Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15
www.elsevier.com/locate/undsp

Evaluation of rock mass deformability using empirical

methods – A review
Lianyang Zhang ⇑
Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, United States

Received 11 November 2016; received in revised form 18 January 2017; accepted 27 March 2017
Available online 31 March 2017

Abstract

Evaluation of rock mass deformability is an important but very challenging task in the analysis and design of underground structures
in rock. Although various empirical (correlation) methods have been developed for determining the deformation modulus of rock
masses, they come in many forms and are scattered in different sources. It is often difficult, time-consuming, or even impossible for a
practitioner to find appropriate information to determine the deformation modulus of rock masses for a particular project. Therefore,
this paper first provides a comprehensive review of the different empirical methods for determining the deformation modulus of rock
masses. Then a comparative analysis and discussion is carried out on the accuracy and main issues of these methods. Since many of
the empirical methods for determining the deformation modulus of rock masses need to use the deformation modulus of intact rock,
the various empirical methods for estimating the deformation modulus of intact rock are also reviewed. In addition, this paper highlights
the scale effect on rock mass deformability, the effect of confining stress on rock mass deformability, and the anisotropy of rock mass
deformability. Overall this paper outlines the key aspects of rock mass deformability and provides the fundamental and essential infor-
mation required for effective evaluation of rock mass deformability using the empirical methods.
Ó 2017 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner. This is an open access article
under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Rock mass; Deformability; Empirical method; Scale effect; Stress effect; Anisotropy

Introduction Cording, 1967; Dershowitz, Baecher, & Einstein, 1979;

Evaluation of the deformability of rock masses is impor-
tant in rock mechanics and rock engineering because it is
used in the analysis and design of different structures
founded in or on rock, from underground openings and
excavations to foundations of dams, bridges and high-rise
buildings. Because natural rock masses contain different
types of discontinuities such as joints, bedding planes,
folds, shear zones and faults, it is a very challenging task
to accurately determine the deformation modulus of rock
masses (Bieniawski, 1978; Deere, Hendron, Patton, &
Hoek & Brown, 1997; Zhang, 2004; Zhang, 2016).
The various methods for determining the deformation
modulus of rock masses can be divided in two general cat-
egories: direct methods and indirect methods (Zhang, 2004;
Zhang, 2016). The direct methods include laboratory tests
on rock specimens and in situ tests on field rock masses
(ASTM, 2004; Ulusay & Hudson, 2007). Since laboratory
tests on small specimens are often inadequate to predict
the deformability of rock masses, in situ tests are necessary.
There are various types of in situ tests, including plate bear-
ing, flatjack, pressure chamber, borehole jacking and

⇑ Fax: +1 520 621 2550.

E-mail address: lyzhang@email.arizona.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2017.03.003
2467-9674/Ó 2017 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15

