIONAL. BIAS

53

SECTION 53

,1p DfRECTfON ACRSS AND DCP .ANCL.E DOWN

6 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 2 0 . 0 LkO.0 1 6 0 . 0 l8J.C
0.0
20.0
uo.0
10.0 50.0 70.0 90.0 110.0 :10.0 150.0 170.0
LO.0
___.__-___-___-_____--0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L
0
0
r
0
0
0
L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u0000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
00L00000

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

o
0

o
0

o
0

o
0

o
L

o
0

o
0

D I P OlRECTION A C R O S S A N D D I P ANGLE WW~

0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 2 0 . 0 LUO.0 1 6 0 . 0 180.0
10.0
90.0 110.0 130.0 150.0 1 7 0 . 0
3 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 7 0 . 0

j
f

000053u):
0000000!
L 0 0
0 0 0 0
;
0000000l
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :

0 L J 0
1 0 0
2
0
1
L
1
10
0
0
1 0 0 0
1 L 0 0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
L 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
9 cl 0
1 0 0 0
L 0 0 3 0
,; j
1
0
0
0 0 0 0 I) J
,Laouoou 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 J
,ooooooo 0
0
0
0
0 OOOOJ~bi
0
0
0
0 0000000
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :
)0000200
0
0
0 oooooool
)0000000 0
0
0
0 OOLOOOOl
25.0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0 ooooonn:
20.0
)0000000
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 4-d I :
1
0
L00000
15.0
0
0
0
0 0000000;
10.0
)0000000
0
0
0
0 0000000~
,ooooooo
5.0
0 . 0
L-O-~Q__O--O~~O__O_-Q-~ .o~-o..o--o~ ~O--D~~O-~Q~-D~~Q~~Q~~~
t l O . O 2 0 0 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 2 c o . o 2 6 0 . 0 2 8 0 . 0 ,oo.o
3 2 0 . 0 lkO.0 16S.C
190.0 210.0 230.0 250.0 270.0 290.0
3 1 0 . 0 330.0 3 5 0 . 0
J.0

30.010 0 0
90.0:
6
6

0 0
2 0 1

&e3ecta"q"lar

0
2

0
1

0
0

0
1

0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0

2
0

3
0

0
i 6
0 0 0

6o.o;o
55.01 0
50.0: 0

0
I
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

I
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

a*o*o
o* u* a
o* 04 0

3
0
0

a
a
0

0
a
0

0
0
0

1
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

ULz; IO 0

00

00

00

02

00

00

0 I( 0*0*0*0*0 o* o* 0 01 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0*0*0*0*0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10.0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o* 0. a* o* a 0 0 0 0 0 0
25.0; 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 o* o* a* o* o* a* 0 3 0 0 0 0
20.0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0. o*o* 0.0'0 0 0 0 0 0
~5.0; 0 0 I 0 0 0 o* o* a* o* o* a* 0. o* 0 0 0 0 0
~0.01 0 0 0 0. o* o* 00 o* 0. o* o* a* o* o* o* o* 0. 0 0
5.0: o* o* o* o* a* o* 0. o* aA o* 04 a* o* o* o* o* 0. 0' 0.
O.Ol~O~D?~O~Q-Q~D~-O~~Q~-Q~~D~~Q~~O~-O~~Q~~O~-D~~Q~.D~~Q~-~
35.01

1 8 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 2 u o . o 2 6 0 . 0 2 8 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 0 3 2 0 . 0 340.0 3 6 0 . 0
190.0 210.0 210.0 250.0 270.0 290.0 110.0 330.0 350.0

:
'

90.0
90.0

PLot as ada3ced :or The com3u:cr

0
6

0
6

0
2

0
0

0
3

0
2

Rectangular

0
0

0
~

0
0

0
0

0
0

2
0

.i
0 . 0

2lUOl6
0
0
0
0
0
0

Plor Cor~ctad Far Sample

Bias

(hrnp,= ,ine is horironu, -It* dip d i r e c t i o n of 901

Fig. 7

Fig. 9

Oireclion

of

The effect of the correction of the data shown, is to increase

the apparent density of jointing with dip directions in the
region of 90 or 270, i.e. normal to the direction of sampling.
Instead of showing a distinct joint set centred about dip
direction 350 to 10 as in Fig. 7, the plot in Fig. 9 indicates
a more general dispersion of near vertical joints with a lesser
concentration of joints about dip direction 0.
To facilitate comparisons between surveys of different
lengths (L) a correction to a standard survey length (15s) is
required.
LS
NSjej = Ns,e, y
. . . . . . . . . .._.........

l i n e sample

/L
to joint set

In order to compare the density of jointing in the various

joint sets quantitatively, a correction must be applied to allow
for projection errors:
_
N sjej
NSj0, = ~
cos sj

. . . . . . . . . . . . .._

The corrected rectangular plots may be rapidly constructed on the computer and have proven to be extremely useful
for the visual definition of joint sets, while the comparison
of different plots indicates whether the sampled data on each
was from the same population, i.e. the same structural region.

Fig. 8. Three dimensional represenlation of normal IO joint set and

sampling direction

Once the correction has been applied to each class interval

of the rectangular plot that plot may be compared with other
sample bias corrected plots for the qualitative way in which
the joints are distributed. It is considered that where the
correction is greater than 5 the results are no longer reliable
and an asterisk is printed against the corrected number. The
data in Fig. 7 corrected for sample bias is shown in Fig. 9.

5. DETERMINATION OF STRUCTURAL
REGIONS
Many workers in the field of the mechanics of jointed rock
recognise that a rock mass may be divided into zones of
similar jointing or structural regions. Since jointing to a

5 9

large extent controls the mechanical behaviour of rock, these

structural regions are zones of similar strength i.e. they are,
in a statistical sense, homogeneous with regard to strength.
This requires that jointing in a structural region must be
not only similar throughout with regard to dip, dip direction
and intensity of jointing, but also similar in such factors as
roughness, waviness, thickness, type of gouge and the other
factors which determine the strength along joints.

with the earlier parts (i.e. by folding away the suspected

transition zone). Adjacent sections of tunnel may be joined
together but where the bearing of the sample line changes
by between 60 and 120 it is difficult to compare the respective sequential plots since the area of one, which shows
adequate sampling, is the poorly sampled area of the other.
Each portion of survey line, or data set, between apparent
changes in jointing pattern and changes in survey line bearing,
where uncertainty exists, is termed a section. A set of corrected
rectangular plots may be made for each section and these
are compared for differences in jointing patterns. Figs. 11 and
12 are two such samples taken from survey lines at right
angles to each other. The similarity between these plots
indicates that they are from the same structural region.
Comparison of these figures with Fig. 9 indicates that the
data represented by Fig. 9 was sampled in a different structural region.

