D

Journal of Geological Resource and Engineering 2 (2014) 55-67

DAVID

PUBLISHING

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation

Modulus
Manouchehr Sanei and Lohrasb Faramarzi
Department of Mining Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran
Abstract: Rock mass deformation modulus is a fundamental factor for a safe and economical design of rock structures like large
underground openings, tunneling, and open pit mine as well as foundations in both the initial state of stresses act on rock mass and its
strength characteristics. The rock mass deformation modulus recently has been measured by in-situ loading tests and has been
estimated by use of empirical equation based on classification systems and data of laboratory tests. In-situ tests to measure modulus
directly are so expensive, times consuming and the reliability of the results of these tests is sometimes doubtful; subsequently, many
researches have been carried out to estimate this parameter based on classification systems. In this study, a new empirical equation was
proposed by use of statistical analyses based on a database of more than 142 in-situ tests, like plate load tests, dilatometer tests, flat jack
tests, and classification systems; in addition, properties of the intact rock.
Key words: Rock mass deformation modulus, in-situ tests, classification systems, empirical equation.

1. Introduction
The deformation modulus is the most representative
parameter describing the pre-failure mechanical
behavior of any engineering material. Also,
deformation modulus is an important parameter used in
order to estimate various rock mass properties in a rock
engineering projects. Many methods are available to
estimate the rock mass deformation modulus such as
in-situ tests, empirical equations between deformation
modulus and rock mass classification system, and
geophysical (usually seismic) methods as well as
estimating from laboratory test results [1]. In rock mass,
the existence of discontinuities makes the mechanical
properties of rock mass differ greatly from that of intact
rocks. Although the laboratory tests have existed for
estimating deformation modulus; however, the results
are not very suitable for this purpose since the
specimen is too small. Thus, the in-situ tests are
presently employed in major rock engineering projects,
to provide more rational data for the design of rock
Corresponding author: Manouchehr Sanei, M.Sc. in rock
mechanic, research fields: rock mechanics, rock engineering
and geomechanics. E-mail: manouchehr.sanei@gmail.com.

structures which are available for the prediction of rock

mass behavior under different loading conditions [2, 3].
Furthermore, the rock mass deformation modulus is
currently evaluated by means of different types of
in-situ loading tests such as the plate loading test, the
flat jack test, the borehole loading tests, and the radial
jacking test as well as the water chamber test and so on [4].
In-situ tests to measure modulus directly are so
expensive, times consuming and the reliability of the
results of these tests is sometimes doubtful;
consequently, many authors have proposed empirical
relations for estimating deformation modulus
indirectly by using various rock mass classification
systems such as the RMR (rock mass rating), the GSI
(geological strength index), the Q (tunneling quality
index), the RMI (rock mass index) and the RQD (rock
mass quality designation) like Bieniawski [5], Serafim
and Pereira [6], Nicholson and Bieniawski [7],
Mehrotra [8], Grimstad and Barton [9], Mitri et al. [10],
Hoek and Brown [11], Read et al. [12], Palmstrom and
Singh [13], Barton [14-16], Galera et al. [17], Shen
et al. [18], and Sanei et al. [19].
Moreover, Zhang and Einstein [20] estimated the

56

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

deformation modulus of rock masses by using of RQD.

Sonmez et al. [21] developed an empirical model to
determine the deformation modulus of rack masses
indirectly based on the GSI system. Also, Hoek and
Diederichs [22] proposed an empirical equation to
estimate rock mass modulus by use of a sigmoid
function. On the other hand, Chun et al. [23] presented
a model in order to predict deformation modulus based
on multiple and polynomial regression analyses of the
RMR systems. Furthermore, Sanei et al. [24]
developed the second-order polynomial equation for
estimating of rock mass deformation modulus by use of
JH (Japan Highway) corporation classification system.
In this study, the values of RMR, Q, GSI and JH
classification systems were determined and properties
of the intact rock like modulus of elasticity from
laboratory tests was calculated; in addition, according
to ISRM [25] the values of rock mass deformation
modulus from in-situ tests (plate load, dilatometer, and
flat jack test) were measured. Then, four new empirical
equations for estimating the rock mass deformation
modulus were developed by use of a database of 47
plate load tests, 86 dilatometer tests, and 9 flat jack test
at the Bakhtiary Dam site in Iran. All in all, by use of
the statistical analyses among them, the suitable
equation was select to estimate the rock mass

Fig. 1 Location of Bakhtiary Dam site.

deformation modulus.