dilatometer tests. The in situ tests, however, are time con- deformability are also discussed. The direct test methods
suming, expensive and often difficult to be conducted. and the indirect equilibrium continuum approach for
The indirect methods can be divided into empirical (cor- determining rock mass deformability are outside the scope
relation) methods and the equivalent continuum approach of this paper. The interested readers can refer to ASTM
(Zhang, 2004; Zhang, 2016). The empirical methods relate (2004), Ulusay and Hudson (2007), and Zhang (2004),
the rock mass deformation modulus to rock mass classifi- Zhang (2016) for details. This paper outlines the key
cation indices such as RQD (Coon & Merritt, 1970; aspects of rock mass deformability and provides the funda-
Deere et al., 1967; Gardner, 1987; Zhang & Einstein, mental and essential information required for effective eval-
2004), RMR (Bieniawski, 1978; Gokceoglu, Sonmez, & uation of rock mass deformability using the empirical
Kayabasi, 2003; Mitri, Edrissi, & Henning, 1994; methods.
Nicholson & Bieniawski, 1990; Ramamurthy, 2004; Read,
Richards, & Perrin, 1999; Serafim & Pereira, 1983; Empirical methods for estimating rock mass deformation
Sonmez, Gokceoglu, Nefeslioglu, & Kayabasi, 2006), GSI modulus
(Gokceoglu et al., 2003; Hoek, 2004; Hoek & Brown,
1997; Hoek & Diederichs, 2006; Sonmez, Gokceoglu, & A number of empirical methods have been developed for
Ulusay, 2004), Q (Barton, 2002; Barton, Loset, Lien, & estimating the deformation modulus of rock masses. These
Lunde, 1980) and RMi (Palmström & Singh, 2001) or other methods relate the deformation modulus to rock mass
rock (mass) parameters such as unconfined compressive quality indices such as RQD, RMR, GSI, Q and RMi
strength (Palmström & Singh, 2001; Rowe & Armitage, and/or other rock (mass) parameters such as unconfined
1984) and elastic wave velocity (Barton, 2002). The equiv- compressive strength and elastic wave velocity, as detailed
alent continuum approach treats the rock mass as an equiv- below.
alent continuum with deformability that reflects the
deformation properties of both the intact rock and the dis- Methods relating deformation modulus with RQD
continuities (Duncan & Goodman, 1968; Salamon, 1968;
Singh, 1973a; Singh, 1973b; Zienkiewicz, Kelly, & Based on field studies at Dworshak Dam, Deere et al.
Bettess, 1977; Kulhawy, 1978; Gerrard, 1982a; Gerrard, (1967) suggested that RQD be used for determining the
1982b; Gerrard, 1991; Amadei, 1983; Amadei & Savage, rock mass deformation modulus. By adding further data
1993; Chen, 1989; Fossum, 1985; Oda, 1988; Oda, 1993; from other sites, Coon and Merritt (1970) developed a rela-
Yoshinaka & Yambe, 1986; Kulatilake, Wang, & tion between the modulus ratio Em/Er and RQD as shown
Stephansson, 1993; Huang, Chang, & Yang, 1995; in Fig. 1, where Em and Er are the deformation modulus of
Zhang, 2010). It is noted that the indirect methods may the rock mass and the intact rock, respectively.
need to use the deformation properties of the intact rock
and/or discontinuities obtained through laboratory or
in situ tests.
Due to the limitations of the direct test methods and the
indirect equilibrium continuum approach, the indirect
empirical methods are commonly used in the evaluation
of rock mass deformability. Although various empirical
methods have been developed, they come in many forms
and are scattered in different sources. It is often difficult,
time-consuming, or even impossible for a practitioner to
find appropriate information to determine the deformation
modulus of rock masses for a particular project. It is also
noted that the empirical methods do not consider either
the effect of scale and stress on rock mass deformability
or the anisotropy of rock mass deformability.
This paper first provides a comprehensive review of the
various empirical methods for estimating the deformation
modulus of rock masses. Then a comparative analysis and
discussion is carried out on the accuracy and main issues
of these methods. Since many of the empirical methods
for determining the deformation modulus of rock masses
need to use the deformation modulus of intact rock, the var-
ious empirical methods for estimating the deformation
modulus of intact rock are also reviewed. The effect of
