International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Determination of deformation modulus in a weak rock mass by using T

menard pressuremeter
İbrahim Ferid Öge
Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Turkey

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The deformation modulus of heavily jointed andesitic rock mass was investigated by using 41 Menard pres-
Rock mass deformation suremeter test results and geotechnical information obtained from seven geotechnical boreholes. The geo-
Deformation modulus technical borehole logs and laboratory test results provided by a mining company were used for the assessment
Nonlinear regression of rock mass characterization. The log and the test results were taken into account in the rock mass classification
Pressuremeter test
work. The well-known empirical equations were employed to predict the deformation modulus of the rock mass.
In-situ testing of rock
Discrete fracture network
The predictions and the pressuremeter test results were compared and their performance indicators were pre-
sented. Non-linear multiple regression methods were used for predictive modelling of the deformation modulus
of the rock mass by considering the available data. Rock Quality Designation (RQD), discontinuity condition
rating (Dc) of the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system and uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock (σci) were
taken into consideration as input parameters in four new prediction equations to be used for determination of
deformation modulus. One more equation was proposed by the addition of the depth as a predictive parameter.
The influence of the depth and vertical to horizontal stress ratio (k) on the deformation modulus was pre-
liminarily examined by using finite element modelling. Initially, the rock mass was assumed to be an isotropic
elastic-brittle-plastic medium. Later on, the rock mass was modelled as a discontinuum by imposing a discrete
fracture network (DFN). Keeping all of the mechanical properties constant, different depth and k parameters
were applied to the pressuremeter models. No influence of the depth and k on the deformation modulus was
observed for the isotropic medium while the depth contributed to an increase in the modulus in the anisotropic
discontinuum analysis. The numerical modelling findings constituted a basis for the inclusion of the depth
parameter into the new predictions.

1. Introduction
A clear understanding of the deformability properties of a rock mass
is essential for an underground opening or rock surface structure de-
sign. The rock mass deformation modulus and the strength parameters
are required as inputs to analyse the rock mass behaviour by using
numerical models or other calculation methods. Still, the determination
of the global mechanical properties of a jointed rock mass remains one
of the most difficult tasks in the field of rock mechanics.1 The rock mass
deformability differentiates from the intact rock or laboratory scale
behaviour due to the embodiment of the discontinuities in the mass and
the groundwater influence. The difference is expected to be obvious
when a high degree of fracturing or jointing is present in the rock
mass.2 Besides, the engineers generally pay more attention to assess the
strength properties than investigating the deformability parameters
which in turn lead to unpleasant consequences.3 Although field testing
is an opportunity to assess the rock mass deformability properties,
several researchers questioned the reliability of the test findings and
commented on the high cost and labour intensiveness of the field
tests.4,5 Relying on a single test method is considered to be misleading
since a considerable variation can be observed in a fairly uniform and
good quality rock mass.6,7 Qualification of the testing personnel, the
calibration and sensitivity of the measurement equipment, the delicacy
of the test setup and pre-test preparations can be accounted for other
factors governing the reliability of the test results. During the inter-
pretation of the in-situ test results, some simplifications can also be
made to reduce the number of unknown elastic constants such as
treating an anisotropic rock mass as it is an isotropic medium.8
Due to the abovementioned difficulties and discrepancies in field
testing, empirical approaches can also be used for the estimation of the
necessary deformability design parameters as well as taking the em-
pirical estimates into account for the comparison or the verification of
the field test results.9,10 Rock mass classification systems such as, the
Rock Quality Designation (RQD), Rock Mass Rating (RMR), Q-system

E-mail address: feridoge@mu.edu.tr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.10.009

1365-1609/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

İ.F. Öge
(Q) and Geological Strength Index (GSI), constitute a basis for the
empirical estimation of deformation modulus.11–14 In case the empirical
approaches are used for the estimation of the modulus, a comparison
between several approaches satisfy an increased reliability of the esti-
mates. However, the empirical approaches may exhibit a great varia-
tion compared to each other. For underground structures, detailed
ahead and behind the tunnel face measurements and tunnel con-
vergence provide an opportunity to back-calculate the deformation
modulus.15,16 While discussing the importance of field testing and
empirical estimation of the deformation modulus, it must be noticed
that the rock mass is generally assumed to be an isotropic medium
which may not be necessarily true for all rock masses.17 Agharazi
et al.18 investigated the deformation mechanism of jointed rock based
on plate loading tests and concluded that the major joint set orientation
had a substantial influence on the deformation. The interpretation of
structurally controlled deformability test results was suggested to be
undertaken by some detailed numerical analysis. Plate jacking and
large flatjack test results were compared to each other in another
study.19 The two methods suffered from different factors such as the
blast damage zone or the boundary conditions of the test volume,
however, reliable measurements were acquired.
In this study, in order to determine design parameters for founda-
tion construction of a mine shaft headframe, seven boreholes were
drilled from which forty-one Menard pressuremeter test results were
obtained. The andesitic, heavily fractured rock mass was also in-
vestigated by preparation and evaluation of the borehole logs and la-
boratory test results. The available data were compared with sixteen
