Ambiguities in estimating fractal dimensions of rock fracture surfaces.
Miller SM; McWilliams PC; Kerkering JC
Rock mechanics: contributions and challenges: proceedings of the 31st U.S. Symposium, June 18-20, 1990, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado. Hustrulid WA, Johnson GA, eds. Brookfield, VT: A.A. Balkema, 1990 Jan; :471-478
U.S. Bureau of Mines analyses of rock fracture roughness profiles from three different rock types have provided ambiguous results when fractal dimensions are estimated using self-affine fractal models. Variabilities in natural fracture surfaces cause estimated fractal dimensions to be significantly different even for adjacent, parallel profiles. Fractal dimensions calculated by any of four methods (divider, modified divider, box, and spectral methods) are sensitive to arbitrarily selected input parameters, and results from the four methods rarely agree with one another. Furthermore, visual assessments of profiles suggest that rock fracture roughness cannot be described consistently by fractal dimension alone.
Rock-mechanics; Geology; Coal-mining; Underground-mining; Structural-analysis; Surface-mining; Surface-properties; Analytical-models; Ground-stability
OP; Conference/Symposia Proceedings
Hustrulid WA; Johnson GA
Rock mechanics: contributions and challenges: proceedings of the 31st U.S. Symposium, June 18-20, 1990, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado