Laserfiche WebLink
in Bench 1 have been summarized by computer plotting and analysis of the joint/fault <br /> poles in lower hemisphere stereographic projection. Pole scatter diagrams, pole count <br /> contours, and contours of pole percent concentrations are presented in Appendix A. <br /> Statistical processing of the fracture orientations was performed using a computer <br /> program, PATCH, which identifies clusters of joint poles with similar orientations and <br /> concentrations that are statistically above background scatter. The joint pole clusters and <br /> their ranges in orientation are listed in Table 3.1. <br /> Table 3.1 Joint Set Orientations Identified by PATCH in Bench 1 Data <br /> Set Dip Azimuth Dip Frequency <br /> Designation (degrees) (degrees) of <br /> Occurrence <br /> Mean Range Mean Range <br /> J11 78 ±5.3 88 ±5.3 22% <br /> J12 349 ±5.6 87 ±9.0 4% <br /> J9 38 ±5.6 78 ±5.5 5% <br /> J7 180 ±6.2 75 ±6.4 9% <br /> J8* 118 -- 47 -- 4% <br /> J10** 258 -- 88 -- -- <br /> * Set interpreted, not defined statistically <br /> ** Set J11 with opposite dip direction <br /> Six fault trends were identified in the Bench 1 mapping, and are shown in the lower <br /> hemisphere stereographic projection in Figure 3.4 as F1 through F6. These structures <br /> have greater continuity than the joints and were individually labeled to facilitate <br /> investigation of their effect on stability. <br /> Numerical labels for the joint sets begin at the value 7 to separate them from the <br /> faults for later identification of potential wedge intersections in the stability analysis. <br /> Figure 3.4 compares the location of the fault poles and the joint sets. Additional joint sets <br /> 7 <br />