pre-existing empirical equations. Some equations were also proposed
using the parameters RQD, intact rock strength and some discontinuity
ratings together with taking the depth into account.
2. Background
The technical terms namely; rock mass modulus, rock mass elastic
modulus (tangent modulus of elasticity), deformation modulus (secant
modulus), re-loading, unloading (recovery) modulus parameters are
used for rock mass deformability which can be derived from a stress-
strain curve obtained from a test result.17,20 Depending on the testing
method and the rock engineering problem, the appropriate modulus
can be used for the interpretation of the test result. Among them, the
deformation modulus is accepted as a representative parameter gov-
erning the mechanical behaviour of the rock masses9 and it covers both
recoverable and irrecoverable behaviour. Poisson's ratio is another
elastic parameter. It is basically the ratio of elastic lateral strain to axial
strain which is out of the scope of this study.
2.1. In-situ testing of deformation modulus
Back analysis of field deformation measurements by the employ-
ment of a rigorous numerical analysis is a reliable source to assess the
rock mass deformability parameters in case of its availability. The plate
loading, plate jacking, Goodman jack,5,8 dilatometer and pressuremeter
tests21,22 can be accounted for the field tests aiming to measure the
deformation modulus of the rock masses, especially for the poor ones.
Borehole expansion tests, such as dilatometer and pressuremeter was
promoted by Galera et al.22 to be used in the rock masses. Menard
pressuremeter is a device for testing the rock mass deformability which
is carried out inside the borehole.23,24 The testing equipment has been
improved in terms of several technological improvements such as the
material quality, increased sensitivity of the pressure cells and mea-
surement gauges but the main working principle of it remained the
same. Menard type pressuremeter used in this study consisting of a
probe with three inflatable cells (one measuring, and two guarding
cells) with a high-pressure setup to accommodate the rock mass stress-
strain relationship. Initially, the pressuremeter probe is lowered to the
testing depth in a previously drilled borehole. The pressure is increased
239
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252
gradually and corresponding volumetric increments are recorded
during the test. At the beginning of the volume and stress relationship,
the tightening and interlocking of the relaxed zone due to the drilling
and elastic reloading of the unloaded borehole walls can be observed.
After the interlocking of the rock mass is ensured during the initial
phase of the pressure application, the pseudo-elastic zone is attained
and the deformation modulus is calculated along this ideally linear
phase. Following the pseudo-elastic zone, the plastic phase is reached.
This behaviour is discussed by using a numerical modelling technique
in Section 3 including some visuals. The interpretation of the de-
formation modulus is carried out by employing the solutions for the
infinitely long cylindrical cavity in an elastic or elastic-perfectly plastic
medium.21 The test scheme can be arranged in a way to measure the
loading or unloading modulus but then, the unloading curve enables
the engineer to examine the elastic displacements only. The deforma-
tion modulus is determined by taking the loading curve into account
hence, both the permanent and elastic displacements are included in
the interpretation.25 The typical equation used in the interpretation of
the deformation modulus is given:
Ep = Erm = (1 + ) ×2V×( P/ V) (1)
where Ep stands for a deformation modulus measured by the pres-
suremeter where the Poisson's ratio is assumed to be 0.33. It can be
regarded as deformation modulus of the rock mass, Erm. V is the sum of
the initial volume of the measuring cell and the average additional
volume change of the probe, and ΔV and ΔP are the change of volume
and the change in pressure during the pseudoelastic phase, respec-
tively.26 Another concern for the test is the borehole wall disturbance
which is more pronounced for the soil formations. An appropriate
drilling technique must be employed not to cause an excessive dis-
turbance as well as establishing a borehole diameter compatible with
the Menard pressuremeter probe. The impact of drilling disturbance on
the measurement results was discussed in Isik et al.27 In this study, the
rock mass consists of a rock material having a variable strength which is
mostly greater than 10 MPa and the mass is heavily jointed. Considering
the rock mass conditions, diamond drilling with triple core barrels was
decided to be an appropriate option to ensure low disturbance.
2.2. Empirical estimation of deformation modulus
In case the field testing is unavailable or for the verification of the
field test results, the empirical equations are utilized for the estimation
of the rock mass deformability. The researchers proposed relationships
between the measured rock mass modulus and the rock mass classifi-
cation methods such as RQD, RMR, Q, GSI, Rock Mass Index (RMi),
Rock Mass Quality Rating (RMQR).4,28 Together with the rock mass
classification ratings, the laboratory scale uniaxial compressive strength
(σci) and the modulus of elasticity (Ei) are included as input parameters
in several empirical estimations. The empirical approaches may exhibit
variable results even for the same rock mass. Even though the same
database is taken into account, different fitting functions were used to
propose different empirical equations by several researchers.9 Other
reasons for the variation among the empirical equations can be attrib-
uted to the database of each independent study, the employed testing
method, biased estimation of the rock mass classification rating and/or
the geological nature of the rock mass of concern. The empirical
equations used in this research for comparison purpose are given in
Table 1.
The empirical equations which accept RMR, Q or GSI as an input
value were selected due to the availability of the ratings, here. The
majority of the equations were proposed by using high-quality well-
publicized in-situ data from Serafim and Pereira,29 Bieniawski40 and
Stephens and Banks.41 Most of the equations listed in Table 1 cover all
rock mass conditions, however, the one proposed by Serafim and Per-
eira29 is valid if RMR < 50. σci must be smaller than 100 MPa to use the
equation by Hoek et al.35 D parameter is related to the blast or
İ.F. Öge International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252