Initial demarcation of boundaries to structural regions is

given by the geologist on the basis of his experience and
knowledge of the jointing patterns gained from visual inspection of the various exposed rock surfaces. They usually
coincide with major geological features.
The use of graphical methods of joint representation such
as the stereo plot and rectangular plot is extremely laborious,
and the accuracy of determination of structural regions
boundaries depends on how quickly the person plotting can
detect a change of pattern on the plot. To overcome this
limitation a sequential plot of the form illustrated in Fig. IO
is used. The central column of the computer printout gives
the joint identification, referring to the joint survey sheet
number and the line on that sheet which contains the joint
data being plotted. The left hand portion of the printout
gives a plot of the angle of dip direction, while the right hand
portion shows the dip of each joint. The class intervals are
5 wide and joints with dip direction between 0 and 180
plot as Xs and fall in the left hand half of the dip plot while
those with dip direction of 180 to 360 plot as Os and fall
in the right hand half of the dip plot. Faults or major
geological features are indicated by special symbols. The plots
run sequentially, without break, for the full length of all
survey lines. The direction of the horizontal normal to the
survey line bearing is drawn on the dip direction plot to
indicate the angular region where sampling is inadequate.
This region of poor sampling in the vicinity of the line
representing the normal to the tunnel bearing is apparent
in Fig. 10.

SECTION 4
Lsrruc,ura, Rcpron El
DIP DIRECTION A C R O S S A N D D I P A N G L E DOWN
0.0 20.0 uo.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 160.0
10.0 30.0 50.0 70.0 90.0 110.0 130.0 150.0 170.0
0 . 0
5 . 0

10.0
15.0
20.0
z-5 . 0
30.0
35.0
uo.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
EO.0

85.0
85.0
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
55.0
50.0
45.0
L10.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0

l&QLp,~Lp~~~~
~~+~~,~ p 9 i i H
(!Yzc3

12'24 z-51 0 0 0 0
0 35' 3.
fi7 0 1 0 0
0~0.'0'8/2 0 10 0 0
0 btll'i; 000000
0 o*o'*o 0 0 0 10 1
0 o*o** 0 0 0 0 0 1
012'0.U
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 o* 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0
2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0
0.0 0 0 0
04 0. o* 0. 0
o* 04 09 0' o*
o* o* o* o* 0.
___-_____-_____

0 1 0
10 0
0 1 0
0 0 1
0 01
12 0
0 0 0
0 0 1
I 0 0
0
0 0 01
0 0 3 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 3
0 2
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
0 0 0
5.
o* c* 0. 0.
0' o* 04 o*

160.0 200.0 220.0 2*0.0 260.0 260.0 300.0 320.0 3YO.O 360.0
0.0
190.0 210.0 230.0 250.0 270.0 290.0 310.0 330.0 350.0
90.0
90.0

0000000000000000102;
20020001l"0000000000~

Fig. I1

In general corrections seem excessive, indicating that the

sampling is not quite as biased as the mathematics predict.
Intensities of jointing may be compared on the plots corrected
to standard lengths of survey line. If there is any doubt
about the variation of the joint properties of a joint set in
a structural region, then the various properties of the joints
for different parts of the region may be separated out, as
described later, and compared for any differences,

Fig. i0. Initial portion of a seylrential plot

The sequential plots, which are layed out on the floor or

any other large flat surface, are examined visually and the
points at which there is a consistent change in trend of the dip
direction and the dip angles is noted. Fig. 10 is only the
initial portion of a plot and of insufficient length to indicate
any change in the trend. Often such changes take place
gradually, through a transition zone, and in such cases it
may be necessary to compare the latter parts of the plot

For de Beers mine the geologist indicated ten structural

regions in the volume of interest. After survey data analysis,
thirteen regions were defined with relatively few changes to
the boundary positions originally indicated by the geologist.
60

structural region. The data for each subset are fed into the
computer. Uncorrected as well as directional bias, standard
length and projection error corrected rectangular plots are
then made. The values reflected on all the plots of a similar
type (i.e. having similar applied corrections) for each structural region are then summed and accumulated plots made.
The most useful of these plots is the accumulated plot for the
structural region in which the subsets of data have been
corrected for directional bias and to standard lengths. Pro-vided at least two approximately perpendicular sections of
sufficient length were sampled in a structural region this
cumulative rectangular plot should be representative of the
total joint population in the structural region. Such a
cumulative plot is shown in Fig. 13.

The follo\c ing general conclusions were reached:

(i) Structural regions or volumes of rock mass in which
the jointins population may be described as having
similar joint properties, orientations and intensity,
can be delineated.
(ii) Transition from one zone to another may range from
gradual to abrupt.
(iii) In most. but not all cases, boundaries appear to
coincide with major geological features.
(iv) Large geological features may have associated with
them large zones in which the fracture pattern differs
from the fracture patterns of the adjacent regions.
In some instances, however, the effect of the geological
feature is evident for only a few inches on either side
of that feature.
(v) The greater the shear movement along a fault, the
greater the effect on the fracture pattern adjacent to
that fault.
(vi) Fracture pattern disturbances are greater for faults
than for dykes.
(vii) At de Beers mine most of the structural region
boundaries radiate from the pipe.

_-___.

,
!
!
i
!
I
i
I

0.5
s..,
L3.J
LS.,,
2J.J
*>.a
102
15.)
UG.J
*j.O
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
is.0
90.0
35.0
65.0
90.0
75.1)
70.0
SS.0
50.0
IS.0
13.3
us.0
0 . 3
IS.0
10.0
2 5 . 0
2 0 . 0
1 5 . 0
10.0
5 . 0
0 . 0

0 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 J 0
0~0000000000
~0000000 :: 0 0 0
~~0000G00000
LJJ300350lJ000
ao5oclooooooo
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 II 0
0
2
0
0 3 0 ,, 0 ; 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000050000
000003000000
000010000000
0. 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0
3 9. I* 0 0 0 0 i 0 <* 0 3
0 0 0. 0. IT* 0. 0 0 0 I* 0. 0.
)* 0 o* 0 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 0. o*

0
0
0

0
0
0

0. 0. C)= u
0 0 o* 0
0 0. 0. 0

0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0.
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0.
0
0

0.
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0.
o*
0.
0
0.
0
0
0
0.
0.
0
0.
0.

0.
0.
0
o*
0
0
0
0.
0
3
0
0.
0
a*
0
0.
0.
0.
0
3
cl*

0.0
I.0
10.0
15 .o
20.0
25.0
10.0
35.0
uo.0
US.0
10.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
60.0
85.0
95.0
60.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
55.0
so.0
"5.0
Iro.0
35.0
30.0

0
0
0

2
2
1
1

0. 8. O
o*, 6 ,o
O.J/ 0
0 0 0
0 c 0
0. 0 Cl
0 0 0
0. 0 0
o* 0 0
0 0 0
9 c 0
c* J 0
c* 0 0
0 0 0
0 o* 0
0 0. 0
0. 0. o*
0 0. 0
0 0 0
0 o* 0.
0 o* 0.

