Mine scale DFN modelling and

rapid upscaling in geomechanical

simulations of large open pits

S. Rogers, D. Elmo and

R.Beddoes
Golder Associates Ltd.
W. Dershowitz
Golder Associates Inc.

Abstract
The use of Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) models to define equivalent rock mass parameters based upon a realistic representation
of the rock fabric has the potential to improve the predictability achieved by various geomechanical simulations. An increasingly
employed methodology is to explicitly include a small scale representative DFN model within an intact rock matrix that can be
used as a numerical laboratory test to allow a quantitative assessment of rock mass strength and anisotropy. These Synthetic
Rock Mass (SRM) approaches provide a significant opportunity to improve upon the more traditional method of deriving rock
mass properties from empirical rock mass classification schemes. However as open pits get larger and deeper, the increasing
heterogeneity and anisotropy encountered can become problematic when seeking to define a relatively few geotechnical domains
and associated synthetic rock mass samples for calibration. Heterogeneous rock masses often comprise highly spatially variable
parameters such as fracture intensity, fracture size and orientation, rendering the SRM approach either very time consuming or
potentially unrepresentative.
An alternative method is to develop a mine scale DFN representation of the rock mass fabric from large scale faulting down to
smaller scale joints based upon detailed analysis of site wide fracture and fault data, acquired from boreholes, pit slopes and
underground mapping data. The mine scale DFN model can be converted to equivalent directional rock mass properties using a
rapid analytical approach, allowing the creation of a rock mass model that incorporates the influence of a local variable structure
with continuous spatial variability. When coupled with more detailed numerical SRM simulations for calibration and validation, a
balanced and representative approach can be established that puts more equal emphasis on data collection, local and large scale
characterization, conceptualisation and geomechanical simulation.

INTRODUCTION
The use of discrete fracture network (DFN) models to define equivalent rock mass parameters based upon a realistic representation
of the rock fabric has the potential to improve the predictions achieved by various geomechanical simulations. An increasingly
employed methodology is to explicitly include a small scale representative DFN model within an intact rock matrix that can be used
as a numerical laboratory test to allow a quantitative assessment of rock mass strength and anisotropy (e.g. Elmo et al., 1; Pierce et
al., 2 and Beck et al., 3). These synthetic rock mass (SRM) approaches provide a significant opportunity to improve upon the more
traditional method of deriving rock mass properties from empirical rock mass classification schemes. However whilst our ability to
undertake small scale realistic rock mass simulations has significantly advanced, this has taken precedence over representing the
variability of the rock mass structure and properties. This paper looks at some of the issues around the application of DFN modelling
as a platform from which to develop mine scale spatially varying rock mass properties that better use the available rock mass
characterisation data for mine scale numerical simulation.

DISCRETE FRACTURE NETWORK MODELLING

The Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) approach is a modeling methodology that seeks to describe the rock mass fracture system
in statistical ways by building a series of discrete fracture objects based upon field observations of such fracture properties as
size, orientation and intensity. Much of the early interest in the DFN approach was associated with modelling of groundwater flow
through natural fracture systems (largely as part of nuclear waste isolation programmes) and for modelling fractured hydrocarbon
reservoirs. However the approach is increasingly being used to address both fundamental and practical geomechanical problems
when engineering large structures in fractured rock masses. DFN methods have a number of key advantages over more conventional
methods in that they are better at describing local scale problems because of their ability to capture the discrete fracture properties
more accurately than larger scale continuum approaches and can also capture the heterogeneity of the fracture system by explicitly
describing key elements of the system. Most importantly they provide a clear and reproducible route from site investigation data to
modelling because real fracture properties are being preserved through the modelling process.
Basic DFN modelling requires a number of fracture properties to be defined, see Table 1. The primary properties are required for all
modelling as these represent the geometry of the fracture network. However the secondary properties may also be defined depending
on whether the application of the DFN model is hydraulic or geomechanical.