Table 1
The empirical equations used for comparison purposes in this study.
Proposed by Empirical equation Proposed by Empirical equation

29 36
Serafim and Pereira RMR 10 ) Gökceoglu et al. Erm = 0.0736e(0.0755RMR) (GPa)
Erm = 10( 40 (GPa)
Nicholson and Bieniawski30 Erm
= 0.009e RMR /22.82+0.000028RMR2 Gökceoglu et al.36 Erm = 0.1451e(0.0654GSI) (GPa)
Ei
31 37
Barton Erm = 10Q(1/3) (GPa) Zhang and Einstein Erm
= 10 (0.0186RQD 1.91)
Ei
Jasarevic and Kovacevic32 Erm = e(4.407 + 0:081 × RMR) (GPa) Sonmez et al.38 Erm
= (s a) 0.4
Ei
Aydan et al.33 Erm = 0.0097RMR(3.54) Galera22 Erm
= e(RMR 100)/36
Ei
34 39
Read el at. Sonmez et al.
Erm = 0.1 ( ) (GPa)
RMR 3
10
Erm
Ei
= 10
(RMR 100)(100 RMR)
4000
exp ( RMR
100 )
35 17
Hoek et al. Simp. Hoek and Diederichs
( ) 10( )
D ci GSI 10
Erm = 1 40 (GPa) 1 D/2
2 100 Erm = 100 (GPa)
1+e ( 75+ 25D11 GSI
)
Barton13 Hoek and Diederichs17
( )
1/3
ci
Erm = 10 Q (GPa) Erm 1 D/2
100 = 0.02+
Ei
1+e ( 60+15D11 GSI
)
(D: Disturbance factor17, σci: intact rock uniaxial compressive strength, Ei: intact rock modulus of elasticity, s and a are Generalised Hoek brown Parameters.

excavation damage which is equal to zero for this study. 5 of the
equations are exponential equation while 3 of them are the functions in
the form of the power of 10. The equation proposed by Zhang and
Einstein37 gives a lower bound estimate with the input parameters of
RQD and Ei. Mostly, the well-known equations are chosen for the
comparison purposes. Additionally, during the preparation stage of the
study, the equations proposed by Jasarevic and Kovacevic,32 Gökceoglu
et al.,36 Zhang and Einstein37 was observed to give comparable results
with the field test results available for this study and they were included
in the research.
3. A preliminary analysis of the influence of the depth on
pressuremeter measurements
Verman et al.42 relying on their correlations, concluded that the
deformation modulus of the rock mass increases in parallel with the
depth increase. They added that the stress dependency of the de-
formation modulus due to the increasing confining pressure is more
likely to be pronounced in weaker rock masses and almost absent in
strong, brittle rock masses. Isik et al.27 concluded their study that some
degree of confining pressure dependency can be expected on the de-
formation modulus. They discussed that the Hoek-Brown failure cri-
terion takes confining pressure into account. It means, the strength is
confining pressure sensitive, which is a generally accepted truth.
However, the failure criteria parameters still remain the same. They
also suggested additional investigations to be carried out for the de-
termination of the confining stress dependency of the deformation
modulus of heavily fractured rock masses and for the comparison of
pressuremeter tests with other in-situ tests. Palmström and Singh5
pointed out that the in situ deformation modulus is not constant, but
depends on the stress conditions, being generally higher in areas sub-
jected to high rock stresses than in rock masses under low stresses.
Additionally, they explained that the stress dependency may also be
true due to a better rock mass quality where a higher stress is present. In
Agan's43 study, the relationship between the deformation modulus and
the depth was investigated. The study was carried out in a heavily
disturbed chert rock mass by using Menard Pressuremeter at a depth
range of 5–30 m.
Considering the basic principles of rock mechanics, in an isotropic
elastic medium, the confining stress affects the deformation amount
and the strength. The effect of confining pressure on the strength can be
basically explained by Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria and the elastic
deformation is governed by the modulus of elasticity (E) and Poisson's
ratio ( ) according to the Hooke's law. The deformation is affected by
the confining pressure but this effect is attributed to the Poisson's ratio,
still, the parameter E is the same. If a rock mass is of concern, the de-
finition of the problem should be: Structurally the same rock mass
having the same discontinuity pattern, orientation, mechanical prop-
erties with constant intact rock mechanical properties, is subjected to
deformability testing at different depth intervals. Does confining pres-
sure stemmed from the depth have an effect on rock mass deformation
modulus? It means the orientation, amount, the stiffness-strength
function of the discontinuities, the rock material strength and elastic
modulus are kept constant and subjected to deformability testing at
different depths. The strength of the rock mass is expected to be in-
creased in parallel with the increasing confining pressure (excluding the
critical state). However, the strength function remains constant (i.e.
when Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope is taken into account for the
problem, cohesion and the friction angle are constant). From a similar
point of view, the deformation magnitude is affected by the confining
pressure but the parameters E and ν remain constant. In the reality,
when the same rock mass is considered for a shallow and deep case
there will be significant differences. The discontinuities will be more
tightly interlocked for a deep case and loose for a shallow case. If clay
infill or bands are present, a high consolidation and compaction are
expected at greater depth while less degree of consolidation and com-
paction (thus a greater void ratio) can be observed at shallow depth.
Then, it is possible to say the deformation modulus or modulus of
elasticity of the rock mass can exhibit an increasing trend with the
depth. If this case is accepted to be true, then the mechanical properties
of the discontinuities should have better properties which in turn led to
an increment of the deformation modulus. In terms of rock mass clas-
sification systems, it is correct to say the parameters RMR and Q of the
rock mass can increase at a greater depth which in turn can exhibit
greater deformation modulus. Taking the abovementioned explanations
into consideration, confinement dependency of the deformation mod-
ulus cannot be expressed if all mechanical properties belonging to a
specific rock mass are constant at varied depth.
It is commonly asserted that the findings in the literature are in-
sufficient about the effect of confining pressure (or depth) on the de-
formation modulus by the previously mentioned authors. In order to
analyse the problem, it is necessary to find a rock mass having the same
physical, mechanical and structural quality and properties located at
different depth intervals, however, it may not be always possible.
Hence, the finite element modelling can be employed to preliminarily
investigate the effect of confining pressure on the parameter Erm.
Initially, the rock mass was modelled to be an isotropic elastic-
brittle-plastic material. Later on, Discrete Fracture Networks (DFN), a
joint network modelling technique was employed.44 In DFN analyses,
the rock mass can be modelled as an anisotropic discontinuum.

240
İ.F. Öge
3.1. Isotropic elastic-brittle-plastic rock mass assumption
Axisymmetry is widely used to simulate three-dimensional problem
by using a two-dimensional model. A similar model was used by Isik
et al.27 to investigate the size of the testing volume of the field tests and
the consequences of using different testing length to borehole diameter
ratios for a Menard pressuremeter. A 20 m deep borehole having a
diameter of 69 mm was modelled similarly to the actual testing borings
in this research. Three different rock masses were considered in iso-
tropic rock mass assumption. Each of them was modelled with two
different vertical to horizontal stress ratio, k = 1 and 3. Principal hor-
izontal stresses were assumed to be equal to the each other. The rock
mass A was modelled with Erm = 88.7 MPa (GSIpeak = GSIres = 14, σci
= 12.85 MPa, mi = 25), for rock mass B: Erm = 542 MPa (GSIpeak = 35,
GSIres = 27, σci = 20.97 MPa, mi = 25) and for rock mass C: Erm
= 1811 MPa (GSIpeak = 34, GSIres = 27, σci = 68.4 MPa, mi = 25). The
strength and Erm parameters are chosen based on 3 different test loca-
tions from the study. 19–20 m deep pressuremeter testing was modelled
in this study but it may not always be possible to carry out a pres-
suremeter test at a depth of 100 m however, the rock mass B was also
simulated to be located at a depth of 100 m with two different k values.
Throughout the modelling stages, the field stresses were initialized
then, the material is removed from the borehole (drilling stage). Later
on, an internal pressure was gradually increased similar to a typical
pressuremeter test. The displacements corresponding to the pressure
stages were recorded and the volume change in the borehole test in-
terval was calculated. The pressure (P) versus volumetric increase (V)
plots are given in Fig. 1 and a P-V plot is a typical raw output of the
Menard Pressuremeter test. The volume of fluid injected into the
pressuremeter cell was calculated by taking the radial borehole de-
formation acquired by the numerical modelling. The P-V plots enable
the calculation of the deformation modulus and Eq. (1), which is pro-
vided in Section 2.1 can be used. Actually, the volume increment is
measured by using flowmeters during a test.
In Fig. 1, the input Erm parameters, k ratios and depths are given in
the legend. In the plot, Erm parameters calculated by using the typical
pressuremeter. As an observation, calculated/true Erm ratio was found
to be 1.07. The difference can be attributed to the mesh geometry and
the point where the radial displacement was acquired. The model was
constructed in the form of a borehole drilled to a depth of 20 m and the
test was carried out at the bottom of the hole. The borehole bottom,
Fig. 1. Pressuremeter results obtained from the continuum numerical modelling.
241
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252
similar to the face effect of a tunnel, should have a supporting effect
which in turn led to a greater measurement of the modulus. The
modelling work covered the pseudo-elastic and plastic region which
starts at the origin of the plot while the membrane expansion region
was not included in the modelling but the typical complete path was
given in Fig. 1.
In the isotropic elastic-brittle-plastic rock mass, it was found that
the modulus of deformation is insensitive to the confining pressure. The
stress level at which the plastic region begins (plastic limit) is depen-
dent on the confining pressure. When the strength parameters (of Gen.
Hoek–Brown failure criterion) like σci, mb, s and a are constant, in-
creasing depth (confining) influences the extent of the pseudo-elastic
curve length and plasticity initiation but not the parameters itself.
The modulus varies depending on the stress level along the pre-
viously given P-V curve in Fig. 1. In fact, the deformation modulus is
typically calculated along the pseudo-elastic zone as given in Fig. 1
which is expected to be linear wise. However, the identification of the
pseudo-elastic zone can be difficult and not clearly distinguishable. In
Fig. 2, the same findings were interpreted in an alternative way by
using the simulated pressuremeter data. Tangent modulus was calcu-
lated for gradually increasing pressure intervals and the internal pres-
sure and corresponding tangent modulus values are presented in Fig. 2.
The vertical segments of the curves in Fig. 2 represent the Erm values
which are also called as a pseudo-elastic region. The extent of the
pseudo-elastic region depends on the confining stress but the parameter
Erm is not. For the rock mass with Erm = 542 MPa, two different k values
and two different depths (20 and 100 m) were modelled and the Erm
remained constant.
3.2. Anisotropic and discontinuous rock mass assumption
Knowing that the rock mass cannot always be represented by an
isotropic and elastic-brittle-plastic material model, a fractured rock
mass model was also constructed. The jointed rock mass was modelled
by employing DFN technique which introduces a discontinuity pattern
and integrates it with finite element mesh.44 The intact material
properties and the joint properties can be imposed to the model which
can be regarded as a discontinuum. Initially, Barton-Bandis45 failure
criterion was used to predict discontinuity strength. Barton Bandis
parameters, namely; JRC, JCS, and φr were selected as 5, 15 MPa, and
30°, respectively. The equivalent Mohr-Coulomb parameters, cohesion
İ.F. Öge
Fig. 2. Modulus variation with respect to the applied pressure for continuum modelling.
was calculated as 214 kPa and friction angle was 30.1°. Several mod-
elling trials were carried out and after the calibration of the models,
basic discontinuity properties were introduced as normal stiffness:
100 GPa/m, Shear stiffness: 10 GPa/m, cohesion: 100 kPa, and friction
angle: 35° for peak strength. The residual cohesion: 30 kPa and friction
angle: 30° were introduced to the model. The discontinuity behaves as
an elastic-brittle-plastic material due to being an implicit finite element
model with DFN.
Gen. Hoek-Brown parameters for intact rock are σci = 20.97 MPa mi
= mb = 25 s = 1 and a = 0.5. The intact rock was modelled to have a
GSI = 100 at peak and GSI = 25 at residual state then the strength
parameters for the residual state are mb,res = 1.717, sres = 0.00024, and
ares = 0.531. The discontinuity parameters and constructed pattern
were aimed to represent a rock mass quality having a GSI value around
45. Based on the given parameters, Erm is estimated to be 1550 MPa
according to17 however, Erm is not used as an input parameter. The
problem was modelled in plain-strain as the DFN cannot be imposed to
an axisymmetric model.
The Baecher joint network model46 was chosen to construct the
joint pattern which is a flexible algorithm that can generate intricate
joint networks. In this model, joints are assumed to have finite trace
lengths, which follow some statistical distribution. 1.45 m wide model
boundary, 69 mm borehole, and the joint pattern are presented in
Fig. 3(a). A stereographic projection of the discontinuities in the study
area is provided in Fig. 3(b). The two dominant joint sets have dip and
dip direction of 75°/215° ( ± 5°) and 48°/358° ( ± 10°). The acute angle
between the strikes of the joint sets is varying between 30° and 40°.
Some exemplary modelling results are also presented in Fig. 3(c) and
Fig. 3(d). In the former one total displacement contour with displace-
ment trajectories and in the latter one major principal stress contour are
shown.
The discontinuity orientation and density imposed to the model
were impressed from the visual impression of the actual rock mass
(Section 4.2) existing in the study area even though the model is not an
exact representation of the rock mass. The aim here is to investigate the
effect of confining pressure on the pressuremeter test results in a sim-
plified manner. As it can be inferred from Fig. 3(c,d), the rock mass
discontinuity pattern in the model leads to an anisotropic behaviour.
However, a pressuremeter is not capable of measuring the deformation
modulus in different axes. Hence, it can only provide an overall value
for the rock mass. The P-V plot was constructed for two different testing
242
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252
depth and k values and it is presented in Fig. 4.
The comparison of pressuremeter curves for 20 and 100 m deep
models with a varied k ratio is presented in Fig. 4. The necessary in-
ternal pressure to reach a particular volumetric expansion is increased
by the increasing confining pressure for the plastic region. The tan-
gential modulus throughout the pressure increments are plotted and the
parameter Erm can be identified precisely (Fig. 5).
For different values of k, the models resulted in the same Erm value
for a particular depth. When the depth is increased, the parameter Erm
increased, too. According to the modelling results, the parameter Erm
depends on the vertical stress magnitude, not the horizontal stress. The
confining pressure has an influence on the strength and deformation
rate in plastic stage. If the confining pressure is greater, the deformation
amount at a particular internal stress level is smaller.
Some of the modelling results were not plotted in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5
such as the 100 m deep testing case with k = 3 resulted in a measured
Erm of ~477 MPa which is considerably smaller than the typical results
as it was shown in Fig. 4. Similarly, 200 m deep testing with k = 1
which resulted in Erm= 1820 MPa. Even though the depth is increased,
a slight decrease in Erm was observed compared to the 100 m deep k = 1
case. For k = 2 and 200 m deep case, the result was Erm = 915 MPa.
This unexpected trend was observed due to the plastic zone develop-
ment around the borehole perimeter before the application of internal
pressure (after the borehole drilling). Even though the plastic zone
around the borehole was thin, it caused a greater deformation due to
the plasticity and a low Erm was calculated. Another model was con-
structed at a depth of 4 m with k = 1 and k = 3. The Erm values were
1824 MPa for the former and 1758 MPa for the latter. The case at a
depth of 4 m resulted in similar results with 20 m deep case and this
case was not reported in Figs. 4 and 5.
Considering the modelled discontinuity pattern, the rock mass is
heavily fractured and expected not to sustain great stress differentials
thus, the plots in Figs. 4 and 5 present only four cases, up to a maximum
depth of 100 m. The numerical analyses presented here are constructed
by simplifying the problem as less as possible. The major discrepancy
can be the stiffness function for the discontinuities which is chosen to
be linear in this modelling work. The failure criterion for the dis-
continuities is also linear. Rigorous approaches and modelling techni-
ques can also be employed for the discontinuum analysis. A wide range
of discontinuity patterns, rigorous constitutive models and failure cri-
teria for the discontinuities and rock material can be constructed and
İ.F. Öge International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252