0000000000302000000
0000000006000000000

0
0
0
0
0
0

2
2
2
0
1
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0

0
3
0

0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
3
0
0
1
L

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
L
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

1
1
1
1
I
2
0
0
1

3 1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,
0
0

2
5
2
1
L
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0

0190 0
0 016
0 0 0

0
0
0

027
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
101r
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
2

0
0

3
3

3
1

14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0

0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0

9
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
1
6
10
1
3
5 II -k-i ,;
3lti ii-r3 ,31 1s 11
2s
r.2
7 2s 32 I
17 11
5
1028L9
23 13 13
1.8
0
1
10 2
9 ; {!H
iY r-1.
1 1
0
3
9
0
1
0
010
0
u
0
0
0
9
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
1
0
10
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
v
0
0
0
0
2
0
013
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
6
017
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
9 0 0
0
0
7
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0

101012

0
0
1
0
L
0
0

7
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2

2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

70 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 10
LO 0 0
00 0 1
00 9 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
01 10
010 1
00
2
1
0
1 15
00
1
Y
0 0
1 2
10
0
2
1 :
1 0
00
0
0
00
0
1

II
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0

02
00
00
00

0 0
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 0
10
0 0
0 0
0 1
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
:
0
0
I
0
2
2
2
1
2
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
3
0
0

180.0 200.0 220.0 2uo.o 260.0 280.0 300.0 320.0 3vo.o 360.0
0 . 3
190.0 210.0 210.0 250.0 270.0 290.0 310.0 330.0 350.0

90.0
90.0

00000000
11110001

0
v

0 3 12000101
6000000000

Fig. 13

Joint sets are defined from the cumulative plots by

inspection. To aid this inspection the plots may be contoured
according to density of joints. For convenience of describing
the range of dip and dip direction angles of the joints in a
set, the boundaries of the sets are shown as straight lines
(see Fig. 13). The other plots indicate the effects of the various
corrections and may influence the definition of joint sets.
When defining joint sets the engineer should bear in mind
the direction of the slope of interest, and should exercise
conservatism when defining joint sets in the area represented
by dip and dip direction angles which may form planes of
failure.
Joint sets about de Beers mine were characterized by
large dip and strike variations. Where these variations were
greater than 60 on strike and 30 on dip the set was treated,
for design joint determination purposes, as two or more

160.0 2 0 0 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 2bO.O
i60.0 2 8 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 0 3 2 0 . 0 3 9 0 . 0 160.0
0.0
1 9 0 . 0 2 1 0 . 0 2Jci.O 2 5 0 . 0 2 7 0 . 0 2 9 0 . 0 310.0 330.0 150.0

90.0
90.0

5.
0.
5.
0.
5.
0 .

0
0
0
0
cl
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
cl
L
2
I

:
!

Fig. 12

6 . D E T E R M I N A T I O N O F JO[NT S E T S A N D
THEIR PROPERTIES
The data are divided into data sets for each structural region.
Since sampling bias correctlons are different for different
sample line bearings, the data sets are sorted into subsets
for the various straight lengths of sample line within each
61

..

.
I

- .

^
-

pen

! .

of .Thc
,etical
Open
3nce 1<

W. J.
itor. Jc
,n lnsti
ium, 0
in lnsti

gnd he
some:;
Id expt
ady de

ining a
eeper F

rital thl.
anning
:early d
imined.;

overlapping sets, each with these maximum variations on

dip and strike angle. The midpoints of each of these overlapping sets were arbitrarily defined with due consideration
for the s l o p e faces in the vicinity and for any potential
failure surfaces.

In determining the properties, other than dip and dip

direction, of the joints in the various sets. e.g. roughness of
the joint surfaces. the data for each structural region is
processed as a whole. The data are sorted into rectan+ar
plots according to the various properties of the joint, r.e. a
joint having roughness 2 (see Piteau) will be allocated to a
plot in which all joints have roughness 2; similarly for all
the properties required. From these plots the average properties of the joint sets are determined. The properties determined
for the joint sets about de Beers mine are shown in Table 1.

A design joint is defined as a joint which has properties

which are the average properties for any particular joint set.
It will have dip and dip direction angles equal to those of the
midpoint of the joint set, and all joints in the set which lie
within the dip and strike variation mentioned above are
considered in determining the design joint properties.

Examples of the distribution of joint trace lengths obtained

are shown in Fig. 15. The method of joint irace length recording adopted, using a category system for recof_ding the
observed lengths, results in some dificulty in the placing of
joints in class intervals and only four classes were defined.
Since traces may be continuous into walls, roof or floor of
the tunnel some of the joints in the larger class interval may
not have been placed in the correct category. A method,
whereby more exact trace lengths or more class intervals
may be obtained, should yield a more accurate distribution.

It is convenient to plot the defined joint sets on rosettes

of the form illustrated in Fig. 14 using the-data from the
rectangular plots. The dip direction is represented by the
bearing of any radius, clockwise positive, with the upper
vertical as bearing 0. Dip decreases along the radius from
90 at the centre of the rosette to 0 at the outer edge. Shown
in Fig. 14 are the joint sets defined for four of the thirteen
structural regions about de Beers mine. In some instances
the angular range of the joint sets as defined are large but in
many of these the majority of the joints were contained in
a region of dense jointing of much smaller angular variation
near the centre of the defined set.

REGION 0 JOINT SET b

orum w
Y and I
ies cou

n- 320

d problt

- observed

.tion of
>osium
eers in\

a---a- f i t t e d d = 03L3

5peCt O f

STRUCTURAL REGION I

Trace Length

ttt.1

R E G I O N B JOINT SET a

STRUCTURAL

Sl RUCTURAL R E G I O N

REGION

0
STRUCTURAL

REGION M

1
Trace t ength

trt.j

Fif. 15. Disrriburion of joint trace lengfhs in a joktt set

Fig. 14. Roserres represetrfitrg voriafion of joints sets

62

4.

.
Various functions were tried and it was found that an
exponential function of the form
y = e-=x

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ (4)
appeared to be the most suitable. In the distributions illustrated the tit of the upper curve is considered to be good and
the lower poor. Of the joint sets for which trace length
distributions were plotted, all except for two could be fitted
with exponential function curves having good fits.
Determination of joint sizes, from length of dip and strike
traces visible in the tunnel, is possible only if the general
shape of the joints is known. Bivariate plots of dip trace
length against strike trace length indicated that, in the homogeneous igneous rock of de Beers mine, these were approximately equal (Robertson and Stamerrg), and joints were
considered to be round. Calculation of the joint sizes of circular joints from trace lengths underestimates the joint sizes
in the relationship (Robertson and StamerP):
/+!A
z-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)

where A is the joint area calculated from the visible trace

lengths. From the fitted exponential curve and the above
considerations the average joint size, Lf, of a set and the
size of the largest joints, Lfl, in that set that are likely to
occur in a slope of given dimensions may be calculated.
The size of the largest joints that were likely to occur in the
iide slope of de Beers mine was arbitrarily defined as the

size of the joint which is expected to occur only once on a

300 ft length of sample line taken normal to the plane of the
joints in the set considered.
The average distance between the adjacent joints of a set
(d,) is determined from equation:
dm =

I cos (6d) cos (ed)

Iv

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ (6)
i

where N is the number of joints from the joint set sampled

on a survey line length f. 6d and ed are the dip and dip
_ direction angular differences between the sample line and the
normal to the joint set.