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Fracture Property
Orientation distribution
Fracture Size distribution

Primary Properties

Fracture intensity distribution

Spatial Variation
Termination Percentage
Aperture distribution
Fracture shear properties

Secondary Properties

Fracture stiffness properties

Transmissivity distribution
Storativity distribution

Table I - Primary & secondary properties for defining a DFN model

In order to build a volumetrically simple DFN model, only the primary fracture properties of orientation, fracture size, intensity and its
local spatial variation are required to be defined.
In open pits, fracture orientation is typically defined from borehole derived imaging data (acoustical or optical) or bench mapping activities.
Where fracture orientation data are highly systematic and organized into distinctive fracture sets, the statistical properties of these sets can
be defined and used as a key stochastic input into the DFN model. Often however the data have a more dispersed orientation that does not
support this approach. In this case, an alternative method of bootstrapping can be used. This is a statistical method based upon multiple
random sampling with replacement from an original sample to create a pseudo-replicate sample of fracture orientations.
Definition of fracture size distribution typically comes from bench, outcrop or drift mapping. DFN models require a distribution of
fracture radii to be determined and these need to be derived from trace length or persistence data. A number of different statistical
distributions are found to describe fracture size with the log-normal, exponential and power law distributions being most commonly
applied. Increasingly fracture size is being seen to be a critical input into the DFN model and a key parameter for sensitivity studies.
Defining fracture intensity is somewhat problematic as there are a wide range of possible measures, often with ambiguous definitions. In
order solve this problem, the DFN community has developed a unified system of fracture intensity measures that provide an easy framework
to move between differing scales and dimensions, Dershowitz and Herda (4).This is summarised in Table 2.
Dimension of Measurement
0

Dimension of
Sample

P10
P11
No of fractures
Length of
per unit length of fractures per unit
borehole
length

Linear Measures

P21
P20
P22
Length
of
2 No of fractures per
Area of fractures
fractures per unit
unit area
per area
area
P30
3 No of fractures per
unit volume

Term

Density

Areal Measures

P33
P32
Volume of
Area of fractures
fractures per unit
per unit volume
volume
Intensity

Volumetric
Measures

Porosity

Table II - The Pij system of fracture intensity

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Slope Stability

Given the Pij intensity system described above, fracture intensity for DFN modelling is typically defined either from borehole data (fracture
logging or borehole imaging tools) as fracture frequency (P10) or from trace mapping upon surfaces such as benches or tunnel walls
(P21). Care needs to be taken in the use of both of these data as they are highly directionally biased. The preferred measure of fracture
intensity for a DFN model is known as P32 (fracture area/unit volume) which is an intrinsic rock mass property. Whilst it cannot be directly
measured it can be inferred from the 1D and 2D data above using a simulated sampling methodology. Through sampling of simulated
fracture networks of differing intensity, a relationship can be developed between observed fracture intensity and its associated P32 that
allows the volume of the model to be populated with the appropriate fracture intensity.
Typically at the scale of current DFN models used as inputs into SRM modelling, the spatial distribution of fracturing is defined using a
constant overall intensity within that volume. Locally this results in intensity variation as the fracture generation is a Poisson process, with
a Gamma distribution describing the local variation of intensity resulting from the natural clustering that occurs with any Poisson process.
However in many of the rock masses hosting large open pits there is a degree of spatial ordering that ensures a volumetrically constant
intensity is not appropriate. For instance in strongly layered systems where the jointing may be related to bed thickness and has a high
level of spatial ordering, effort is needed to ensure this geological system is accurately captured within the DFN model. Figure 1 below
shows two different types of DFN models used as inputs to SRM modelling.