2. Bakhtiary Dam Site

The site of Bakhtiary Dam and Hydroelectric Power
plant project include the design and construction of a
315 m high, double curvature, concrete dam, and an
underground powerhouse, with a nominal capacity of
1,500 MW, are located in Lorestan Province, in the
southwest of Iran, northeast of the Tang-e-Panj railway
station on the Tehran-Ahwaz railway, with the
following coordinates: 484650 E/3257'41 N (Fig. 1).
2.1 Geological Characterization of the Dam Site
Limestone layers of Sarvak formation, which are
Mid-Cretaceous marine sediments, form the
foundation of the dam, powerhouse and other
appurtenant structures. These layers are generally
tightly folded. The bed rock consists of limestone and
marly limestone that contains nodules of siliceous
limestone (or Chert). These deposits, which were
sedimented between the formations of Garau (at the
bottom) and Gurpi (at the top), are marked as
Bangestan Group (Kazhdomi, Sarvak, Surgah and Ilam
formations) of Cretaceous age. The limestone of the
Bakhtiary Dam reservoir, which is overlying Garau
formation and underlying Gurpi formation, has been

Empirical De
evelopment of
o the Rock Mass Deforma
ation Modulus
s

577

considered to be Sarvvak formatioon. The Sarrvak

formation is divided into 7 geological units.
u
The 6 units,
u
which are within
w
the dam
m area, can be considereed as
Sarvak form
mation. The unnits Sv2 to Svv7 have outcrops
in dam sitte, the appuurtenant struuctures and the
powerhouse area. Sv1 haas no outcropss in this area as it
is complettely coveredd by Sv2. The Geology
longitudinal profile of thhe left bank of
o Bakhtiary Dam
D
site is shownn in Fig. 2.

k specimens.
rock

2.2 Intact Roock Propertiees

2.4 Discontinuities

Based on laboratory teests on core saamples of 6 units,

u
namely Sv2-Sv7, (162 unconfined
u
coompression tests,
125 triaxial compressionn tests, and 477 Brazilian teests),
the mechaniical characterristics of the intact
i
rocks from
f
different geoological units were measurred. Also, Tabble 1
shows the phhysical and mechanical
m
prroperties of inntact

The
T rock mass of the dam site is interseected by fourr
maiin discontinuuity types w
which consistt of beddingg
plan
nes and threee joint sets (m
major joint sett J1, joint sett
J2, and joint sett J3), which aaffect its stab
bility and thee
beaaring capacityy. The charactteristics of beedding planess
and
d joint sets aree summarizedd in Table 3.

2.3 Rock Mass Properties

P
Based
B
on geoophysical surrveys of the dam site byy
usin
ng the petite seismic metthod, and ussing differentt
rock
k mass classification ssystems, the rock masss
prop
perties were determined. The values of RMR, Q,,
GSII and JH classification
c
n systems arre given inn
Tab
ble 2.

Fig. 2 Geoloogy longitudinaal profile of thee left bank of Bakhtiary

B
Dam
m site [26].

58

Table 1

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

Physical and mechanical properties of intact rock specimens.

Physical and mechanical properties

Density
Uniaxial compressive strength
Modulus of elasticity
Poissons ratio
Tensile strength
Cohesion
Friction angle
Table 2

Unit
g/cm3
MPa
GPa
MPa
MPa

c
E

t
C

Value
2.61-2.74
77-133
55-73
0.3
6.3-11.2
29-36
35-45

Estimated RMR, Q, GSI and JH values for different rock mass classifications at Bakhtiary Dam site.

Lithology
SV2 + SV3
SV2 + SV3 + SV4
SV5 + SV6
SV7
Table 3

Index

RMR89
30-51
48-66
41-72
46-56

Q
0.002-80
0.002-100
0.01-100
0.002-100

GSI
35-50
45-60
45-65
45-55

JH
67-83
75-89
71-91
75-85

Characteristics of bedding planes and joint sets.

Value or description

Aperture (mm)

Spacing (cm)

Infilling

Roughness

0.1-1
1-5
2-6
6-20
20-60
60-200
200-600
Clay
Calcite
Bitumen
FeO
Tight
UndulatingSs
PlanarSs
UndulatingSm
PlanarSm
UndulatingRo
PlanarRo

Bedding
90
10
1.5
47
44.5
3.5
3.5
42.5
46
4.5
2
5
19
41
5
18
1
16

J1
90
10
25
48.5
45
4
0
10
67.5
1
0
21.5
2
2
1
47
0
48

Frequency (%)
J2
95
5
3
52
43.5
1.5
0
2
55
0
0
43
0
1
1
54.5
0
43.5

J3
95
5
6
25
62.5
6.5
0
0
43
0
0
57
0
0
0
72.5
0
27.5

SsSlickensided, SmSmooth, RoRough.

3. Evaluations of Rock Mass Classification

Systems at the Bakhtiary Dam
Rock mass classification systems were used for
various engineering design and stability analysis;
therefore, based on empirical relations between rock
mass parameters and engineering applications, such as
tunnels, slopes, and foundations, the values of rock
mass classification systems were calculated that are
given in Table 2.

3.1 Rock Mass Classification by JH Method

Akagi et al. [27] presented a new method for the
classification of rock masses that the JH rating system
was obtained from the study of 6,101 tunnel sections
constructed by the JH Corporation. It should be noted
that the range of JH system is from 0 to 100. Moreover,
in JH method rocks are divided into four classes
according to compressive strength in the fresh state and
the modes of subsequent weathering and deterioration

59

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

as well as investigated the degrees of contribution of

observation items in each class. Also, grouping of
rocks in JH classification method are given in
Table 4.

4. In-situ Measurements of Deformation

Modulus
In-situ deformation tests are expensive and difficult
to conduct and they are mostly conducted in special
works; in addition, initial preparations at each test site
are particularly time consuming. Today, several types
of in-situ tests are used to determine the modulus of
deformation. Therefore, in this study, totally, 47 PLT
(plate load tests), 86 DLT (dilatometer tests), and 9 FJT
(flat jack tests) were performed at Bakhtiary Dam site.
Also, locations of plate load, dilatometer and flat jack
tests are shown in Fig. 3.
4.1 Interpretation of Plate Load Test Results
PLT were performed in the 6 exploratory galleries at
Bakhtiary Dam site (Fig. 3). In fact, plate load testing
using rigid bearing plates, were performed in
accordance ISRM method for determining of rock
mass deformability. Also, data of all PLTs at dam site
were analyzed and the values of deformation modulus
were measured based on the method proposed by
ISRM [25]. According to ISRM, for rigid plate tests,
the basic formula for calculating the rock mass

deformation modulus is:

Em

qav a
z
2 1 2 arc cot an z 1 2
z 1
2 wz ,0

where Em , qav , a, wz,0,

and z are modulus of

deformation (GPa), average stress on the loaded

surface (MPa), radius of the loaded circular area (m),
displacement in the direction of the applied load
beneath the center of circle (at the depth = 0) (mm),
Poissons ratio of rock mass (taken as 0.3 that
measured from petite seismic tests in exploratory
galleries) and depth from the surface (m), respectively.
Also, the values of in-situ deformation modulus of all
performed PLTs are given in Table 5.
4.2 Interpretation of Dilatometer Test Results
DLT were performed in 21 boreholes drilled at
Bakhtiary Dam site that they were performed in
accordance with ISRM method for measuring
deformability using a flexible dilatometer with radial
displacement measurements. Also, data of all DLTs at
dam site were analyzed and the values of deformation
modulus were measured based on the method proposed
by ISRM [25]. The basic formula for calculating the
rock mass deformation modulus is:
Ed 1 R D

Pi
D

(2)

where, Ed , R , D, Pi and D are modulus of

deformation (MPa), Poissons ratio of rock mass (taken

Table 4 Grouping of rocks in JH classification method.