Since some of the joint sets may have developed simultaneously as a result of a general regional stress, they may
have similar characteristics although they occur in different
structural regions. To test this hypothesis comparisons were
made between trace length distributions for joint sets in
different structural regions but with similar orientations.
The Kilmogorov-Smirnov test for two samples was used
under the null hypothesis that the two observed trace length
samples came from the same population. These tests indicated
that although some of the samples could have come from the
same population, the majority were from different populations. The results of these tests supported conclusions reached
when comparisons of (L, Lf and Ljl were made. It was concluded that the majority of the joint sets must have developed
under different conditions of stress.

TABLE I
JOINT SETS AND THEIR AVERAGE PROPERTIES

Structural
reg.

loint
set

%
Gouge

Gouge
hardness

Calcite
Calcite
Calcite

Ef
RI

Joint
type

Waviness
per cent
5-10

>lO

Shear
Shear
Shear

8
27
7

Ave.
roughness

Hardness
joint sides

:
3

ii:
RS

Calcite

RI

Shear

R5

Calcite

RI

Shear

RS

Calcite
Calcite

:t

Shear
Shear

10
8

R5
R5

Calcite
Calcite
Calcite

RI-R2
RI-R2
Rl-R2

Shear
Shear
Shear

:
8

:
3

R5
R5
R5

Calcite
Calcite

RI-R2
RI-R2

Shear
Shear

8
5

1
-

RS
R5

I
I
/

Gouge
type

23

Calcite

RI

Shear

10

R5

23

Calcite

Rl

Shear

10

R5

Calcite
Calcite
Calcite

:t
RI

Shear
Shear
Shear

8
-

:
3

RS
R5
R5

Calcite
Calcite

Rl
Rl

Shear
Shear

13
7

I
-

R5
R5

Calcite
Calcite

RI
Rl

Shear
Shear

14
6

1
-

:z

Shear
Shear
Shear
Shear
Shear
Shear

:i
7
-

i
-

63

23

f
:
I

RI-R2
RI-R2
RI-R2
RI-R2
RI-R2
Rl-R2

n
n
ca
en
e

.J
r. .
Ins
n. .
Ins

ih
,rnE
exi
yd
;ng
per
al tl
min

The extension of inferences, regarding the sampled

population, to the target population and the determination
of the accuracy of any estimates made, require either the
knowledge or an assumption of the spatial distribution of
joints in the rock mass. A model in which joints occur in a
spatial arrangement which is anisotropic and homogeneous
in a srarisficaf sc~zse is accepted here. This is distinctly different from assuming a spatial arrangement in which the joints
occur in a regular pnt/ern which is anisotropic and homogeneous. The difference between these spatial arrangements
is illustrated in Fig. 16.

The various joint set characteristics taken from the rectancular plots for the various structural regions about
de Beers mine are shown in Table 11. Tables I and 11,
together with the average dip and dip direction angles for
the various overlapping sets, define the design joints about
de Beers mine.
7. THE ACCURACY OF JOINT POPULATION
ESTIMATION FROM A SURVEY SAMPLE
The most critical factor determining the strength along a given
potential plane of failure is the continuity of joint surface
on it. As stated earlier this continuity is determmed largely
by the size and spatial arrangement of the join&s of the set
which occur on the plane and in particular by the density
of joints in the set. The accuracy of the determination of
these continuity factors depend on the accuracy with which
the joint characteristics, including density, can be determined.
It is therefore necessary to be able to make an assessment
of the reliability that can be placed on the joint set
properties determined.

On this model, describing the spatial distribution of joints,

is based the more extensive model describing the entirejoint
population. In order that the third geological proposition,
which states that a reliable model representing jointing of a
rock mass can be constructed, can be satisfied this model
must be a realistic representation of the spatial arrangement
of joints in the rock mass considered. The statistical distribution of the first mentioned spatial arrangement is considered to be representative of jointing in homogeneous rock
and of jointing other than joints in the plane of the beddings

wly
line
urn
and
s cc
prot
6
on c.
siur
3s i*

TABLE II
1OINT

SETS;

THEIR JOINT CONTlNvmES AND SIZES

7
Observed
number
of joints
No.
I_____

Joint
set

Structural
region

lect

:E:F
joints

Estimate
for a.

sq. ft.

Area of largest
expected joint

ft.

No.

sq. ft.

0.534
0.475
0.390

4.47
5.64
8.36

0.174

42.05

0.541

4.34

366
320

0.506
0.343

4.98
10.81

2.23
3.29

:
C

63
185
13

0.365
0.291
0.359

9.56
15.03
9.89

3.09
3.88
3.15

265
240

0.589
0.382

3.66
8.72

720

0.442

6.48

-a

3 5 7

0.414

1.48

13
146
I

0.451
0.310

6.26
13.24

1.004

1.26

0.464
0.465

5.92
5.88

9.45
33.49

:.
I

rJ
C

i
I,:

i*

520
11
15
-__
228
___-

110

:ii
D
I

a
b

E
C

0.367
0.195

116

L
M

ii

206

it

241
25
4

:
e
f

Where :

:
13

~
1

0.834
0.816
0.255
0.990
1.007
0.850

6.50

2.08

806
422
314
305

(min)
ft.

ft.

1 534
196
165
355
225
494
180

127

308
71

&

41

0.6
4.2
4.5

39.2
14.0
12.9
18.9
15.0
22.2
13.4

0.72
0.34
1.35
0.9

1.5
1.0

_
-.
_
_.