Figure 1 - Examples of small scale DFN models used for SRM simulation. Conventional DFN model with a uniform spatial distribution of a monzonite rock
mass (Left), conceptual layer bounded joint system from a quartzite rock mass (Centre) with a trace map through the model showing the high degree of spatial
ordering present within the fracture system (Right)

THE SYNTHETIC ROCK MASS CONCEPT

Establishing representative rock mass properties has long been recognised as one of the main challenges in rock mechanics. Rock
mass classification systems such as the RMR (Bieniawski, 5), Q-system (Barton et al., 6) and the Geological Strength Index (GSI; Hoek et
al., 7) are traditionally used to derive properties for numerical analysis of rock engineering problems. As an alternative, the SRM approach
to geomechanical upscaling has been increasingly employed in high value rock engineering projects (e.g. large open pit slopes and block
caving studies), where an explicitly defined small scale representative DFN model is embedded within an intact rock matrix such that the
combined model can be used as a numerical laboratory test, to allow a quantitative assessment of rock mass strength and anisotropy.
The generally applied methodology is to build representative DFN models of the key geotechnical domains at the scale of the geomodelling
cell for the mine scale problem. So if the mine scale problem is approximately 2km square, the cell size of the SRM sample might be in
the order of 25-50m. Once detailed numerical simulations of the small scale DFN model have been undertaken, the derived properties of
the SRM are used to construct each tested geotechnical domain within the large mine scale model.
Several issues constrain the application of the SRM approach. The first issue is the considerable additional effort, computational
time and cost associated with SRM construction and testing. A suite of SRM calibration tests can take on the order of several weeks
to complete even assuming a relative simple geological setting and a single representative SRM model for each domain. Therefore
considerable care is required in selecting representative samples.
Another of the key issues is the parameterisation of joint properties within the SRM. Elmo and Stead (8) showed that the simulated
rock mass strength is highly dependent upon the normal and shear stiffness values that are applied to the joint surfaces. Preliminary
results indicates that increasing the joint normal stiffness from 10 to 100GPa/m potentially increases the equivalent rock mass strength
as measured by the Hoek-Brown envelope from that of a rock mass with GSI of 55 to one of 75, implying a considerably stronger and
more rigid rock mass, Figure 2. Given the potentially long testing time, the ability to run multiple sensitivities on these uncertain properties
is not easily achieved.

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Figure 2 - Preliminary results of an integrated 2-D Finite/Discrete-DFN analysis to investigate the effects of joint properties in SRM testing. Simulated rock
sample is 5m x10m

Third, given the inherent uncertainty within the rock mass properties of a particular domain, the number of DFN realizations needed to
derive a reliable SRM remains unclear. This is particularly evident when one considers which lithological units are grouped together to
form a particular geotechnical domain.
Finally, spatial variability of fracture intensity may have a greater influence than previously recognized on the generalization of an
SRM approach. Fracture intensity within DFN modelling is typically defined using P32. This critical fracture property is known to show
considerable variation through the rock mass both as a result of natural property variability and also correlated spatial variation associated
with the degree and nature of structural deformation. The importance of understanding the distribution of P32 within a rock mass relates
to its control upon the behaviour of the rock mass. At lower values of P32, a rock mass comprises a largely intact or massive assemblage
of rock matrix separated by a number of sparsely distributed fractures. At higher values of P32, the rock mass may comprise a completely
disassembled arrangement of kinematically mobile blocks whose overall behaviour is largely controlled by joint properties and minor intact
rock bridge
The transition from intact massive rock mass to kinematically mobile rock mass follows a percolation process, meaning that the
transition from intact property dominated behaviour to joint dominated behaviour occurs over a relatively small change in P32 once a
critical P32 threshold has been exceeded. This process is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. The former shows the mapped blocks within 7
different realisations of the same DFN model with only the fracture intensity changing, whilst the latter shows a graph of the total volume
forming blocks within the DFN models above, plotted against P32. Each point represents the average of multiple simulations. As can
be seen, below a P32 of approximately 2, less than 20% of the total DFN volume forms potentially mobile blocks, with the remaining
80% comprising what we define as residual blocks. These are blocks of intact rock whose scale is considerably larger than the volume
being searched with a typically multi-facetted non convex complex block shape. The strength of such a rock mass is clearly dominated
by the intact matrix. However above a P32 of 3, more than 80% of the rock mass comprises potentially mobile blocks. In this rock mass
configuration, it is the joint properties and small intact rock bridges which control the strength the rock mass.