Strength
Hard
Medium
Soft
weathering
Group l (1,650 [123] data)
Group 2 (2,698 [673] data)
[massive hard rocks]
[massive medium, soft rocks]
Grani (68),
Paleo & Mesozoic,
Massive
Sandstone (192),
Tuff (1,201), tuffbreccia (331), phyolite (341),
Quartz porphyry (65),
andesite (479), sandstone (67), basalt (3), etc.
Granodioritc (695),
etc.
Group 3
Group 4
[planar medium rocks]
[planar soft rocks]
Green schist (218),
Planar

Paleo & Mesozoic

Black schist (27),
Shale (1,279), etc.
Tertiary mudstone (229), etc.
Total (1,279) [111] data
Total (474) [105] data
[] means number of samples.

(1)

60

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

Fig. 3 Locations of plate load, dilatometer and FJT in the exploratory galleries in Bakhtiary Dam site.
Table 5

Values of deformation modulus in Bakhtiary Dam site.

In-situ test
Deformation modulus (GPa)

PLT
1.7-35.5

as 0.3), diameter of borehole (mm), pressure increment

within the considered segment (MPa) and corresponding
average change in drill hole diameter D (mm),
respectively. Also, the values of in-situ deformation
modulus of all performed DLTs are given in
Table 5.

DLT
1-22

FJT
3-19

4.3 Interpretation of Flat Jack Test Results

FJT were performed in 3 exploratory galleries at
Bakhtiary Dam site that they were performed in
accordance with ISRM method for deformability
determination using flat jack technique. Also, data of

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

all FJTs at dam site were analyzed and the values of

deformation modulus were measured based on the
following formula suggested by ISRM [25]:
Ed K i (1 v 2 )

where, Ed , , D,

P
D

(3)

P and Ki are modulus of

deformation (MPa), Poissons ratio of rock mass (taken

as 0.3), slot opening (mm), pressure increment within
the considered segment (Bar) and a constant (related to
the stiffness, shape, configuration, and number of flat
jacks), respectively. Also, the values of in-situ
deformation modulus of all performed FJTs are given
in Table 5.

5. Results and Discussion

In-situ tests are expensive and difficult to conduct,
therefore, the value of the deformation modulus is
often estimated indirectly from the empirical
equations. In this study, by statistical analyses, four
new empirical equations were developed to estimate
the rock mass modulus by using a database of 142
in-situ test results at the Bakhtiary Dam site; then, by
use of statistical analyses among them, the suitable
equation would be select to estimate deformation
modulus.
5.1 Estimation of Deformation Modulus from RMR
System
In the first step, the values of RMR classification
system at the Bakhtiary Dam were determined and
properties of the intact rock like modulus of elasticity
from laboratory tests was calculated; in addition, the
values of the rock mass deformation modulus were
measured from more than 142 in-situ tests. Then,
non-linear regression analysis was used between the
values of relation Em/Ei and the values of RMR. Eq. (4)
shows that the second-order polynomial with R2 = 0.70
is optimum. Also, plot of the values of relation
Em /Ei versus RMR classification system is shown in
Fig. 4.
E m E i (0.0003RMR

- 0.0363RMR 1 .0199 )

(4)

61

where, Em, Ei and RMR are rock mass deformation

modulus, modulus of elasticity and rock mass rating
classification system, respectively.
5.2 Estimation of Deformation Modulus from Q System
In the first step, the values of Q classification system
at the Bakhtiary Dam were determined and properties
of the intact rock like modulus of elasticity from
laboratory tests was calculated; in addition, the values
of the rock mass deformation modulus were measured
from more than 142 in-situ tests. Then, non-linear
regression analysis was used between the values of
relation (Em/Ei) and the values of Q. Eq. (5) shows that
the second-order polynomial with R2 = 0.69 is
optimum. Also, plot of the values of relation Em /Ei
versus Q classification system is shown in Fig. 5.
E m E i (0.00002 Q 2 0.0044 Q 0.0595)

(5)

where, Em, Ei and Q are rock mass deformation

modulus, modulus of elasticity, and tunneling quality
index classification system, respectively.
5.3 Estimation of Deformation Modulus from GSI
System
In the first step, the values of GSI classification
system at the Bakhtiary Dam were determined and
properties of the intact rock like modulus of elasticity
from laboratory tests was calculated; in addition, the
values of the rock mass deformation modulus were
measured from more than 142 in-situ tests. Then,
non-linear regression analysis was used between the
values of relation (Em/Ei) and the values of GSI. Eq. (6)
shows that the second-order polynomial with R2 = 0.69
is optimum. Also, plot of the values of relation
(Em/Ei) versus GSI classification system is shown in
Fig. 6.
E m E i (0.0004 GSI 2 -0.0345 GSI 0.8889 )

(6)

where, Em, Ei and GSI are rock mass deformation

modulus, modulus of elasticity, and geological strength
index classification system, respectively.