2.5
1.1
2.9

2.54

2.75

344
766

222
326

14.9
18.1

0.73

I
(

1.0

2.52
3.64
1.13

_.
__

1.83
1.91
19.58
1.30
I.25

1.77

3.08

102

5.79

244

1.35
1.38
4.44
1.14
1.12
1.33

237
74
E
12

203
1 013

14.2
31.8

2.4
1.3

::
326
14

67::
18.1
3.3
5.2
6.8

. 1.0
2.4
3.6
8.0
2.4
1.8

ii

(I
IS as for equatton (4)
.
Lj is the average Joint length m a set
N is the corrected sample size
,511 is the length of the joint which is expected ro occur once in every 300 ft length taken normal to a joint set
dm IS the average distance between adjacent Joints in a set
64

The probability of any joint being intersected by the sample

line, which is normal to the end face, is on the average
,
. . . . . . . . . . .._.__.__._....
lP = a5

in stratified rock types. These joints form failure planes of

the step type and this model is accordingly suitable for
determining strength parameters and behaviour characteristics for failure planes of this type. For plane failure surfaces
associated with failure along single planes of weakness such
as bedding planes, which contain bedding joints, a model
which permits more than one joint on any single plane must
be used. A survey and analysis technique to suit such a model
has been described by Miiller and Pacher?.

provided a,,, < < A,

Since the joints are randomly distributed, the probability
of intersecting ln joints follows the binomial law, viz.
P m

; 1P

: $;t..

n - ,

............

. 14

m
An unbiased estimate of n is n^ = lP
ln . A

zz

. . . . . . . . . .(lO)

am . cos 8d _ cos f&

Spatially Honrogenous and

Anisotropic Jointing in a
Statistical Sense.

And the density of jointing is given by

A
m
L _ am cos 8d . cos t&J

Regular Spatially Anisotropic

and Hornogenotrs Jointing.

Fig. 16. Models of joint distributions in space

. . . . . . (11)

The variance of the estimate 2 is

lVnr(i) = (-L)I.R($)
If joint sets are considered as data sets within a joint
population, then most forms of sampling will show a tendency to sample more of some sets than others. Hence, it is
necessary to determine the accuracy of estimation of each
set individually. A more detailed consideration of the assumptions and limitations inherent in this model is given by
Robertson.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w

and the coefficient of variance (C. V.) is given by

rC.v. (%)

(fi) x ,ooy
= @ar
v
0
D
=
; x 100%
J

. . . . . . . . . . . . (13)

Hence, the confidence limits of the estimate 6 may be stated

as follows:
The true density (D) lies in the range
6 f k,. rC.V.%

. . . ..__..._............. (14)

with a confidence of 1 - I where z is given approximately by

Projected

- k,
2
e-* . dt f o r ln > 10
==z
I
--co

joint

1 - tlz
is the standard normal deviate.
where - e
2x
Fig. 17. Illustration of end projection

Equation 14 indicates that about 100 observations of joints

from a set are required to estimate the population density of
that joint set with 95 per cent confidence to within 31 20
per cent of the true value. The-variation of 1C.V. per cent
with observed number of joints is shown in Fig. 18.

Fig. 17 shows an arbitrary defined rock mass with end face,

normal to the sampling line, of area A and having a length L
in which there are n randomly distributed joints of average
size am of a particular set. All joints intersecting a survey
line passing through this volume would be. sampled; say this
number of joints is ln, the subscript 1 indicating a line survey.
The average area of projection of a joint on the end face
will be
(Im = Um

CoS

ed . cos 8d

In a similar manner equations for estimating joint populations from other forms of joint surveys m a y be derived.
The ratio of the coefficients of variance is a measure of the
relative accuracies of the various forms of surveys. For line
and area sampling

(1 + tan8d. secod)~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)

. . . . . . . . (15)

w h e r e 4d and 8d are the horizontal and vertical angular

differences between the normal to the joints set and the
sample line.

where h is the height of the sampling face.

6.5

t 9 mpos
BeckSo

6tI_

3-

I-

Appro)tim ate 95 % Confidence

6 = 6

pelOPme
, Ind the t
WNi
; ,ts It

hat the P

q such P
. describer
,&The SY,
I where W

d practice:
3&j disc1
+!rllS invj
of the Prc.
,,,, providl
;nvolved
: of minin

.imits f o r

Ob
0

20

se rved
.I-

ei0

(I 1
Fig. IS

For the particular case where joints are normal to the line
and face of sampling (and the dip is parallel to the h
dimension of the area sampling face) this equation reduces to
R=l+Sh

z!L

N u rnt: her of Jc Its a If (I Giv e n S e t

I
L
II 1
e10
120
1LO

11

20

may be achieved by conducting area rather than line sampling

on the exisitng exposed surfaces. This can be determined
by comparing the relative accuracies using equation (15).
Where additional surface exposure and/or sampling is
required the optimum direction for this sampling is readily
apparent from the various equations.

. . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(16)

This relationship has been plotted in Fig. 19 for h = 7 ft

and indicates, for this particular orientation of joints, that
area sampling is somewhat better than line sampling for
small joints but that the advantage is small for larger joints.
A given fine sample is inadequate if either 6d or &$ tend
to zero, while an area sample only becomes inadequate if
both 6d and sd tend to zero.
To ensure that all joint sets are discovered, either area
sampling on two faces which are approximately perpendicular to each other, or line sampling on three approximately
mutually perpendicular lines, is required. Since in many
instances joint sets of specific orientation are not of particular interest or jointing patterns are readily apparent, this
may be reduced to one suitably chosen face or two suitably
chosen lines of survey.
The necessary mathematics to determine confidence limits
for the estimates made of other joint properties has yet to
be developed. Until this is achieved the confidence limits for
the joint density must serve as a guide as to the reliability
of these other properties.
Having determined the joint properties of interest and the
confidence limits for the density estimate, the engineer must
decide whether or not he can place sufficient, reliance on the
results. If not, further sampling will have to be conducted
which may involve further rock surface exposure e.g. tunneling or boreholes. In some instances the additional accuracy

8. APPARENT STRENGTH PARAMETERS

FOR ROCK MASSES
For any point on a potential failure plane, the strength of
the rock material or the joint surface at that point is dependent
on the state of stress that exists there. The joints, which are
themselves planes of weakness, create stress variations
within the mass and hence the pattern of stress-strength
relationships at various points in the mass must be complex.
If failure is defined as that condition which exists when t h e
disturbing force (or stress) at a point just exceeds the
strength of the material at that point, then this complex
pattern must produce local points of failure long before the
rock mass as a whole can be considered to have failed.
Rock mass failure is a progressive phenomenon and must
display a history of stress variation and failure within the
mass which ultimately leads to the formation of a surface or
surfaces of rupture through the mass. In slope stability it is
this ultimate formation of rupture surfaces through the rock
mass which is viewed as a slope failure.
Many workers have argued that, since failure is a progressive phenomenon, the analysis of jointed rock slopes by rigid
body mechanics and a failure criterion of the Mohr-Coulomb
type is not valid. This argument can be extended IO the failure
of intact rock materials which must also display progressive
failure as a result of the pre-existing micro-features etc.:

66

1.6

l.L

1.2

l-0

150

200
250
300
350
ioo
PROJECTED AREA OF JOINT G(squarc feet)

cso

500

550

Fig. 19

/et numerous workers have shown that intact rock displays

,trength characteristics which are sufficiently accurately
iescribed by failure criteria of the Mohr-Coulomb type.
fhus it is argued here that the strength of a rock mass may
Jso be described by criteria of this type, i.e. that the joints
n a rock mass have a similar effect on the strength of the rock
nass as do the micro-features on the strength of intact rock
specimens. Large geological features which are sufficiently
large to singly effect the strength of the rock mass must be
considered separately. However, since the strength along such
! features and of the intact rock may both be described by
/ Mohr-Coulomb type criteria it would appear reasonable to
1 expect that the strength along a failure plane, passing through
) both intact material and joint surface, may also be described
by these criteria. The apparent strength parameters of the
1 rock mass will differ from both that of the intact rock and
! the discontinuities within it.
Slopes fail under the action of gravity and other forces
which produce stress patterns in the slope. The presence of
these stress variations, and not the local stress variations
due to discontinuities, suggests that an analysis technique
which takes the stress-strain characteristics of the mass into
account should be ultimately employed for slope analysis.
Since the behaviour characteristics of the rock mass is not
yet sufficiently understood to justify such an analysis, use
is made of rigid body mechanics and apparent strength
parameters for slope stability determination.
Tests on specimens of the rock mass sufficiently large to
include representative joint populations for strength parameter determinations are prohibitively costly. Further, it is
not possible, as yet, to predict the strength of a rock mass
from the known strengths of the intact rock material and
strength along and spatial distribution of the joints. However,

as stated earlier, a strength assessment can be made for any

given plane through the mass provided the nature of the
surface is known.

Fig. 20. Plane failure along a surface which includes pre-existing

joints

By way of illustration, Fig. 20 shows a slope through which

a potential plane of failure has been defined. In the total
surface AE portion 5 hz will pass through intact rock and !?I az
I
x-1
will pass throughxtte joint surface. If both the strength o n
the joints and strength through intact rock could be
described by equations of the Mohr-Coulomb type,
SJ
67

= cj f on tan 6~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *..(17)

The SYIE
Cal Backc
37 Pit Mir
? to Slope
J. van Re
Journal (
litute of 1
xganised
itute of f~

Id at Joh

300 defeg
m from n
slopment
d the tren
S it was
the print;!
ch Pmjec
ribed and
e w-npos,
e world a
rice of pla
"SCUSS ano
nvobed.

sroceedinc
I
des a V~C
in this
9.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
sm = cm + aII tan +m
where sf and sm are the strength of the joint and intact rock
material respectively,
cl and cm are the cohesive strength parameters,
41 and +m are the friction angles, and
on is the normal stress on the surface of consideration,
then, provided rigid body mechanics apply and sj and s,,,
are mobilized simultaneously, the strength-of the failure
surface would be given by
s = (I - k) (crfz + on t a n +*) + k (cj + a11 t a n 4j) _ .(19)
w h e r e k is defined as the continuity of joint plane on the
failure surface, and is given by
Cb
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
k =
Za -i- Xb
It is recognised that the assumption that sj and srn develop
simultaneously may not be justified. If, as in soil mechanics,
an idealized strength-strain curve such as curve abc in Fig. 21
could be assumed, then at failure the various points along
the failure surface would all lie (at peak strength) along
the portion bc of the curve. This does not hold for either
intact rock material or clean joint surfaces, since they have
idealized stress-strain curves which show a reduction in
strength after peak strength has been reached and may be
represented by idealized curve adef. The strain at which peak
joint strength and intact rock strengths are reached differ,
as does the slope of the portion ad of the respective stressstrain curves. As yet insufficient is known about the
relative contributions to strength from the intact rock and
from joint portions of the failure surface to produce the
combined stress-strain curve. The approach adopted here is
to accept mobilization of peak strengths from all sources
and to design slopes to a suitable factor of safety.

surfaces along it a relatively coarse measurement of them

will suffice. cm may be estimated from the rock hardness
classification (Jennings and Robertson) and bm estimated
from test results quoted in the literature. This is probably
the most satisfactory procedure where the natural variability
of the rock is large, since a large number of estimates can
be made and the average properties determined. Apart from
this it also represents a considerable saving in laboratory
costs since any further testing is confined to particular
areas of interest.
The classification of consistency for soils and hardness for
rock types as used in the joint survey is described by Piteau.
The results of unconfined compressive tests conducted on
specimens which have been classified according to this system
are shown in Fig. 22. An envelope of minimum strength
against consistency classification may be drawn. Line ECD
represents the minimum strength envelope for the results of
tests conducted in South Africa (Robertson and Jennings)
but ABCD represents the minimum strength envelope using
all data, published in the literature. Knowing the average
hardness classification for the material (varying from very
soft soil to very hard rock) a conservative estimate of the
unconfined crushing strength (qu), may be made by using
the envelope ABCD.
5.1
Very sot! sod

REFERENCES

SbfFfoil
0

53

.75G-G5

Firm soil

Sl
S t i f f roif

SS
Very stifi soil

I
h

-L

4
\

R3
Hard rock

RL
Very hard

rock

Fig. 21. Idealized stress strain relariomhips

Very

The process for determining the apparent strength parameters for a potential failure surface from the parameters
describing joint and intact rock strengths requires considerable further research and development.
9 . T H E E S T I M A T I O N O F cm, I A N D &,
FOR INTACT ROCK MATERIAL

535 00)

tihere the rock is reasonably homogeneous cm and +m may

be determined by the testing of specimens in the laboratory.
Since ctn and 4, are of secondary importance to the strength
along a failure surface compared with the continuity of joint

RS
very

hard rock

I
100

i
M
UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE

10
STRENGTH

lplll qu=2Cu

Fig. 22. Relatioruhip between consistency and unconfined compressive

srrengrh
The cohesive strength (cm) and tensile strength (1) of the
intact rock may be estimated from qu using the following
relationships (Robertson and Jennings):
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
Cm = 0.16q,
I

= O.lOqu

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._......... (22)

i
These are approximate and discretion and caution should
i be exercised in their application.
j
!
1
,
r

(iv) The hardness of the rock forming the sides of the

joint,
(v) The shear movement that has occurred.

Estimates of the values for the internal angle of friction,

tan 6 or coefficient of friction .u is made from the numerous
results available in the literature. Table III lists the results of
strength parameter tests obtained in this way for the rocks
about de Beers mine.

(vi) The presence, nature and thickness of gouge materials.

(vii) The effect of water.
The reridml angle of friction characteristics of various rock
types (factors (i) and (v) in previous paragraph)

I O . T H E E S T I M A T I O N O F cI A N D 4~
FOR JOINT SURFACES

If a joint surface is sheared under a given normal load,

the shear stress differs with strain. Now if the surfaces are
-initially smooth and polished the shear stress increases with
strain, (Hoskins ef al) but if they are initially rough the shear
stress decreases (Krsmanovic). At large strains, the parameter 4 tends to a constant value characteristic of the rock
material and grain size. This value of the residual angle of
friction is considered to represent the lowest frictional angle
for a clean joint, before modification by other factors, that
is likely to be encountered in the field (Jaeger and Rosengren).
The friction angles obtained from tests on smooth but unpolished surfaces, such as obtained from saw cut specimens,
are accepted as being representative of the residual angle of
friction.