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Slope Stability

Figure 3 - Mapped blocks within 7 different realisations of the same DFN model with only the fracture intensity changing. The increasing P32 values (units )
results in an increase in the proportion of the total volume occupied by in situ blocks, with this proportion rapidly jumping at a P32 of around 2.25

The implications for this observation in slope engineering are also very important. Conventional slope analysis typically increases
the cohesion of the rock mass to account for the proportion of rock bridges present within a presumed failure pathway. However as
demonstrated above in Figure 3, the proportion of rock bridges present within the rock mass is related to the spatially variable distribution
of P32. Selection therefore of a single rock bridge proportion and associated cohesion modification may not adequately describe critical
parts of the rock mass where the cohesion increase is unjustified and in fact failure is more likely. This problem is handled to some
extent by sampling from a distribution of cohesion to estimate a probability of failure. However it can be seen that there is actually much
higher uncertainty in the cohesion at some values of P32 than at others and that if this approach is taken, the probability distribution
chosen should be sensitive to P32. Again, this reinforces the value of a good pit scale DFN.
Given how the fundamental behaviour of the rock mass is controlled by P32, it is likely that selecting a single P32 value to define SRM
properties may result in the average properties not being representative. This argues in favour of developing DFNs at a much larger scale
to explore P32 (and hence strength and stiffness) variability more broadly.

Figure 4 - Graph of the percentage of total volume forming blocks plotted against fracture intensity P32. The inset models show the progression from an
intact massive rock mass at low P32 values to a largely kinematically controlled rock mass at higher P32 values

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

MINE SCALE DFN MODELLING

As discussed in the previous section, much of the recent interest in DFN modelling has focused upon building relatively small models
within simple volumes, often as an input for SRM modeling, whereas subtle variations in fracture intensity may in fact be important to large
scale rock mass behaviour. We describe here some of the issues associated with building mine scale DFN models where the primary
fracture properties of intensity, spatial variation, orientation and size are needed to be defined across a much wider and potentially complex
volume. The major work flow steps described in this section are summarized below in Figure 5.

Figure 5 - Graph of the percentage of total volume forming blocks plotted against fracture intensity P32. The inset models show the progression from an
intact massive rock mass at low P32 values to a largely kinematically controlled rock mass at higher P32 values

Having seen that the nature of a simulated rock mass can vary dramatically, simply as a function of the fracture intensity (P32), it is clear
that defining a spatially variable P32 property in order to constrain a spatially variable DFN model is the best way to address rock mass
variability. In order to achieve this, a number of interpretation and processing steps are required. The first step is the identification of zones
of the rock mass where the average degree of fracturing remains constant over intervals of 10s-100s of metres, the typical modelling
resolution. To achieve this, Cumulative Fracture Intensity (CFI) plots are generated for all geotechnical boreholes, with these displaying
depths on the horizontal axis and cumulative fracture number on the y axis, see Figure 6. Where the slope (gradient) of the CFI curve is
constant, the fracture frequency over that interval is constant. Interpretation of CFI plots from a large number of boreholes results in the
definition in a data set of specified P10 intervals that provide the basis for any spatial modelling and extrapolation.

Figure 6 - Example Cumulative Fracture Intensity (CFI) plot for a borehole showing the indentified zones of constant fracture frequency (marked with open
squares). The differing colours of the lines represent different geotechnical domains

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Slope Stability

The advantage of CFI plots over depth histograms is that they emphasize common fracture frequency rather than the variation and
represent a practical way to approximate the variation of fracture frequency along the length of the boreholes. All of the CFI analysis uses
fracture frequency information. These data are obviously heavily influenced by the orientation of the boreholes and the orientation of the
predominant fracture sets. To account for this, the P10 intensity properties need to be converted to a non directional P32 potential. This
volumetric fracture intensity property is independent of scale and orientation, and can therefore be used to directly extrapolate intensities
throughout the rock mass volume. To derive the P32 potential property, we use the technique of Wang 2006 according to the equation:

P32 = C31 x P10

(1)

Where C31 is a function of the orientation of the borehole and the orientation of the mean fracture sets and has to be derived for every
borehole from the mean borehole orientation using equations 2-4 and shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Terminology used for derivation of C31 values as a function of fracture orientation and borehole orientation, from Wang (9)

1
C31

= a cos (b ) + c

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

a = 0.1655 In (k) + 2.0954

b = 0.1247 In (k) + 0.0507

c = -0.00551 In (k) + 0.5988

Where is the angle between the mean fracture pole and the borehole axis.
Having created a data set of orientation-corrected P32 potential values, geostatistical methods can be used to interpolate these values
through the mine volume. Obviously there are a wide range of available modelling techniques for the interpolation of these data through
the mine volume. We have found that the geological realism created by geostatistical simulation is considered to be a better approximation
of the fracture intensity of a deposit than harsher modelling methods such as kriging.
The P32 potential property provides the relative distribution of fracture intensity (inherently the spatial model). However, to actually build
a mine scale DFN model that honours both the relative spatial intensity as well as actual intensity, the model needs to use P10 conditioning
at the boreholes. This approach to large scale modelling allows the spatial intensity property to control the probability of a fracture
occurrence in a certain part of the model, with modelling continuing until the average fracture frequency on the selected conditioning
boreholes has been honoured.
In mine scale modelling of the fracture orientation distribution, the most efficient method of reproducing the observed distribution
of data is to use a spatially varying bootstrapping technique. With this approach, fractures orientations are drawn from a local
bootstrapping population (typically the borehole) with each [population having a specified radius of influence. In this way any systematic
spatial variation observed in fracture orientations can be directly incorporated into the DFN model in an efficient manner.
For mine scale modelling applications, fracture size data is typically derived using one of two main approaches. The first utilizes power
law size analysis and can be applied when it can be shown that fracture trace lengths (as mapped on drifts or benches) and major
structures (as mapped on pit walls) can be usefully described using a common power law relationship, allowing the generation of fractures
over a wide range of lengths (Cladouhos and Marrett, 10). Alternatively using either a simulated sampling technique (Dershowitz et al.,
11) or analytical function (Zhang and Einstein, 12), observed trace length data (typically from pit wall mapping) can be converted to an
equivalent fracture radius distribution. The choice of the technique used often depends on the scale of the modelling, the nature of problem

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

being studied and the availability of good quality major structure data. If deterministic fault surfaces are available then reproduction of
smaller scale fractures at scales less than those deterministically included can be achieved stochastically may provide the best way to
develop the discrete structural model. However, in the absence of good quality surfaces or observed major structures, then the simulated
sampling or analytical routes need to be used.
Figure 8 below shows an example of a mine scale DFN model in both plan view and also as a simulated structural map generated from
the intersection of the pit shell with the DFN model.

Figure 8 - Example of the major elements of a mine scale DFN model. a) the pit shell and a number of the boreholes used for bootstrapping the fracture
orientations from, b) the DFN model containing both stochastically generated and deterministically placed major structures, c) two of the major faults along with
a simulated fault map on the pit shell and d) computation of the resultant model P32 property with warm colours highest