62

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

0.6

2 2
EEm/E
0.0363RMR + 1.0199
/Ei == 0.0003RMR
0.0003RMR- -0.0363RMR+
1.0199
m

22

RR ==0.70
0.70

0.5

EmE
/Emi/Ei

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

RMR
RMR
Fig. 4 The values of relation Em/Ei vs. RMR classification system.
0.6
2 2
EE
++0.0044Q
+ 0.0595
0.00002Q
0.0044Q+
m/E/E
i ==0.00002Q

2
R2 =

0.69
R =0.69

0.5

EE
m/E/E
mi i

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

20

40

60

Q
Q
Fig. 5 The values of relation Em/Ei vs. Q classification system.

80

100

63

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

0.6
2

2
0.0004GSI
-0.0345GSI+
0.8889
EEmm
/E/E
0.0004GSI
0.0345GSI
+ 0.8889
i ==
i
2
R 2= 0.69
R = 0.69

0.5

Em/E
/E
E
m ii

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

GSI
GSI
Fig. 6 The values of relation Em/Ei vs. GSI classification system.

5.4 Estimation of Deformation Modulus from JH

System

5.5 Proposed a New Empirical Equation to Estimate

the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

In the first step, the values of JH classification

system at the Bakhtiary Dam were determined and
properties of the intact rock like modulus of elasticity
from laboratory tests was calculated; in addition, the
values of the rock mass deformation modulus were
measured from more than 142 in-situ tests. Then,
non-linear regression analysis was used between the

In this study, the rock mass deformation modulus in

Bakhtiary Dam site was obtained from in-situ tests and
four new equations. Moreover, in a similar study, the
deformation modulus in dam site from different
empirical equations had been determined and the
results had compared with measured results;
subsequently, the results showed that the first equation
of Hoek and Diederichs [22] had the most coincidence
with measured results. On the other hand, the results of
in-situ test were compared with four new equations and
Hoek and Diederichs empirical equation in order to
choose the eligible empirical equation to estimate
deformation modulus. Hoek and Diederichs [22]
proposed the following empirical equation for
estimation of rock mass deformation modulus:

values of relation (Em/Ei) and the values of JH. Eq. (7)

shows that the exponential equation with R 2 0.67 is
optimum. Also, plot of the values of relation E m /Ei
versus JH classification system is shown in Fig. 7.

Em Ei ( 0.000002 e0.1392 JH )

(7)

where, Em, Ei and JH are rock mass deformation

modulus, modulus of elasticity, and JH corporation
classification system, respectively.

64

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

0.6
(0.1392JH)

0.1392JH
E
Em/E
/Ei == 0.000002e
0.000002e

R = 0.67
R2 = 0.67

0.5

E
/Ei
Em/E

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

JH
JH
Fig. 7 The values of relation (Em/Ei) vs. JH classification system.

2
Em 100
75 25 D GSI

1 e
11

(8)

where, D, GSI and Em are distribution factor, geological

strength index classification system and rock mass
deformation modulus, respectively.
In this study, the standard descriptive measure of
goodness-of-fit was employed to evaluate the accuracy
of deformation modulus calculated from empirical
equations. RMSE (root mean squared error) is:

1 n
RMSE
( Em Em ) 2 I = 1, 2, , n (9)
n i 1
where, n, Em and Em are the number of data i,
i

'
i

measured value of deformation modulus, and estimated

value of deformation modulus by empirical equations,
respectively. Also, MARPE (mean absolute relative
prediction error) is:
1 n Emi Em'i
i=1, 2, , n (10)
MARPE
n i1
Emi

Furthermore, the ER (error ratio) or MER (mean

error ratio) is:

ER

Em

'
i

i=1, 2,, n

(11)

Em

In this study, based on the above equations, the

values of RMSE and MARPE equations which are
close to zero and the value of MER equation which is
close to one, the suitable empirical equation was
suggested in order that it can carefully estimate the
values of deformation modulus. A list of the equations
for selecting the suitable equation in order to estimate
the deformation modulus is given in Table 6.
In Table 6, the validation of four new equation by
use of statistical analyses were examined; subsequently,
the results showed that Eq. (7) was highly suitable to
estimate deformation modulus owing to R2 = 0.67,
RMSE = 0.07, and MARPE = 0.46 as well as
MER = 1.28.

65

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

Table 6

List of the equations for selecting of the suitable equation in order to estimate the deformation modulus.

Equations
Eq. (4)
Eq. (5)
Eq. (6)
Eq. (7)
Eq. (8)

RMSE
0.20
0.06
0.17
0.07
6.89

R2
0.70
0.69
0.69
0.67
-

MARPE
1.73
0.53
1.85
0.46
0.76

MER
-0.73
1.31
2.85
1.28
1.65

Estimated deformation modulus from JH system, (Gpa)

GPa

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Measured deformation modulus from in-situ tests, (Gpa)

GPa
Fig. 8 Comparison between the measured and estimated deformation moduli from eq. (7).

Moreover, the best results can be considered when

the values of modulus were predicted by Eq. (7). Also,
the comparison between the measured and estimated
deformation modulus from Eq. (7) is shown in Fig. 8.

6. Conclusions
In this paper, the rock mass deformation modulus by
actual data collected from Bakhtiary Dam site was
measured. Then, four new empirical equations to
estimate rock mass deformation modulus based on
modulus of elasticity and the RMR, the Q and the GSI
as well as the corporation JH classification systems was

developed.
Then, through statistical analysis (RMSE, MARPE,
ER and R2 , the rock mass deformation modulus was
estimated by empirical equations and the results were
compared with the results of measured deformation
modulus. All in all, the results showed that Eq. (7) was
the suitable equation for estimating the rock mass
deformation modulus.

Acknowledgments
The authors express their thanks to the Iran Water
and Power Resources Development Committee staff,

66

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

Poyry Cu. Engineering Staff, Moshanir Cu.

Engineering Staff, Dezab Cu. Engineering Staff,
Stucky Pars Cu. Engineering Staff for providing data
support, and Isfahan University Of Technology, where
the research was carried out.

References
[1]

E.G. Ravandi, R. Rahmannejad, A.E.F Monfared, E.G.

Ravandi, Application of numerical modeling and genetic
programming to estimate rock mass modulus of
deformation, International Journal of Mining Science and
Technology 23 (5) (2013) 733-737.
[2] L. Faramarzi, H. Fatahi, Interpretation of plate loading
test results on major projects, in: Proceedings of the
ARMS5 (5th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium),
Tehran, Iran, 2008, pp. 255-260.
[3] X.W. Jiang, L. Wan, X.S. Wang, X. Wu, X. Zhang,
Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus using
variations in transmissivity and RQD with depth,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining
Sciences 46 (2009) 1370-1377.
[4] L. Faramarzi, Evaluation of rock mass deformability by
means of in situ loading tests, Ph.D. Thesis, Kumamoto
University, Japan, 2005 (Chapter 1).
[5] Z.T. Bieniawski, Determining rock mass deformability:
Experience from case histories, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts 15 (1978) 237-247.
[6] J.L. Serafim, J.P. Pereira, Consideration of the
geomechanics classification of Bieniawski, in:
Proceedings of International Symposium on Engineering
Geology and Underground Constructions, 1983, pp.
1133-1144.
[7] G.A. Nicholson, Z.T. Bieniawski, A nonlinear
deformation modulus based on rock mass classification,
International Journal of Mining and Geological
Engineering 8 (1990) 181-202.
[8] V.K. Mehrotra, Estimation of engineering parameters of
rock mass, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee,
India, 1992.
[9] E. Grimstad, N. Barton, Updating the Q-System for NMT,
International Symposium on Sprayed Concrete-Modern
Use of Wet Mix Sprayed Concrete for Underground
Support, Oslo, 1993.
[10] H.S. Mitri, R. Edrissi, J. Henning, Finite element
modelling of cable-bolted stopes in hard rock
underground mines, in: Proceedings of the SME Annual
Meeting Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1994, pp. 94-116.
[11] E. Hoek, E.T. Brown, Practical estimates of rock mass
strength, International Journal of Rock Mechanics &

Mining Sciences 34 (8) (1997) 1165-1186.