1 lt has besn shown by Hoskins ef al, Jaeger and Rosengrens,

s Pattonls and others that for the low stress range associated
i with slope stability, the strength along a joint may be
described by the Mohr envelope in a straight line form i.e.
equation (17). Withers?: and Jaeger and Rosengrenj found
that Amontons friction laws appear to hold i.e. the frictional
force is independent of the area of contact, and depends
directly on the normal load, and that the two are linearly
related.
Tests by Jaeger and Rosengren and by Hoskins er al
indicate that cohesion values are appreciably large, even for
clean joints and may have values between 50 lb/in and
200 lb/in. Patton I3 explains this apparent cohesion for clean
joints by showing that the Mohr envelope is in fact curved
at very low normal stress. A technique for the assessment of
cohesion from field classifications ofjoint surfaces has not yet
been developed and, since any cohesion is rapidly destroyed
as small movements take place (Krsmanovic9) the cohesion
for joints which are clean are assumed to be zero.

The efict of waviness (factor (ii) )

Since the undulations of the joint surface are of such a
magnitude that they are unlikely to be sheared off during
failure along the joint, they modify the direction of movement
as illustrated in Fig. 23. Waviness is measured in the field
survey in terms of the amplitude and base length of the
waves. The determination of the wave angle X, as defined
in Fig. 23, depends on the shape of the wave. The waves on
joints do not appear to follow any definite mathematical shape
(Robertson and Jennings) and it was accepted that 1 may
be determined from the following euqation:

Summarizing the findings of the many workers who have

: considered the strength along joints. Robertson and Jennings*
conclude that the main factors affecting the strength along
I/ joints may be defined as:
;

(i) The composite frictional angle of the minerals forming

the walls of the joint.
_.
( II) The effect of large, or first order, asperities termed
waviness.

i
i
c
I

0
1 = tan-2 L

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..__._...... (23)

where 0 is the amplitude of the wave and L is the base length

*

(iii) The effect of smaller asperities or the rorr&ness effect.

TABLE III
STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR THE ROCKS ABOUT DE BEERS MINE

Rock 1 De$:~low 1
dolerite
Type
contact

Description of rock type

Hardness
classification

I bT%
350
1500

56
240

t::
(0.73) 1.0

Surface to
contact -0

Medium grained dolerite (weathered) with fine grained

intrusions
. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RI-R2
R3

W-31

Light-grey, indurated shale with alternating, dark-grey,

. . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . .
arenaceous laminae

R2

500

80

31-76

Black pyritic shale with alternating or scattered light

grey
arenaceous
laminae
_ . . . . . . . . . _ . . .

R2

500

80

50

76-127

Black,

Rl-R2

350

56

35

127-134

Dark grey, micaceous shale

134-165

Black, slightly micaceous shale . . . . . . . . . . . .

RI

200

32

20

165-174

Carbonaceous

174-280

Mudstone

RI

200

32

20

80-290

Owyka Tillite

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

R4

3000

480

290-

Melaphyre

_ . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . .

RS

8ooo

1 280

9
10

slightly

micaceous

shale

shale

_ ..........

. . . . . . . . . . . .

_ . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . .

69

(0.73) 1.0

1.0

The
ical I3
Fen Pi
;e

to

in the side slopes of de Beers mine, these results should be

conservative.

i
1

. J. vi i

The eficfs o/gouge (factor (v) )

tr, Jo1 _

Where gouge is sufficiently thick to prevent the walls of

joints from touching, it controls shear strength entirely, and
the joint strength parameters are those of the gouge. Very
thin gouge deposits are likely to modify only the residual
angle of friction, and the apparent increase in friction due to
roughness must still occur. Between these two exiremes a
complete range of intermediate effects must occur.

lnstitl .~n
I

m. erg
InstitL
II held
>me 3( i
exper
ly devc !
ing an
per pit
al that
sning S
3rly de: I
hined. 1 :
urn wf :
and pr
s coulc
probler
on of tl
6ium p
31s invc
lect of 1

Fig. 23. The efect of waviness on the vector of I mvemenl

Since the gouge hardness is measured in the joint survey,

an estimate of the gouge cohesive strength m a y be made
from Fig. 22 and equation (21). Alternatively. both t h e
cohesion and the angle of internal friction of the gouge may
be determined by laboratory testing samples.

The eflecr o/ rofrghness (factor (iii) )

In general, only a portion of the joints in a joint set contain

gouge and of these some may have thick deposits while others
have only traces. The assessment of the average strength is
essentially a judgment process and the following points are
noted to aid this process:
(a) The greater the average size of the joints in a joint set,
the greater the proportion of joints containing gouge.
(6) The greater the joint size the greater the chance of it
containing gouge, and the greater the thickness of the
gouge that may occur.
(c) The larger joints form a greater percentage area of any
failure plane than the percentage their numbers form
of the total joint population.
(d) Any failure plane must have a tendency to select
joints of lower shear strength.

size) resulted in increased initial friction an

tests on both small and large samples clear
increases in dj were dependent on the size
forming the roughness of the sliding surface
relative size of the asperities compared with
Since theory predicts (PattonIs) that this incre

natural joints from de

in Table IV. From t h
roughness category a
along the joint by ap
the range 50 lb/in* to
The effect of hardness (factor (iv) )

As a result of the above considerations the following

method of estimating the joint shear strength is suggested:
(i) Determine the cohesion (CJJ and friction angle (41~)
for a clean joint and the cohesion (cjJ and friction
angle ( +jp) for a joint with gouge of sufficient thickness that it controls shear behaviour.
(ii) Based on the normal stresses on the plane of failure
calculate the approximate average strength that either
of these joints would have on any potential failure
plane. Let these values be sjc and sfg respectively.
(iii) If sjc > sfe then determine cf and #j as follows:
(a) If the percentage of joints containing gouge is
greater than 30 per cent then

The difference in frictional characteristic

models tested under high and low normal s
apparent. For low normal stresses the few
asperities on the surface produced an apparen
angle. These asperities shear under higher n
the more numerous lower angle asperities giv
lower friction angle, Hence, the effect of ro
take due cognisance of the strength of the
hardness) and the stresses that wit1 be
joints.
The increase of 4 in the angle of friction fo
category was found from models made of p
Rl) which is softer than the rocks about
(hardness Rl to R5). Since the range of n
the models were subjected to (50 Ib/in* t
approximately that which could be expect

Cl

= CI#

+I

. . . . . . . . .._.._.. (24)

h# >

TABLE IV
FRlCTlON ANGLES FOR PLASTER MODELLED JOINTS OF VARIOUS ROUCHNESSES

Roughness
category

escription of
-0int surface

4 at low normal
stresses

Contain ng gouge

14

Artificially smooth, cast on

ground @ass sheet . _ . _

. . . .