different factors such as scale and confining stress on rock Fig. 1. Variation of Em/Er with RQD proposed by Coon and Merritt
mass deformability and the anisotropy of rock mass (1970).
 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15
Since the relation by Coon and Merritt (1970) gives very
small and even negative Em/Er values at low RQD,
Gardner (1987) proposed the following modified relation
by assuming a minimum value of 0.15 for Em/Er:
Em =Er ¼ 0:0231ðRQDÞ  1:32 P 0:15 ð1Þ
This relation is adopted by the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials in the Stan-
dard Specification for Highway Bridges (AASHTO, 1989).
For RQD > 64%, Eq. (1) is the same as the relation of
Coon and Merritt (1970), while for RQD < 64%, Eq. (1)
gives Em/Er = 0.15.
It is noted that the Em/Er – RQD relations of Coon and
Merritt (1970) and Gardner (1987) have the following lim-
itations (Zhang & Einstein, 2004):
(1) The range of RQD < 60% is not well covered and
only an arbitrary value of Em/Er can be selected in
this range.
(2) For RQD = 100%, Em is assumed to be equal to Er.
This is obviously unsafe in design practice because
RQD = 100% does not mean that the rock is intact.
There may be discontinuities in rock masses with
RQD = 100% and thus Em may be smaller than Er
even when RQD = 100%.
Therefore, Zhang and Einstein (2004) expanded the
database shown in Fig. 1 by collecting more data from
the published literature (Fig. 2). The expanded database
covers the entire range 0  RQD  100% and shows a non-
linear variation of Em/Er with RQD. The rocks for the
expanded database include mudstone, siltstone, sandstone,
shale, dolerite, granite, limestone, greywacke, gneiss, and
Fig. 2. Expanded data and different relations between Em/Er and RQD.
(See above-mentioned references for further information.)
3
granite gneiss. The data in Fig. 2 shows a large scatter,
especially when RQD > 70%. Zhang and Einstein (2004)
discussed the possible reasons for the large scatter, includ-
ing test methods, directional effect, discontinuity condi-
tions and insensitivity of RQD to discontinuity frequency
(or spacing). Using the expanded database, Zhang and
Einstein (2004) derived the following RQD – Em/Er relation
for the average trend:
Em
¼ 100:0186RQD1:91 ð2Þ
Er
The new Em/Er – RQD relation gives Em/Er = 0.95 at
RQD = 100%, which makes sense because there may be
discontinuities in rock masses at RQD = 100% and thus
Em may be smaller than Er even when RQD = 100%. By
plotting the Em/Er – RQD relations by Coon and Merritt
(1970) and Gardner (1987) also in Fig. 2, one can clearly
see that it is not reasonable to assume a constant Em/Er
value at the low RQD region.
Methods relating deformation modulus with RMR or GSI
Bieniawski (1978) studied seven projects and suggested
the following correlation for estimating rock mass defor-
mation modulus Em from RMR:
Em ¼ 2RMR  100 ðGPaÞ ð3Þ
The obvious deficiency of this equation is that it gives
negative modulus values when RMR is smaller than 50.
Additional studies carried out on rock masses with quali-
ties ranging from poor to very good indicated that the rock
mass deformation modulus Em could be related to RMR
by Serafim and Pereira (1983):
Em ¼ 10ðRMR10Þ=40 ðGPaÞ ð4Þ
It is noted that Eqs. (3) and (4) were developed before 1989
and the RMR in them is RMR76 which is equal to RMR89
– 5, where RMR76 and RMR89 are the RMR based on the
1976 and 1989 versions of the RMR system, respectively.
For simplicity, if not specifically stated, the RMR will sim-
ply mean RMR89 in later discussion.
Eq. (4) has been found to work well for good quality
rocks. However, for poor quality rocks it appears to pre-
dict deformation modulus values that are too high (Hoek
& Brown, 1997). Based on practical observations and back
analysis of excavation behavior in poor quality rock
masses, Hoek and Brown (1997) modified Eq. (4) for
unconfined compressive strength of intact rock rc < 100 -
MPa as follows:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rc ðGSI10Þ=40
Em ¼ 10 ðGPaÞ ð5Þ
100
Note that GSI (Geological Strength Index) has been substi-
tuted for RMR in Eq. (5).
Read et al. (1999) proposed the following simple rela-
tionship for estimating the rock mass deformation modulus
Em from RMR:
4 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15

