Natural rock joint roughness quantification through fractal techniques

By P. Kulatilake, Pirahas Balasingam, Jinyong Park, Robert Morgan. 2006

178 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Relationship between joint roughness coefficient and fractal dimension of rock fracture surfaces (2015, background): “[10] and Carr and Warriner [11], the fractal dimension was thought to be a suitable parameter for quantifying the roughness of a natural rock joint profile [12–18], as the fractal dimension has a minimum value of 1 for a perfectly smooth profile and a maximum value of less than 2 for an extremely ro”
An Investigation of Discontinuity Roughness Scale Dependency Using High-Resolution Surface Measurements (2013, methodology): “, Myers 1962; Maerz and Franklin 1990), and fractal methods (e.g., Turk et al. 1987; Lanaro 2000; Kulatilake et al. 2006).”
A new method estimating the 2D Joint Roughness Coefficient for discontinuity surfaces in rock masses (2014, background): “In order to quantify aforementioned roughness parameters some form of measurements or observations of surface topography coupled with some empirical [13], statistical [14] or fractal [15,16] analyses are required.”
Estimation of the joint roughness coefficient (JRC) of rock joints by vector similarity measures (2017, methodology): “2014), and fractal methods (e.g. Lee et al. 1990; Fardin et al. 2004; Shirono and Kulatilake 1997; Kulatilake et al. 2006; Babanouri et al. 2013; Li and Huang 2015) have been proposed to quantify the joint roughness.”