UPSCALING THE DFN MODEL TO CONTINUUM PROPERTIES

Having generated a detailed mine scale spatially variable DFN model that accurately reflects the broad variation in fracture geometry
and properties, there is a need to convert the discrete model into equivalent properties (upscaling) for use in numerical simulations. This
has been the focus of much study over the last few years with the development of the synthetic rock mass approach to rock modelling
but as discussed earlier, this has revolved upon a limited number of small scale simulations only. If our rock mass of interest is spatially
homogenous, without variation in intensity, orientation, size and fracture properties then upscaling with a limited number of small models
would be acceptable. However in the majority of rock masses at the scale of large open pits, geological and structural homogeneity is not
the norm and therefore small scale SRM upscaling may be failing to adequately describe the rock mass variability.
Given what we know about the nature of the rock mass block geometry, its potential failure mode and P32, our goal should be the
incorporation of the best possible rock mass description within our numerical models. The key rock mass parameters that need to be
derived for input into a continuous numerical simulation are rock mass strength and stiffness, anisotropy and post failure properties (for
applications of post failure material such as caving). The conventional approach to numerical modelling is for the analysis of geotechnical
data to provide rock mass classification values (e.g. GSI) as the description of rock mass strength and stiffness. In the case the rock mass
being highly anisotropic, ubiquitous joints or similar may be added to the model. As described earlier, the SRM approach is somewhat
different in that it combines the intact rock properties with a structural description from a DFN realisation in order to determine the rock
mass behavior through a discrete numerical simulation. This behavior can then be applied constitutively in continuum simulations through
the application of the derived rock mass properties. Again, in the case the rock mass being highly anisotropic, ubiquitous joints or similar
may be added to the model to provide the necessary anisotropy.

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Slope Stability

Modelling Approach

Rock property &

geometry definition

Rock mass strength and

stiffness definition

Anisotropy

Conventional Numerical
Modelling

Data Analysis

Rock mass strength &

stiffness through rock mass
classification (e.g. GSI)

Anisotropy through
Ubiquitous jointing or
similar

Current Synthetic Rock Mass

Approach

DFN model

Rock mass strength &

stiffness through small SRM
simulation

Anisotropy through
Ubiquitous jointing or
similar

Future Synthetic Rock Mass

Approach

DFN model

Rock mass strength &

stiffness through analytical
cell based upscaling

Anisotropy through cell

based directional stiffness
property

Table III - Summary of differing upscaling approaches that may be utilised

However, if we have a mine scale DFN model, there is considerable flexibility in how the upscaling process may be carried out. The
simplest form of upscaling is to utilize the DFN model and associated joint properties to derive a spatially varying description of GSI as the
primary input into numerical modelling. This is a relatively straight forward process and ensures the mapped areas of high and low fracture
intensity are accurately captured within the numerical model rather than being ignored as outliers to the average properties, conventionally
used to define a particular geological domain. Whilst this approach will not necessarily be able to capture the difference in behavior of the
matrix dominated rock mass compared to the joint dominated kinematically mobile rock mass, at least the spatial variation of properties is
honoured in the model and therefore allowed to influence model behavior. In order to add anisotropic properties to the model, a stiffness
tensor may be calculated for every grid cell using the approach of Will et al. (13). The compliance of a system resulting from the presence
of fractures (sijkl) can be expressed as:

sijkl =

1
4

(ikjl + iljk + jkil + jlik) + ijkl

ij = 1

ijkl =

1
V

B`t(r) ni(r) nj(r) As(r)

B`N(r) ni(r) nj(r) nk(r) nl(r) As(r)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Where:
BT is the fracture normal compliance;
BN is the fracture shear compliance;
As is the fracture surface area;
n are the unit normal vectors.
In the future when numerical codes allow the directional stiffness of each model cell to be defined, the DFN model can be utilized directly
to provide this equivalent directional property within the simulation. At the current time, a ubiquitous joint can be generated in the plane of
the intermediate and minor stiffness direction in order to add the anisotropy, see Figure 10.

Figure 9 - Methodology for deriving a DFN based upscaled rock mass property description for a single cell of a numerical geomechanical model

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Figure 10 below shows an example from a model of a strongly layered fracture system that shows considerable systematic variation
in joint orientation across the model (exaggerated by the dark dashed lines) and also significant variation in rock mass strength resulting
from fracture intensity variation (the lighter colours represent higher fracture intensity).