3
Em ¼ 0:1ðRMR=10Þ ðGPaÞ ð6Þ Methods relating deformation modulus with Q

Using a database including 115 data values obtained Barton et al. (1980) suggested the following relationship
from in situ plate loading and dilatometer tests, between rock mass deformation modulus Em and Q:
Gokceoglu et al. (2003) derived the following correlations
based on regression analyses: Em ¼ 25 log Q ðGPaÞ ð17Þ
where Q is the rock quality index. The above relationship is
Em ¼ 0:0736e0:0755RMR ðGPaÞ ð7Þ
only applicable to Q > 1 and generally hard rocks.
Em ¼ 0:1451e0:0654GSI ðGPaÞ ð8Þ Barton (2002) proposed the following general relation
for estimating the deformation modulus of rock masses:
Hoek (2004) presented the following simplified correla-  r 1=3
c
tion for estimating the rock mass deformation modulus Em ¼ 10 Q ðGPaÞ ð18Þ
Em from GSI: 100
which is similar to Eq. (5) in that it considers the effect of
Em ¼ 0:33e0:064GSI ðGPaÞ ð9Þ the unconfined compressive strength of intact rock rc.
Based on data from a large number of in situ measure-
ments from China and Taiwan, Hoek and Diederichs Methods relating deformation modulus with RMi
(2006) derived the following relationship between rock
mass deformation modulus Em and GSI: Palmström and Singh (2001) suggested the following
  correlations for estimating the rock mass deformation
1  D=2 modulus Em from RMi:
Em ¼ 100 ðGPaÞ ð10Þ
1 þ eð75þ25DGSIÞ=11
Em ¼ 5:6RMi0:375 ðGPaÞ ð0:1 < RMi < 1Þ ð19aÞ
where D is the disturbance factor indicating the degree of Em ¼ 7RMi 0:4
ðGPaÞ ð1 < RMi < 30Þ ð19bÞ
disturbance due to blast damage and stress relaxation,
which ranges from 0 for undisturbed in situ rock masses where RMi is the rock mass index.
to 1 for very disturbed rock masses.
There are also empirical correlations between the ratio Methods relating deformation modulus with seismic P-wave
of the rock mass deformation modulus Em to the intact velocity
rock deformation modulus Er and RMR or GSI. The fol-
lowing present some of them. Barton (2002) presented the following correlation for
Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990): estimating the rock mass deformation modulus Em from
the seismic P-wave velocity:
Em 0:0028RMR2 þ 0:9eRMR=22:82
¼ ð11Þ Em ¼ 10  10ðvp 3:5Þ=3 ðGPaÞ ð20Þ
Er 100
where vp is the seismic P-wave velocity of the rock mass in
Mitri et al. (1994):
km/s.
Em 1  cosðp  RMR=100Þ
¼ ð12Þ
Er 2 Methods relating deformation modulus with unconfined
compressive strength
Sonmez et al. (2004):
Em 1 eGSI=15  e20=3 Rowe and Armitage (1984) related the rock mass
0:4 GSI100
¼ ðsa Þ ; s ¼ e 9 ; a ¼ þ ð13Þ deformation modulus Em deduced from a large number
Er 2 6
of field tests of drilled shafts under axial loading with the
Ramamurthy (2004): average unconfined compressive strength rc of weak rock
deposits in which the drilled shafts were founded as
Em follows:
¼ eðRMR100Þ=17:4 ð14Þ
Er pffiffiffiffiffi
Em ¼ 0:215 rc ðGPaÞ ð21Þ
Hoek and Diederichs (2006): where rc is in MPa.
Em 1  D=2 Palmström and Singh (2001) also proposed a simple
¼ 0:02 þ ð15Þ relation to estimate the rock mass deformation modulus
Er 1 þ eð60þ15DGSIÞ=11
Em from rc:
Sonmez et al. (2006): Em ¼ 0:2rc ðGPaÞ ð22Þ
Em where rc is in MPa.
¼ 10½ðRMR100Þðð100RMRÞ=4000 expðRMR=100Þ
ð16Þ
Er
 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15 5