Fig. 3. (a) Modelled discontinuity pattern and the borehole, (b) stereographic projection of the discontinuities in the study area, (c) a sample result showing total
displacement contour, slipped joints (with red) and displacement trajectories, (d) major principal stress contour (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

Fig. 4. Pressuremeter results obtained from the discontinuum numerical modelling.

243
İ.F. Öge
Fig. 5. Modulus variation with respect to the applied pressure for discontinuum modelling.
Fig. 6. (a) Yielded discontinuities at a depth of 20 m and (b) at a depth of 100 m at 1 MPa internal pressure.
the rock mass can be subjected to a varied range of confining pressures.
According to the analyses which were carried out by employing the
DFM technique with anisotropy, the depth has an influence on Erm. This
effect can be quantified as a ratio, ΔErm/ΔH = 1.6 MPa/m for a depth
range from 20 m to 100 m. One must remember that it is a case-specific
value and cannot be generalised. The discontinuity pattern and density,
mechanical properties were kept constant while the depth and vertical
to horizontal stress ratio were changed. When the pressuremeter test
was modelled and the obtained deformations were interpreted to find
Erm, an increased modulus was observed in discontinuous media, unlike
the isotropic, elastic-brittle-plastic rock mass assumption. Conversely,
the isotropic rock mass assumption concluded to be insensitive to the
depth or confining pressure. In the model runs with DFM technique, the
discontinuities were subjected to greater normal stress due to the in-
creasing depth. The observed modulus increment can be attributed to
the increment in the normal stress acting on the discontinuities. In the
deep cases, the discontinuities have less tendency to yield under the
same pressure applied inside the borehole or at least the yielded dis-
continuity length is shorter. This finding governs the variation of the
modulus with respect to the depth and it is illustrated in Fig. 6 and a
comparison of yielded discontinuity lengths in 20 m and 100 m deep
cases under the same internal pressure (1 MPa) are shown. In Fig. 6(a),
the confining pressure is low and yielded discontinuities are highlighted
in meters. In Fig. 6(b), the yielded discontinuities are very limited and
only a few cm long yielded section is visible.
244
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252
In the continuum analyses, Erm was introduced to the models and
the depth had no influence on the deformation modulus measurement.
In the analyses with DFN, the discontinuities were introduced to the
model and the rock material between the discontinuities is still a finite
continuum. Then, the discontinuities remain as an influencing factor for
the deformation modulus. The findings are compatible with Verman
et al.42 as the researchers suggested that the influence of depth is more
pronounced for fractured rock masses. Relying on the findings pre-
sented above, the depth is chosen to be a predictive parameter in
Section 5.
4. Characteristics of the rock mass and measurement results
The study area is located at Soma Coal Basin in Manisa and İzmir,
Turkey. A state-owned open cast mine is under operation in the
northern region of the Soma Coal Basin where the coal seam lies at a
shallow depth. In the vicinity of the study area, underground coal mines
are under operation at a depth range of 150–400 m.47,48 New under-
ground coal mines owned by the government and private companies
with greater mining depth from 700 m to 1200 m are in planning or
development stages and at an approximate distance of 5 km from the
operating mines.49 The study area is located within the boundary of
new mining licenses dominated by the Soma formation.
In order to assess the foundation design parameters of a service shaft
headframe, sixty pressuremeter tests were carried out in seven
İ.F. Öge
Fig. 7. Test locations around the shaft location.
boreholes (Fig. 7). Nineteen of the sixty test results were discarded
which were located in a rockfill section and some of them had ques-
tionable results (very low modulus for a rock mass) probably due to
oversized borehole diameter or drilling disturbance. Eventually, forty-
one pressuremeter test results and corresponding borehole core logs
were taken into account and all of them were located in the virgin rock
mass. The maximum testing depth reaches a maximum of 24 m and the
average interval between the test locations along a single borehole
varies between 3 and 4 m.
Due to the fractured and greatly varying nature of the rock mass, a
detailed site investigation was decided to be conducted since the service
shaft of the main headframe is expected to serve throughout the life of
the mine and the foundation will be subjected to considerable static and
dynamic loads. The shaft was sunk down to a depth of a few hundred
meters when the testing programme was initiated.
The uppermost level of Deniş formation is defined as Tuff-
Agglomerate Series (P4) which is dominated by volcanic rocks. Rocks
corresponding to P4 are composed of pyroclastic and lava that forms
the uppermost levels in the study area and its vicinity. All testing
programme is located within this zone. The rock mass consists of an-
desite and weathered andesite having a variable colour from grey to
cream. The rock material exhibits a variable strength which is most
probably depending on the weathering and the mineralogical content.
The structural quality of the rock mass varies from disintegrated to very
blocky. A photograph from the pre-sinking stage of the shaft give the
visual illustration of the rock mass and three core-box photographs
exhibit different rock mass qualities are presented in Fig. 8.
Although the sections with relatively long solid core pieces are
presented in Fig. 8, the RQD is low due to the poor core recovery.
Another problem was recovering the intact core pieces with adequate
Fig. 8. Heavily fractured andesitic rock mass in the shaft excavation and in the core boxes.
245
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252
size due to the closely spaced discontinuities for the most of the core
sections. Totally, thirty-three point load strength index, fourteen uni-
axial compressive strength, three sets of triaxial compressive strength
tests which were carried out in accordance with the suggested ISRM
methods were available. The length/diameter ratio (L/D) for the com-
pression tests varied from 1.7 to 2.5. The use of relatively short core
length (L/D = 1.7–2) was necessary as the rock mass is heavily frac-
tured and in some of the pressuremeter test intervals, only short sam-
ples were available. The triaxial compressive strength test results were
also taken into account to estimate the uniaxial compressive strength if
σci was unavailable along a borehole measurement interval for de-
formation modulus. The intercept of σci at the σ1 - σ3 plot of the triaxial
testing was considered in such circumstances. The point load to uniaxial
compressive strength conversion factor was simply taken as 16 in ac-
cordance with the site-specific experience. Another borehole had been
drilled for the geotechnical investigations for the shaft sinking opera-
tions and regular deformability testing was luckily carried out on the
samples obtained from this borehole. Those tests resulted in an average
Ei/σci (modulus) ratio of 330, which is used for the estimation of the
modulus of elasticity of the core samples obtained from the pressure-
meter test boreholes.
The examination of the core-boxes enables the determination of the
practical and commonly used RQD, discontinuity condition rating of
the RMR (Dc) and other parameters required for the calculation of
RMR, Q and Qc. As it is explained in Section 5, the deformation modulus
predictions taking the parameters RMR and Q into account, gave con-
siderably higher results. During the determination of rock mass classi-
fication ratings for the poor ground conditions, especially if RMR <
45, some difficulties can be encountered.50 That is why the ratings
RMR and Q were estimated by the previously proposed correlations
which take GSI as an input. Then the correlations gave slightly low
classification ratings. The correlations were taken from the study which
was postulated by considering a database collected in the same mine
and the geology.51 Qc=Q(σci/100) is also calculated by considering the
available laboratory test results. The GSI rating was calculated con-
sidering the quantified approach proposed by Hoek et al.52 A modified
version of a quantified GSI chart was also given in 52 and GSI value can
be calculated as follows:
GSI = (RQD (%)/2) + 1.5 Dc (2)
The GSI chart is shown in Fig. 9 on which the field data is plotted.
The data are mainly concentrated in the lower half of GSI chart. The
acquired database consisting of forty-one rows is represented in the
form of frequency histograms (Fig. 10). The distribution of the pres-
suremeter measurements (indicated by Ep), testing depth, uniaxial
compressive strength, RQD, Dc, GSI, RMR, Q and Qc are presented.
İ.F. Öge
Fig. 9. The field data is represented in Quantified GSI chart52.
The maximum deformation modulus in the database is 2150 MPa
and the minimum value is 48 MPa. The majority of the measurements
vary between 500 and 1500 MPa. The minimum testing depth is 4 m
and testing depths are distributed almost evenly down to a depth of
24 m. The uniaxial compressive strength of the intact core pieces ex-
hibits a strong variation. The RQD values lie in the range of
0–57 however, almost half of the pressuremeter test intervals have zero
RQD and the majority of the data has a rating smaller than 20.
Discontinuity condition rating indicates that the majority of the dis-
continuities are in fair condition and none of them is in very good
condition. The majority of the GSI values lie between 15 and 35 similar
to the RMR ratings. The maximum Q rating is 0.481 and most of the
data points fall into a range of 0.001–0.01. The strength adjusted Qc
parameter has a minimum value of 0.0002 due to the having “σci/100”
multiplier which is smaller than 1 for this case. From a statistical point
of view, taking the advantage of a normally distributed histograms
could be beneficial. However, in rock engineering, it may not always be
possible to obtain such distribution of the collected data.39,53