Smoothest natural joints . .

2
-____
Moderarely rough joints . .
3
-----___--Very rough joints _ . . .
4
5

Very, berry rough joints

..

4 at high normal
stresses

Gouge controls

Gouge controls

25

3 I-40

29)

38-47O
40-50
-

__-

32+
36
42

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes lo thank de Beers Consolidated Mines
for permission lo reproduce certain information and results
in this paper and to express his appreciation to Professor
J. E. Jennings of the University of the Witwatersrand under
whose direction most of the work described was conducted,
for his enthusiasm, encouragement and assistance. The
guidance of R. Stamer of Operation Research Bureau (Pty.)
Ltd. on the statistical concepts, and of D. R. Piteau, on the
engineering geological aspects, is acknowledged with appreciation and thanks.

(iv) If sic < ~1~ then calculate cj and 4j as follows:

(u) If percentage of clean joints is greater than 70
per cent:

Cj = cjc
h = +jc

................

(b) If percentage of clean joints is x per cent where

* x per cent < 70 per cent then

CI

REFERENCES
I. BROADBENT. C . D . S l o p e s t a b i l i t y p r o g r a m o f K e n n e c o t t
Copper Corporation, Pre-print for presentation at the annual
meeting of A.I.M.E. February, 1968, New York.
2. EVDOKIMO\~, P. D. and SAPECIN, D. D. Stability, shear and
sliding resistance, and deformation of rock foundations,

70-x%

= cjc + (Cjd - Cjc) 70

4j = djc + (bjg - 4jc) 7*

. . . . (27)
I

Israel Program for Scientific Translations publication. 1967.

3. FRIEDMAN. M. Petrofabric techniques for the detertination
of principle stress directions in rock. State of Stress in the
Earths Crust, American Elsevier Publishing Co., N.Y., 1964,
pp 451-550.
4 . HOSKINS, E. R., J A E G E R, J . C . a n d ROSENGREN, K. J. A
medium-scale direct friction experiment, Inr. Journal afRock

These rules are rough and are based essentially on a

judgment assessment. The effects on strength and distribution
of gouge filled joints along failure surfaces requires further
attention.
J
11. C O N C L U S I O N

Mechanics and Mitt. SC. 5, 1967, pp 143-154.

5. J A E G E R , J. C. and R O S E N G R E N , K. J. Friction and sliding
joints, Aast JI. of Min. Met. Aug., 1968.

From the data collected in a field survey of the rock and

joint types and characteristics the population of the mechanical discontinuities in the rock mass may be determined.
The volumes of rock masses of similar physical and
mechanical properties can be delineated. These are the
structural regions. The strength and behaviour characteristics of the various elements that form the rock mass can be
estimated and, if particular planes of failure are investigated,
the apparent strength parameters relating to these planes
may be estimated.
Thus the interpretation of geological factors can yield,
with a minimal amount of laboratory testing. sufficient
information to enable the engineer to proceed with the determination of the stability of a slope. This information may at
the present level of knowledge be relatively inaccurate, but
it permits a first assessment of the stability of a slope.
The regions and planes of possible instability are defined
and these lesser regions may be more intensively investigated,
with laboratory and field tests being conducted where
additional or more precise information is considered necessary.
The most important single factor affecting the strength
along a potential failure plane is the continuity of the joints
on that plane. Improved techniques for determining joint
properties which influence the continuity value calculated
and more precise mathematical models to represent potential
failure planes, would greatly increase the value of this
analysis technique.
A further aspect that must be resolved is the exact nature
of the apparent strength parameters for the failure surface.
particularly the contributions to the apparent strength from
the inT%zt and joint surfaces for various strains.
The stress-strain behaviour of a slope and the progressive
mobilization of strength and subsequent failure will ultimately have to be accounted for.
As the knowledge of the effects of the various influential
factors increases the analytical approach of slope stability
determination will become more precise. Confidence in design

6.

J ENNINGS ,

J. E. A mathematical theory for the calculation of

the stability of slopes in open cast mines, This Symposium.
7. JENKINGS, J. E. and R O B E R T S O N , A. MA&. Procedures for
the prediction of the stability of slopes cut in natural rock,
Proc. 7th Int. Cong. on Soil Mechanics, Mexico City, 1969.
8. J O H N, K. W. Graphical stability analysis of slopes in iointed
rock. A.S.C.E. Journal of Soil Mech. and Found. Div.. 1968.
94 No. SlM.2.
9. KRSMANOVIC, D. Initial and residual shear strength in hard
rocks, Geotechnique. 1967, 17 pp 145-160.
IO. KRLJMBEIS, W. C. Some problems in applying statistics to
geology, Applied Statistics, 1960, 9 pp 82-91.
11. MULLER,

L. Geomechanishe auswertung gefugekundlicher

details, Geologic and Bauwessen, 1959, 24 pp 4-21.

12. PACHE;, F . Xennziffen d e s flachengeR~g~s,* Ceotogie and

Bauwessen, 1959, 24 pp 224-227.

13. P A T T O N, F. D. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock and

related materials, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ of Illionis, 1966.
14. PITEAU! D. R. Geological factors significant to stability of
open pit slopes in rock, This Symposium.
15. PINCU~, H. J. Quantitative comparative analysis of fractures

in gnelsses and overlying sediment rocks of Northern New

Jersey, Bul. of the Geol. Sot. of Am., 1951, 62, pp 81-130.
16. PINCUS, H. J. The analysis of aggregates of orientation data
in the earth sciences, Jl. of Geol., 1953, 61, pp 482-509.
17. R OBERTSON ,. A. MAcG. The determination of the stability of
s l o p e s in Jointed rock with particular reference to the
determination of strength parameters, and mechanisms of
failure, Ph.D. Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, in

print. 1970.
1 8 . RO B E R T S O N , A. MAcG. and JENKINCS, J. E. Strength parameters for rock slopes, Report on the stability of the side
slopes of the big hole of the de Beers mine, Kimberley,
South Africa, 1968.
19. R O B E R T S O N , A. MAcG. and S T A M E R, R. The interpretation
of joint survey data, Report on the stability of the side slopes
of the big-hole of the de Beers mine, Kimberley, South Africa,
1968.
20. RO S E N G R E N, K. J. Rock mechanics of the Black Star Open
Cut, Mount Isa, Ph.D. Thesis, The Australian National

Uni;ersity, 1968.
21.

TERZAGHI, R. D. Sources of error in joint surveys,

nique, 1965, 15, pp 287-304.

Geotech-

22. WITHERS. J. H. Sliding resistance along discontinuities in a

rock mass, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illionos, 1964.
71