Methods relating deformation modulus with multiple rock
parameters
Many empirical methods relating the rock mass defor-
mation modulus to multiple rock parameters have also
been proposed by researchers. For example, Kayabasi,
Gokceoglu, and Ercanoglu (2003) derived the following
relation from a database of 57 test values by considering
the influence of both RQD and the weathering degree of
discontinuities on the rock mass deformation modulus Em:
 1:1747
Er ð1 þ 0:01RQDÞ
Em ¼ 0:1423 ð23Þ
WD
where WD is the weathering degree of discontinuities. By
adding 58 new test values to the database of Kayabasi
et al. (2003), Gokceoglu et al. (2003) derived the following
relation based on fitting analysis:
 1:5528
ðEr =rc Þð1 þ 0:01RQDÞ
Em ¼ 0:001 ð24Þ
WD
The new relation considers the effect of not only RQD and
WD but also the unconfined compressive strength of intact
rock rc on the rock mass deformation modulus.
Based on the analysis of a database of 150 data sets
using the genetic programming approach, Beiki, Bashari,
and Majdi (2010) derived the following two relationships
for estimating the rock mass deformation modulus Em by
considering multiple parameters:
Em ¼ tanðlnðGSIÞÞ logðrc ÞðRQDÞ1=3 ðGPaÞ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 1=3
Em ¼ tan 1:56 þ ðlnðGSIÞÞ ðrc Þ ðGPaÞ
where rc is in MPa.
Comparative analysis and discussion
To evaluate the relative accuracy of the empirical meth-
ods described above for estimating the deformation modu-
lus of rock masses, they are applied to 13 rock masses at
five sites with detailed geotechnical information available:
the Sulakyurt dam site in central Turkey (Ozsan, Ocal,
Akin, & Bassarir, 2007), the Tannur Dam site in south Jor-
dan (El-Naqa & Kuisi, 2002), the Urus Dam site also in
central Turkey (Ozsan & Akin, 2002), a high tower site
at Tenerife Island (Justo, Justo, Durand, & Azanon,
2006), and an open pit mine site in the vicinity of Berlin,
Germany (Alber & Heiland, 2001). Table 1 lists the prop-
erties of the rock masses at the five sites which cover a rea-
sonable but clearly limited range of rock types.
Fig. 3 summarizes the estimated deformation modulus
values from the different empirical method for all 13 rock
masses at the five sites. It can be clearly seen that the esti-
mated values from the various empirical methods can be
very different for some of the rock masses. It is also noted
that the highest or lowest estimated values are not from a
single empirical method, i.e., an empirical method may give
the highest or lowest estimated value for one rock mass but
an estimated value in the middle for a different rock mass.
So it is hard or impossible to decide which method is the
most accurate.
The estimated values from the various empirical meth-
ods can be very different for some of the rock masses.
One possible reason is that the empirical methods were
ð25Þ developed based on databases of different sources. So it is
important that the evaluation of rock mass deformation
ð26Þ modulus should not rely only on a single empirical method.
Instead, various empirical methods should be used to get
an idea on the possible range of the rock mass deformation
modulus. For a specific project, it will be beneficial if mea-

Table 1
Summary of properties for 13 rock masses at five sites.
No. Rock Er (GPa) rc (MPa) RQD (%) RMR Q GSI References
1 Granite 31.5a 74 8.5 24 0.08 19 Ozsan et al. (2007)
2 Diorite 19.5a 60 1.5 21 0.05 16
3 Limestone (L1) 24.8a 31 54 57 4.23 52 El-Naqa and Kuisi (2002)
4 Limestone (L2) 10.4a 13 50 59 5.29 54
5 Limestone (R1) 29.6a 37 48 59 5.29 54
6 Limestone (R2) 21.6a 27 45 54 3.04 59
7 Marly Limestone 22.4a 28 44 55 3.39 50
8 Andesite 41.9 93 41 34 0.56 41 Ozsan and Akin (2002)
9 Basalt 40.0 142 15 38 0.63 42.5
10 Tuff 11.6 24 10 21 0.11 31
11 Basalt (d1) 60.9 69 77 59 6.6 52 Justo et al. (2006)
12 Basalt (d2) 5.3a 15 42.5 38 3.4 39
13 Limestone 25.7 41 50 57 2.4b 52 Alber and Heiland (2001)
a
Estimated using the modulus ratio (MR = Er/rc) values from Hoek and Diederichs (2006).
b
Estimated from GSI using correlation GSI = 9 ln Q + 44.
6 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15

40.0 Determination of intact rock deformation modulus

Eq. (2) Eq. (3)
Eq. (4) Eq. (5)
Eq. (6) Eq. (7)
35.0
Eq. (8) Eq. (9)
Many of the empirical methods need to use the intact
Eq. (10) Eq. (11) rock deformation modulus in the determination of the rock
Eq. (12) Eq. (13)
30.0
Eq. (14) Eq. (15) mass deformation modulus. As a first estimate, the typical
Eq. (16) Eq. (17) values of the deformation modulus for different rocks
Estimated Em (GPa)

Eq. (18) Eq. (21)

25.0 Eq. (22) Eq. (25) shown in Table 2 can be used. The intact rock deformation
Eq. (26)
modulus can also be determined using one or more of the
20.0 empirical correlations presented below.