The pressuremeter test data is plotted on the graphs given in 17 for
the comparison (Fig. 11). For the Erm vs. RMR plot, the commonly used
empirical equations for the estimation of the rock mass modulus are
shown as it is given in their study. Hoek and Diederichs17 opposed using
borehole expansion test results because of the scattered results in their
dataset. In fact, the volume of the rock mass tested by a pressuremeter
should be examined and its compatibility with discontinuity orientation
and spacing must obviously be checked. The joint density must be high
246
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252
and it is depending on the size of the pressuremeter. Hence, the method
becomes appropriate for low RQD rock masses.27 In this study, the rock
mass is densely fractured and the use of Menard pressuremeter resulted
in measurements which are comparable with the dataset used by Hoek
and Diederichs17 which is presented in Fig. 11. Still, the use of pres-
suremeters in a rock mass with widely spaced joints should be avoided
as it cannot influence such a large volume with widely spaced joints.
The field data and the previous studies seem to be in a good
agreement, however, the modulus range is large. The data collected in
this study falls in the lower bound of the previous studies presented in
Fig. 11. The vertical axes have a wide range and this circumstance
makes the prediction error not clearly visible. In terms of the order of
magnitude, still, the commonly used empirical equations result in rea-
sonable predictions. In order to deeply investigate the problem, the
field data is plotted against RQD, RMR, GSI, Q and Qc, (Fig. 12). De-
formation modulus is represented by Ep as an indicator of pressuremeter
measurement. In fact, Fig. 12 provides a closed look to the plots shown
in Fig. 11.
As it is illustrated in Fig. 12, the axes of the plots arranged to the
available field data and low R2 values for the relationships between the
pressuremeter measurements and the rock mass classification ratings
are obtained. The scatter of the data becomes obvious when the poor
rock mass in the study area is considered only, with adjusted scales for
the available data range. Among the correlations, the rating Q provided
a slightly better performance with an R2 value around 0.34.
İ.F. Öge
Fig. 10. Frequency histograms for the field data.
5. Comparison of empirical equations and proposal of new
equations
Statistical evaluation of the performance of the predictions can be
undertaken by using taking several parameters into account like it is
performed by several researchers. The correlation coefficient was used
in 27 for a study on the correlation of pressuremeter data and RMR/GSI.
Chun et al.54 reported pressuremeter tests performed in Korean rock
mass and gave a comparison of the commonly used empirical equations.
All of the commonly used equations overestimated the test results and
an empirical equation was suggested with an R2 value around 0.36. In
fact, the value seems to be low however, there were numerous test
results. It is quite understandable when there is a great number of data
points and then, small R2 values can be considered for the comparison
of the performance of the prediction. Bashari et al.55 correlated the
parameters UCS, GSI, density, RQD, joint spacing and, porosity with the
Fig. 11. Deformation modulus versus RMR and GSI with the data in this study (indicated by red)17 (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article).
247
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252
deformation modulus and considered correlation coefficient (r) for the
performance evaluation.
Kallu et al.56 mentioned that the correlation coefficient, F-statistics,
and RMSE are overall metrics of the predictive performance and such
parameters do not indicate the specific strengths or weaknesses of the
relationships. The ranges over which the relationships have the best and
worst predictive performances can be evaluated by considering an
“error ratio, ER”. Calculating ER between predicted and measured va-
lues is expressed to be a versatile method of quantifying the perfor-
mance of a predictive model. Kallu et al.56 described ER as follows,
ER = (Y Y)/(Y) (3)
where Y’ represents predicted data and Y stands for measured data.
Hoek and Diederichs17 used the same term but a different calculation
for the performance evaluation for their deformation modulus predic-
tions. In order to avoid a confusion, the term is named as the predicted-
İ.F. Öge
Fig. 12. Deformation modulus versus rock mass classification systems in this study.
Table 2
Equations proposed by nonlinear multiple regression modelling.
Equation number Deformation modulus prediction models (MPa)
Eq. (1) Erm = (RQD + 10)0.648124 ×
Eq. (2)
( )
RQD + 1 + Dc × 11.7478 1.1056
Erm = 100
20
Eq. (3) (*)
=( )
H 0.4797
Erm × (RQD + 10) 0.6496 × ( ci)1.038 + Dc 2.229
10
Eq. (4) (**) Erm = 1.25×(RQD + 5) 0.75 × (0.075× ci)2.25 + (2 × Dc )1.5
measured ratio, PMR. PMR can be expressed as:
PMR = Y / Y
PMR is greater than 1 when predicted value is overestimated. When
an underestimation is observed PMR value is calculated as 1/PMR.
Then, the PMR value satisfies the condition of always being greater
than 1. The absolute value of PMR can also be used however it is not
applied, here.
Forty-one Menard pressuremeter measurements were compared to
the empirical equations which are introduced in Section 2.2. For new
equations, depth, RQD, Dc and σci were chosen in order to propose
simplistic and practical equations. The calculation of RQD is straight-
forward; it gives the summation of the length of recovered solid core
pieces greater than 10 cm11. Modulus of elasticity may not always be
available every time hence, it is disregarded and σci was chosen as a
predictive parameter. The structural quality of the rock mass is re-
presented by RQD and Dc is chosen to represent the discontinuity
condition. Since the linear multiple regression models did not exhibit a
satisfactory performance, nonlinear multiple regression techniques
were employed and the proposed equations are given in Table 2.
For Eq. (3), depth (H) is in meters with a 4 m minimum and max-
imum of 24 m. In case of a utilization of the equations for a foundation
engineering or a surface structure design, the parameter depth can play
a role in the estimation of the deformation modulus. Erm and σci are in
MPa. Discontinuity condition rating of RMR (Dc) is unitless and nor-
mally varies between 0 and 30. There is a limitation on the parameter
Dc which must be between 4 and 20 for the proposed equations. Thick
clay infills or bands are excluded in this study. The parameter RQD
normally varies between 0 and 100 however, because of the available
database, it covers a range of 0–55%. All of the predictive parameters
have a positive correlation with the deformation modulus contributing
in the favour of greater Erm when any of the parameters is increased.
In order to evaluate the physical meaning of the equations, contour
plots and 3D surfaces are constructed and they are shown in Fig. 13.
The proposed equations are plotted for different levels of the uniaxial
compressive strength of the intact rock. Eq. (3) has four predictive
parameters and the depth is fixed to 10 m depth in order to construct
the contour and surface plots in 3D.
Considering Fig. 13, the predictions suggested by Eqs. (1) and (3)
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252
Limitations
ci
1.06661 + Dc 2.23513 RQD(%)≤ 55
4 ≤Dc≤ 20
10 ≤ σci≤ 100 MPa
( )
0.251
× ci
100
(*) 4 ≤H≤ 24 m
(**) Proposed for a lower bound prediction
gave similar results. However, one should remember that the depth is
included in Eq. (3) and in the plot the parameter H is taken as 10 m. The
(4)
contribution of the depth is represented by (H/10)0.4797 in Eq. (3) and it
yields 0.64 for H= 4 m, 1 for 10 m and 1.55 for H= 25 m. 3 fold dif-
ference is calculated for 4 m and 25 m depth if RQD, σci, Dc are kept
fixed. In another explanation, the predicted Erm at a depth of 25 m is
three times more than the Erm at a 4 m deep rock mass when the pre-
dictive parameters (RQD, σci, Dc) are the same. In Section 3, the in-
fluence of the depth was found to be ΔErm/ΔH= 1.6 MPa/m which
leads to a difference of 33.6 MPa between the depths of 4 m and 25 m.
In the numerical analyses, the simulated rock mass had Erm approxi-
mately equal to 1800 MPa and the increment due to the depth would be
around 1.6 × 21 = 33.6 MPa. The rate of modulus increase was found
to be practically insignificant in the modelling results and as small as
1.87% for a depth interval between 4 m and 25 m. In contrast to the
modelling results, the field studies pointed out a considerable influence
on the modulus along the testing depth covered in this study (4–25 m).
The remaining three equations do not take the depth into account.
Eqs. (1), (2), and (4) are in the form of Erm = ƒ(RQD, σci, Dc). Con-
sidering Eqs. (1) and (4), if σci is 10 MPa, the contribution of the
parameter Dc to Erm is dominant and RQD has only a slight influence on
the modulus. The increase of intact rock strength makes the influence of
RQD more pronounceable. In fact, the contribution of the RQD to Erm is
also dependent on the Dc. In the presence of discontinuities having
good and fair conditions (i.e. Dc= 10–20), the influence of RQD is
greater, and smaller where low Dc values are present in the rock mass.
In Eq. (4), the influence of Dc parameter on the modulus ceases if σci is
100 MPa and RQD becomes the dominant parameter. It should be re-
minded that the lowest Dc values, such as 0–4 are not covered in this
study and the presence of such zones may deviate the trend observed in
this study. Eq. (2) has similar characteristics with Eqs. (1) and (4) as it
can be inferred from Fig. 13.
Apart from the previously explained equations, the dependence of
Erm to the parameters RQD and Dc follows a slightly changing trend for
Eq. (2). Increasing σci leads to a slight increase of the impact of Dc
parameter on Erm. For all intact strength values, the contribution of Dc
to Erm is more pronounceable than RQD.
The maximum and minimum deformation modulus predictions are
also calculated taking the limitations into consideration. The minimum
248
İ.F. Öge International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252