Figure 10 - Left, Example of spatially varying DFN model of a layered fracture system seen in plan with the fracture intensity property shown behind with
warmer colours indicating higher fracture intensity, lower GSI and right, a vector plot of the direction of maximum stiffness as derived from the DFN model
coloured by fracture intensity. The red dashed lines on the left highlight the main structural grain of the DFN model and on the right highlight the main direction
of maximum stiffness

CONCLUSIONS
This paper has discussed the increasing use of DFN models to define equivalent rock mass parameters, recognising the importance
to represent the spatial variability of the rock mass structure and properties. In particular the authors believe that the real potential of
DFN modelling to rock mass property determination has not yet been fully exploited. Whereas the SRM approach has gained wide spread
acceptance and in deed has advanced the process of rock mass strength determination, the demonstrated sensitivity of rock mass
behavior to fracture intensity suggests their unfocussed or coarse application could potentially result in an unrepresentative determination
of rock mass properties. The development of a DFN based rock mass characterisation approach, accounting for rock mass anisotropy,
has been discussed. The authors have demonstrated that block (geostatistical) modelling of important rock mass properties such as
fracture intensity (P32) or GSI value along with the assignment of appropriate anisotropic properties to individual model elements rather
than to crude geotechnical domains offers a marked increase in the resolution of the modelled rock mass description. At the heart of this
modelling is a well constructed DFN model comprising deterministic major structures and stochastically modelled smaller and intermediate
structures, providing a useful description of the structural fabric variations at the mine scale.

REFERENCES
1. D. Elmo, R.J. Pine and J.S. Coggan, Characterisation of Rock Mass Strength Using a Combination of Discontinuity Mapping and
Fracture Mechanics Modelling, Proc. 40th U.S. Rock Mech. Symp., Anchorage, Alaska, 2005, Paper 05-733.
2. M. Pierce, P. Cundall, D. Potyondy and D. Mas Ivars, A Synthetic Rock Mass Model for Jointed Rock, 1st Canada-U.S. Rock
Mechanics Symposium, Vancouver, 2007, 341-349.
3. D.A. Beck, M.J. Pfitzner, S.M. Arndt and B. Fillery, Estimating Rock Mass Properties and Seismic Response Using Higher Order,
Discontinuous, Finite Element Models, 2008.
4. W.S. Dershowitz and H.H. Herda, Interpretation of Fracture Spacing and Intensity, Proc. 33rd U.S. Rock Mech. Symp., Santa Fe,
NM, 1992.
5. Z.T. Bieniawski, Engineering Rock Mass Classification,Wiley, New York, 1989.
6. N. Barton R. Lien and J. Lunde, Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Rock Support, Rock Mech., Vol. 6,
189236.

10

Santiago Chile, November 2009

Slope Stability

7. E.T. Hoek, P.K. Kaiser and W.F. Bawden, Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock, A.A. Balkena, Rotterdam, 1995.
8. 5D. Elmo and D. Stead, An integrated Numerical Modelling - Discrete Fracture Network Approach Applied to the Characterisation of
Rock Mass Strength of Naturally Fractured Pillars, Rock Mech. and Rock Eng., 2009, DOI 10.1007/s00603-009-0027-3.
9. X. Wang, Stereological Interpretation of Rock Fracture Traces on Borehole Walls and Other Cylindrical Surfaces, Ph.D. Thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2006.
10. T. Cladouhos and R. Marrett, Are Fault Growth and Linkage Models Consistent with Power-law Distributions of Fault
Lengths?, J. of Structural Geology, Vol. 18, 1996, 281-293.
11. W.S. Dershowitz, T. Eiben and T. Doe, Size, Shape and Spatial Pattern of Conductive Fractures in Heterogeneous and Fractured
Reservoirs, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2003, Paper 56516.
12. L . Zhang and H.H. Einstein, Estimating Mean Trace Length of Rock Discontinuities, Rock Mech. and Rock Eng., Vol. 31,
217-235.
13. R. Will, R. Archer and W.S. Dershowitz, Integration of Seismic Anisotropy and Reservoir Performance Data for Characterization of
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Discrete Feature Network Models, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2003, Paper 84412.

Slope Stability

Santiago Chile, November 2009

11