15.0
Deformation modulus versus unconfined compressive
strength
10.0

The deformation modulus of an intact rock Er can be

5.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Rock mass No.
Fig. 3. Estimated rock mass deformation modulus values from different
empirical methods for the 13 rock masses in Table 1.
sured rock mass deformation modulus data, even limited,
are available and used to calibrate several empirical corre-
lations and the calibrated correlations are then used to esti-
mate the deformation modulus.
It is noted that the empirical methods do not consider
the anisotropy of rock masses caused by discontinuities.
If the parameters corresponding to a specific direction are
used, the estimated deformation modulus may not be rep-
resentative of the deformation modulus in other directions.
The empirical methods also do not consider the effect of
scale and confining stress on the deformation modulus of
rock masses. These will be discussed in more detail in the
following sections.
determined when its unconfined compressive strength rc
is known by using the following simple relation (Hoek &
13 14 Diederichs 2006):
Er ¼ MR  rc ð27Þ
where Er and rc are both in MPa, and MR is called the
modulus ration MR and can be obtained from Table 3
which was proposed by Hoek and Diederichs (2006) based
on the correlations from Deere and Miller (1966) and
Palmström and Singh (2001).
There are also other types of relations between Er and
rc, such as those listed in Table 4, which can be used. Note
that some of the relations include not only rc but also the
density q.
Deformation modulus versus porosity
Leite and Ferland (2001) derived a linear empirical cor-
relation between deformation modulus Er and porosity n
based on the test results of artificial porous rocks:
Er ¼ 10:10  0:109 n ðr2 ¼ 0:74Þ ð28Þ

Table 2
Typical values of deformation modulus of intact rocks (after AASHTO, 1989).
Rock type No. of values No. of rock types Deformation modulus Er (GPa) Standard Deviation
Maximum Minimum Mean
Granite 26 26 100 6.41 52.7 24.5
Diorite 3 3 112 17.1 51.4 42.7
Gabbro 3 3 84.1 67.6 75.8 6.69
Diabase 7 7 104 69.0 88.3 12.3
Basalt 12 12 84.1 29.0 56.1 17.9
Quartzite 7 7 88.3 36.5 66.1 16.0
Marble 14 13 73.8 4.00 42.6 17.2
Gneiss 13 13 82.1 28.5 61.1 15.9
Slate 11 2 26.1 2.41 9.58 6.62
Schist 13 12 69.0 5.93 34.3 21.9
Phyllite 3 3 17.3 8.62 11.8 3.93
Sandstone 27 19 39.2 0.62 14.7 8.21
Siltstone 5 5 32.8 2.62 16.5 11.4
Shale 30 14 38.6 0.007 9.79 10.0
Limestone 30 30 89.6 4.48 39.3 25.7
Dolostone 17 16 78.6 5.72 29.1 23.7
 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15 7