Fig. 13. Contour and 3D surface plots of the proposed equations.

249
İ.F. Öge
Fig. 14. ER(%) for the previously developed empirical equations.
and maximum deformation modulus values for Eq. (1) are 74 MPa and
2842 MPa, 148 MPa and 1930 MPa for Eq. (2), 53 MPa and 3581 MPa
for Eq. (3), 25 MPa and 2762 MPa for Eq. (4). The validity of the
equations is expressed as: 0 ≤RQD(%)≤ 55, 4 ≤Dc≤ 20, 10 ≤ σci
≤ 100 MPa and, 4 ≤H≤ 25 m.
After the evaluation of the physical meaning of the mathematical
expressions, statistical performances of the equations are discussed. A
comparison of the predictions obtained from the empirical equations
presented in Table 1 with the equations proposed in this study was
made by previously explained parameters: r, R2, RMSE, ER and PMR.
The greater r and R2 values indicate a better correlation performance.
Since they are generally low in this study, they are used for comparison
purposes. The smaller RMSE value indicates a better performance.
Here, ER and PMR play the major role in the performance evaluation by
directly providing a value about the predicted and measured data. ER is
expressed in terms of percentage and smaller the value, smaller the
prediction error. PMR represents the ratio of predicted to measured
values. It is better if it is close to unity. If the PMR value is greater than
1, the prediction overestimates Erm and if it is smaller than 1, an un-
derestimation is observed.
ER values are plotted for each data point. The plots belonging to the
previously developed empirical equations (Fig. 14) and developed in
this study (Fig. 15) are provided in individual plots to increase the
visibility.
Fig. 15. ER(%) for the multiple regression models developed in this study.
250
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252
Among the previously proposed empirical equations, the one sug-
gested in 37 exhibits a slightly underestimating trend with respect to
the measured data. It is not surprising since the equation is suggested
for lower bound estimates by the researchers. The remaining empirical
equations have a tendency to overestimate the deformation modulus.
Summation and average of PMR and ER values, together with r, R2 and
RMSE are given for each equation including the ones proposed in this
study, (Table 3). Σ PMR gives the summation of the measured to the
estimated ratio for 41 data row. Similarly, average PMR gives an
average value. However, for error evaluation, the summation and
average values of PMR may be misleading since the best performance is
attained when PMR= 1. For overestimation and underestimation, a
correction can also be made however, ER parameter was used for the
quantification of the prediction error in terms of percentage. The ER
indicates the absolute error percentage no matter it is an overestimation
or underestimation. Table 3 is presented in a conditionally coloured
form with the performance indicators. The parameters indicate better
performance for the greener table cells.
The equations proposed in this study perform well and slightly
better than the equations proposed by Hoek and Diederichs,17 Ni-
cholson and Bieniawski,30 Gökceoglu et al.36 and Zhang and Einstein.37
The mentioned predictions have better performance among the existing
equations. In fact, Hoek and Diederich's17 equation has a flexibility
since there is an additional parameter D, the disturbance factor. The
İ.F. Öge
Table 3
Comparison of the empirical equations in the literature and proposed in this study.
parameter D is generally chosen with respect to the blast damage or the
excavation method. This parameter can also be used for the upper and
lower bound values. The predictions proposed by Sonmez et al.39 and
Gökceoglu et al.36 having RMR as an input parameter, performed better
than the predictions by the same researchers with GSI as an input
parameter. Among the new Eq., Eq. (4) has the best ER values and it is
suggested for a lower bound prediction. Eq. (3) is a prediction with the
depth input and it can be used for the rock engineering problems at
shallow depth. Eq. (1) is the suggested prediction for general use in
poor rock conditions.
6. Conclusion
The modulus of deformation measurements were obtained from
Menard pressuremeter testing in a poor rock mass. Numerous pre-ex-
isting empirical equations and the pressuremeter test results were
compared to each other. The performance of sixteen predictions was
evaluated, discussed and presented. A few of them performed well but
the majority gave overestimated results. The equations commonly
consider RMR, Q and GSI and some laboratory test results as predictive
parameters.
Considering the practicality, the well-known RQD, discontinuity
condition rating of the RMR system Dc and σci parameters were selected
to predict the deformation modulus for a heavily fractured andesitic
rock mass. Eventually, four equations were proposed, one of which is
aimed to give lower bound predictions (Eq. (4)). Eq. (1) performs better
than Eq. (2), both of which can be used for a general purpose. There are
some limitations for the proposed equations: RQD < 50%, 4 < Dc <
20 and 10 < σci < 100 MPa. The equation with the inclusion of the
depth (Eq. (3)) is valid for a depth range of 4–24 m without the
groundwater. The equations presented in this study can be used espe-
cially for comparison purposes where the similar conditions exist. In
such cases, the provided limitations must be considered.
Another concern was the influence of the depth on the deformation
modulus. The preliminary analyses were carried out by using the finite
element analysis assuming the rock mass behaves as a continuum and
discontinuum. In continuum approach, the rock mass modelled as an
isotropic, elastic-brittle-plastic rock mass while the other one contains
discontinuities in the elastic-brittle-plastic rock material. A range of
depth and k values were imposed on the numerical models aiming to
simulate the pressuremeter test. The effect of the depth was not ob-
served in the isotropic continuum model. The simulated pressuremeter
measurement was not affected by the confining pressure. In contrast to
the continuum modelling, the discontinuum modelling resulted in an
increasing trend for the deformation modulus with respect to the in-
creasing depth provided that the mechanical properties of the rock mass
were kept constant. The discontinuities have greater tendency to de-
form at a shallow depth than they have at a deep case which in turn
result in the stress dependency of the deformation modulus. Still, the
251
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252
influence of the depth is limited to 9% for a 100 m depth differential for
the model of concern in this research and not all rock masses ne-
cessarily exhibit the same impact with the same order of magnitude.
Another finding in the numerical analyses is that the deformation
modulus is insensitive to k ratio at a constant depth. Not only are the
two of them, but all of the principal stresses are important for the stress
dependency.
During the analyses, the 200 m deep numerical models resulted in
inconsistent deformation modulus, which was slightly smaller than it
was found in a 100 m deep model. Especially when k > 1 at great
depth, the development of plastic zones after drilling the borehole and
before the initiation of the testing is attributed to the decrease in the
modulus. Hence, the deformation modulus was governed by plasticity
rather than elasticity. The modelling case at a depth of 4 m was also
tried, again it resulted in similar deformation modulus values with 20 m
deep models. The absence of the depth sensitivity of the deformation
modulus at shallow depth can be explained by the discontinuity con-
stitutive model and failure criterion both of which are linear in this
research. The use of a non-linear constitutive model and a non-linear
failure criterion can be used for a further rigorous modelling. A detailed
modelling work possibly with a parametric study may provide a valu-
able data about stress dependency of the deformation modulus. A rig-
orous numerical modelling is promoted since it is really difficult to
carry out in-situ tests at different depths but in the rock masses which
are in identical condition and have the same mechanical properties.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the management personnel of Polyak Eynez
Energy Mining A.Ş. and Fina Energy for granting permission to use
necessary data. The author presents his gratitude to Geological
Engineers of Polyak Eynez, Feridun Emre Yağımlı, Ali Türkoğlu, and
Yusuf Tonbaktepe, for providing extensive data on the geology of the
study area, and their additional care during the data collection.
References
1. Cai M, Kaiser PK, Uno H, Tasaka Y, Minami M. Estimation of rock mass deformation
modulus and strength of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI system. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. 2004;41(1):3–19.
2. Farmer IW, Kemeny JM. Deficiencies in rock test data. In: Rock Characterization:
ISRM Symposium, Eurock'92, Chester, UK, 14–17 September 1992 p. 298-303.
3. Hammah R, Curran J, Yacoub T. The Influence of Young’s Modulus on Stress
Modelling Results. In: Golden Rocks 2006, Proceedings of the 41st US Symposium on
Rock Mechanics (USRMS); 2006.
4. Palmstrøm A. Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in practical rock en-
gineering: Part 1: the development of the Rock Mass Index (RMi). Tunn Undergr Space