[12] S.A.L. Read, L.R. Richards, N.D. Perrin, Applicability of
the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to New Zealand
greywacke rocks, in: Proceedings of The Ninth
International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Paris, 1999,
pp. 655-660.
[13] A. Palmstrom, R. Singh, The deformation modulus of
rock masses: Comparisons between in situ tests and
indirect estimates, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 16 (2001) 115-131.
[14] N. Barton, Rock mass classification, tunnel
reinforcement selection using the Q-system, in:
Proceedings of the ASTM Symposium on Rock
Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1987.
[15] N. Barton, Estimating rock mass deformation modulus
for excavation disturbed zone studies, in: International
Conference on Deep Geological Disposal of Radioactive
Waste, EDZ Workshop: Canadian Nuclear Society,
Winnepeg, 1996, pp. 133-144.
[16] N. Barton, Some new Q value correlations to assist in site
char-characterisation and tunnel design, International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts 39 (2002) 185-216.
[17] J.M. Galera, Z. Alvarez, Z.T. Bieniawski, Evaluation of
the deformation modulus of rock masses using RMR,
comparison with dilatometer tests, Workshop:
Underground Works under Special Conditions:
Proceedings of the ISRM Workshop W1, Madrid, Spain,
2007.
[18] J. Shen, M. Karakus, C. Xu, A comparative study for
empirical equations in estimating deformation modulus of
rock masses, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 32 (2012) 245-250.
[19] M. Sanei, A. Rahmati, L. Faramarzi, S. Goli, A.
Mehinrad, Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus
in Bakhtiary Dam Project in Iran, in: F. Hudson, Tan
(Eds.),
Rock
Characterisation,
Modelling
and
Engineering Design Methods, Taylor & Francis Group,
London, 2013, pp.161-164.
[20] L. Zhang, H. Einstein, Using RQD to estimate the
deformation modulus of rock masses, International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2)
(2004) 337-341.
[21] H. Sonmez, C. Gokceoglu, R. Ulusay, Indirect
determination of the modulus of deformation of rock
masses based on the GSI system, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (5) (2004)
849-857.
[22] E. Hoek, M.S. Diederichs, Empirical estimation of rock
mass modulus, International Journal of Rock Mechanics
& Mining Sciences 43 (2) (2006) 203-215.

Empirical Development of the Rock Mass Deformation Modulus

[23] B.S. Chun, W.R. Ryu, M. Sagong, J.N. Do, Indirect
estimation of the rock deformation modulus based on
polynomial and multiple regression analyses of the RMR
system, International Journal of Rock Mechanics &
Mining Sciences 46 (3) (2009) 649-658.
[24] M. Sanei, A. Rahmati, L. Faramarzi, A. Mehinrad, H.
Chehreh, Development of new empirical equation for
estimation of rock mass deformation modulus by using of
JH classification system, a case study: Bakhtiary Dam
project, Iran, in: Processings of the ICME2013 (1st
International Conference on Mining, Mineral,
Metallurgical
and
Environmental
Engineering),
University of Zanjan, Iran, 2013, pp. 1243-1248.

67

[25] International Society for Rock Mechanics, Suggested

Methods for Rock Mass Determination of In-stiu
Deformation Modulus, ISRM (International Society of
Rock Mechanics), 1979.
[26] Engineering
Geology
and
Rock
Mechanics
Report on Completion of Site Investigations Phase I&II:
Revision 1, Stucky Pars Engineering Co., Tehran, Iran,
2009.
[27] W. Akagi, T. Ito, H. Shiroma, A. Sano, M. Shinji, T.
Nishi, et al., A proposal of new rock mass classification
for tunneling, in: International symposium, Modern
tunneling science and technology, Kyoto, Japan, 2001, pp.
371-378.