Table 3
Values of modulus ratio (MR) for different rocks (after Hoek & Diederichs, 2006).
Rock type Class Group Texture
Coarse Medium Fine Very fine
Sedimentary Clastic Conglomerates Sandstones Siltstones Claystones
300–400 230–350 350–400 200–300
Breccias Greywackes Shales
230–350 350 150–250a
Marls
150–200
Non-clastic Carbonates Crystalline limestones Sparitic limestones Micritic limestones Dolomites
400–600 600–800 800–1000 350–500
Evaporites Gypsum Anhydrite
(350)b (350)b
Organic Chalk
1000 +
Metamorphic Non-foliated Marble Hornfels Quartzites
700–1000 400–700 300–450
Metasandstone
200–300
Slightly foliated Migmatite Amphibolites Gneiss
350–400 400–500 300–750a
Foliateda Schists Phyllites/Mica Schist Slates
250–1100a 300–800a 400–600a
Igneous Plutonic Light Granitec Dioritec
300–550 300–350
Granodiorotec
400–450
Dark Gabbro Dolerite
400–500 300–400
Norite
350–400
Hypabyssal Porphyries Diabase Peridotite
(400)b 300–350 250–300
Volcanic Lava Rhyolite Dacite
300–500 350–450
Andesite Basalt
300–500 250–450
Pyroclastic Agglomerate Volcanic breccias Tuff
400–600 (500)b 200–400
a
Highly anisotropic rocks: the values of MR will be significantly different if normal strain and/or loading occurs parallel (high MR) or perpendicular
(low MR) to a weakness plane. Uniaxial test loading direction should be equivalent to field application.
b
No data available, estimated on the basis of geologic logic.
c
Felsic Granitoids: coarse grained or altered (high MR), fine grained (low MR).

where Er is in GPa; n is in %; and r2 is the determination
coefficient.
Lashkaripour (2002) derived a negative exponential
relationship between deformation modulus Er and porosity
n based on the test results of claystone, clay shale, mud-
stone, mud shale, siltstone and silt shale:
Er ¼ 37:9e0:863n ðr2 ¼ 0:68Þ
where Er, n, and r2 are as defined earlier.
Using the experimental data of gypsum, Yilmaz and
Yuksek (2009) derived the following logarithmic relation
between deformation modulus Er and porosity n:
where Er is in GPa; n is in %; and r2 is the determination
coefficient.
Deformation modulus versus density
Based on an extensive study of different types of rocks
(basalt, diabase, dolomite, gneiss, granite, limestone, mar-
ð29Þ ble, quartzite, rock salt, sandstone, schist, siltstone, and
tuff), Deere and Miller (1966) derived the following simple
linear relation between deformation modulus Er and dry
density qd:
Er ¼ 64:64qd  115:4 ðr2 ¼ 0:61Þ ð31Þ
where Er is in GPa; qd is in g/cm ; and r is the determina-
3 2

Er ¼ 39:1 lnðnÞ þ 100:3 ðr2 ¼ 0:83Þ ð30Þ tion coefficient.

8 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15

Table 4
Other types of relations between deformation modulus Er and unconfined compressive strength rc.
Relation r2 Rock type Reference
Er ¼ 0:103r1:086
c 0.81 Mudrock Lashkaripour (2002)
Er ¼ 0:531rc þ 9:567 0.71 Shale and dolomite Shalabi et al. (2007)
Er ¼ 0:243rc  0:555 Commonly used in oil industry Rabbani, Sharif, KoolivandSalooki, and Moradzadeh (2012)
Er ¼ 0:199rc  3:970 0.81 Dolomite at Taormina Pappalardo (2015)
Er ¼ 0:166rc  1:301 0.92 Dolomite at Castelmola
Er ¼ 88:4 þ 52:1q þ 0:042rc 0.81 Nekorot limestone Palchik (2011)
Er ¼ 147:9 þ 75:2q þ 0:046rc 0.84 Aminadav dolomite
Er ¼ 40:6 þ 24:3q þ 0:162rc 0.65 Bina limestone
Notes: Er is in GPa; rc is in MPa; and r2 is the determination coefficient.