Technol. 1996;11:175–188.
5. Palmström A, Singh R. The deformation modulus of rock masses—comparisons be-
tween in situ tests and indirect estimates. Tunn Undergr Space Technol.
2001;16:115–131.
6. Bieniawski ZT. Engineering classification of rock masses. Trans S Afr Inst Civ Eng.
İ.F. Öge
1973;15:335–344.
7. Ozgenoglu A, Mehmetoglu AG, Karpuz C. Comparison of rock mass deformabilities
determined using large flat jack technique and plate jacking test at two dam sites. In:
Proceedings of the 6th ISRM Congress International Society for Rock Mechanics; 1987.
8. Ünal E. Determination of in situ deformation modulus: new approaches for plate-
loading tests. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1997;34(6):897–915.
9. Shen J, Karakus M, Xu C. A comparative study for empirical equations in estimating
deformation modulus of rock masses. Tunn Undergr Space Tech. 2012;32:245–250.
10. Karaman K, Cihangir F, Kesimal A. A comparative assessment of rock mass de-
formation modulus. Int J l Min Sci Tech. 2015;25(5):735–740.
11. Deere DU, Hendron AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ. Design of surface and near-surface
construction in rock. In: Proceedings of the 8th US symposium on rock mechanics
(USRMS); 1966.
12. Bieniawski ZT. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for Engineers
and Geologists in Mining, Civil, and Petroleum Engineering. John Wiley & Sons; 1989.
13. Barton N. Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site characterisation and tunnel
design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2002;39(2):185–216.
14. Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
1997;34(8):1165–1186.
15. Tanimoto C Contribution to discussion in proceedings of the paris conference on
analysis of tunnel stability by the convergence–confinement method (Published in
Underground Space 4 (4)).
16. Aksoy CO, Geniş M, Aldaş GU, Özacar V, Özer SC, Yılmaz Ö. A comparative study of
the determination of rock mass deformation modulus by using different empirical
approaches. Eng Geo. 2012;131:19–28.
17. Hoek E, Diederichs MS. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci. 2006;43(2):203–215.
18. Agharazi A, Tannant DD, Martin CD. Characterizing rock mass deformation me-
chanisms during plate load tests at the Bakhtiary dam project. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci. 2012;49 [1-1].
19. Kavur B, Cvitanović NŠ, Hrženjak P. Comparison between plate jacking and large flat
jack test results of rock mass deformation modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
2015;73:102–114.
20. Jaeger C. Rock Mechanics and Engineering. Cambridge University Press; 1979.
21. Mair RJ, Wood DM. Pressuremeter Testing. Ciria; 1989.
22. Galera JM, Alvarez M, Bieniawski ZT. Evaluation of the deformation modulus of rock
masses: comparison of pressuremeter and dilatometer tests with RMR prediction. In:
Proceedings of the ISP5-PRESSIO. Paris; 2005:1–25.
23. Ménard L. An Apparatus for Measuring the Strength of Soils in Place (M.Sc. Thesis).
Urbana: University of Illinois; 1956.
24. Ménard L. Influence de l′amplitude et de l′histoire d′un champ de contraintes sur le
tassement d′un sol de foundation. VICSMFE, Paris. 1961:249–253.
25. Goodman RE. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. New York: Wiley; 1989.
26. Baguelin F, Jezequel JF, Le Mehaute A. Etude des pressions interstitielles devel-
oppees lors de lessai pressiometrique. In: Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering; 1973:19–24.
27. Isik NS, Ulusay R, Doyuran V. Deformation modulus of heavily jointed–sheared and
blocky greywackes by pressuremeter tests: numerical, experimental and empirical
assessments. Eng Geo. 2008;101(3):269–282.
28. Aydan Ö, Ulusay R, Tokashiki N. A new rock mass quality rating system: rock mass
quality rating (RMQR) and its application to the estimation of geomechanical
characteristics of rock masses. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2014;47(4):1255–1276.
29. Serafim JL, Pereira JP. Consideration of the geomechanical classification of
Bieniawski. In: Proceedings International Symposium on Engineering Geology and
Underground Construction (Lisbon); 1983:33–44.
30. Nicholson GA, Bieniawski ZT. A nonlinear deformation modulus based on rock mass
classification. Int J Min Geol Eng. 1990;8:181–202.
31. Barton N. The influence of joint properties in modelling jointed rock masses. In:
Proceedings of Keynote Lecture of 8th Congress of ISRM, Tokyo, vol. 3. Rotterdam:
Balkema, 1995.
32. Jasarevic I, Kovacevic MS. Analyzing applicability of existing classification for hard
carbonate rock in Mediterranean area. In: Proceedings of EUROCK’96, Turin, Italy,
September 1996, 1996:811–818.
252
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 112 (2018) 238–252
33. Aydan Ö, Ulusay R, Kawamoto T. Assessment of rock mass strength for underground
excavations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1997;34(3–4) [18-e1].
34. Read SA, Perrin ND, Richards LR. Applicability of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to
New Zealand greywacke rocks. In: Proceedings of 9th ISRM Congress; 1999.
35. Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition. In:
Proceedings of NARMS-Tac. 2002. p. 267-273.
36. Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A. Predicting the deformation moduli of rock
masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2003;40(5):701–710.
37. Zhang L, Einstein HH. Using RQD to estimate the deformation modulus of rock
masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2004;41:337–341.
38. Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R. Indirect determination of the modulus of de-
formation of rock masses based on the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
2004;41:849–857.
39. Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Kayabasi A. Estimation of rock modulus: for
intact rocks with an artificial neural network and for rock masses with a new em-
pirical equation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2006;43:224–235.
40. Bieniawski ZT. Determining rock mass deformability—experience from case his-
tories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr. 1978;15:237–247.
41. Stephens RE, Banks DC. Moduli for deformation studies of the foundation and
abutments of the Portugues Dam—Puerto Rico. In: Proceedings of the 30th US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics as a Guide for Efficient Utilization of Natural
Resources: Morgantown; 1989:31–38.
42. Verman M, Singh B, Viladkar MN, Jethwa JL. Effect of tunnel depth on modulus of
deformation of rock mass. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 1997;30(3):121–127.
43. Agan C. Determination of the deformation modulus of dispersible-intercalated-
jointed cherts using the Menard pressuremeter test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
2014;65:20–28.
44. Rocscience Inc. Phase2 Software v.8.0; 2011.
45. Barton NR, Bandis SC. Effects of block size on the shear behaviour of jointed rock. In:
Proceedings of 23rd U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Berkeley; 1982:739-760.
46. Baecher GB, Lanney NA. Trace length biases in joint surveys. In: Proceedings of the
19th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS); 1978.
47. Basarir H, Oge IF, Aydin O. Prediction of the stresses around main and tail gates
during top coal caving by 3D numerical analysis. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
2015;76:88–97.
48. Aksoy CO, Kucuk K, Uyar GG. Long-term time-dependent consolidation analysis by
numerical modelling to determine subsidence effect area induced by longwall top
coal caving method. Int J Oil, Gas Coal Tech. 2016;12(1):18–37.
49. Öge İ.F, Çırak M. Relating rock mass properties with Lugeon value using multiple
regression and nonlinear tools in an underground mine site. Bull Eng Geol Environ.
2017:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1179-0.
50. Özkan İ, Erdem B, Ceylanoğlu A. Characterization of jointed rock masses for geo-
technical classifications utilized in mine shaft stability analyses. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci. 2015;73:28–41.
51. Öge IF, Yağımlı FE, Türkoğlu A. Soma Kömür Havzasında Pliyosen Kaya Birimlerinde
RMR, Q-Sistemi ve GSI Değerlerinin İlişkilendirilmesi - Relating RMR, Q-System and
GSI Ratings in Pliocene Formations of Soma Coal Basin. Turkey 25. International
Mining Congress, IMCET. Antalya; 2017. p. 170-174. (in Turkish).
52. Hoek E, Carter TG, Diederichs MS. Quantification of the geological strength index
chart. In: Proceedings of the 47th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium;
2013.
53. Kayabasi A, Yesiloglu-Gultekin N, Gokceoglu C. Use of non-linear prediction tools to
assess rock mass permeability using various discontinuity parameters. Eng Geo.
2015;185:1–9.
54. Chun BS, Lee YJ, Seo DD, Lim BS. Correlation deformation modulus by PMT with
RMR and rock mass condition. Tunn Undergr Space Tech. 2006;21(3):231–232.
55. Bashari A, Beiki M, Talebinejad A. Estimation of deformation modulus of rock masses
by using fuzzy clustering-based modeling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
2011;48:1224–1234.
56. Kallu RR, Keffeler ER, Watters RJ, Warren SN. Development of a highly portable
plate loading device and in situ modulus measurements in weak rock masses. Rock
Mech Rock Eng. 2016;49:443–454.