Deformation modulus versus dynamic deformation modulus Deformation modulus versus wave velocity

The propagation velocity of elastic waves measured on The wave velocity can also be used directly to estimate
intact rock is often used to determine the dynamic deforma- the deformation modulus of intact rock Er. Based on best
tion properties: fitting analysis of test data for dolomite, marble and lime-
2 stone, Yasar and Erdoğan (2004) derived the following
ðvp =vs Þ  2
mdyn ¼ h i ð32Þ simple linear correlation between Er and P-wave velocity
2
2 ðvp =vs Þ  1 v p:

qv2p ð1  2mdyn Þð1 þ mdyn Þ Er ¼ 10:67vp  18:71 ðr2 ¼ 0:86Þ ð37Þ

Edyn ¼ ð33Þ
1  mdyn 2
where Er is in GPa; vp is in km/s; and r is the determina-
Gdyn ¼ qv2s ð34Þ tion coefficient.
Pappalardo (2015) also derived simple linear relations
Edyn ¼ 2Gdyn ð1 þ mdyn Þ ð35Þ between Er and vp for dolostones at two different sites:
where mdyn is the dynamic Poisson’s ratio; vp is the velocity Er ¼ 6:623vp  22:64 ðr2 ¼ 0:78Þ ðTaormina siteÞ ð38Þ
of the P-wave; vs is the velocity of the S-wave; Gdyn is the
dynamic shear modulus; q is the density; and Edyn is the Er ¼ 5:076vp  15:72 ðr ¼ 0:80Þ ðCastelmola siteÞ
2
ð39Þ
dynamic deformation modulus. where rc, n and r are as defined earlier.
2

The dynamic deformation modulus Edyn calculated from
Eqs. (32) to (35) is usually larger than the (static) deforma-
tion modulus Er mainly because of the lower strain magni-
tude in the dynamic testing than in the static testing
(Zimmer, 2003). To be simple, ‘‘deformation modulus”
means ‘‘static deformation modulus” in this paper. The
Edyn/Er ratio usually varies between about 1 and 3
(Stacey, van Veerden, & Vogler, 1987) and can be used
for a quick estimation of Er when Edyn is known.
Er can also be estimated from Edyn by using the closed-
form empirical correlations in Table 5. It is noted that dif-
ferent correlations may give very different Er values. To
obtain reliable results for a specific project, a series of tests
should be carried out to calibrate the correlations to be
used for the site.
The research by Asef and Najibi (2013) indicates that
the ratio Edyn/Er decreases when the confining stress is
higher and the trend can be expressed by:
Edyn
¼ aP b ð36Þ
Er
where P is the confining stress; and a and b are two
coefficients. For the Sarvak limestone tested by Asef and
Najibi (2013), a and b are equal to 4.295 and 0.337,
respectively.
Yilmaz and Yuksek (2009) derived the following expo-
nential relation between Er and vp based on the experimen-
tal data of gypsum:
Er ¼ 6:8545e0:5561vp ðr2 ¼ 0:83Þ ð40Þ
2
where Er, vp and r are as defined earlier.
Deformation modulus versus point load index
Using the experimental data of gypsum, Yilmaz and
Yuksek (2009) derived the following linear relation
between deformation modulus Er and point load index
Is(50):
Er ¼ 14:12I sð50Þ  2:745 ðr2 ¼ 0:56Þ ð41Þ
2
where Er is in GPa; Is(50) is in MPa; and r is the determi-
nation coefficient.
Deformation modulus versus Schmidt hammer rebound
number
Many empirical correlations between deformation mod-
ulus Er and Schmidt hammer rebound number Rn have
been proposed by researchers. Table 6 lists some of them.
It is important to note whether the rebound number is mea-
 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15 9

Table 5
Relations between deformation modulus Er and dynamic deformation modulus Edyn.
Relation Rock type Reference
Er ¼ 1:137Edyn  9:685 Granite Belikov, Alexandrov, and Rysova (1970)
Er ¼ 1:263Edyn  29:5 Igneous and metamorphic rocks King (1983)
Er ¼ 0:64Edyn  0:32 Different rocks Eissa and Kazi (1988)
Er ¼ 0:69Edyn þ 6:40 Granite McCann and Entwisle (1992)
Er ¼ 0:48Edyn  3:26 (r2 = 0.82) Crystalline rocks
Er ¼ 0:0158E2:74
dyn Shale Ohen (2003)
Er ¼ 0:4145Edyn  1:059 Rabbani et al. (2012)
Notes: Both Er and Edyn are in GPa; and r2 is the determination coefficient.

sured using an L- or N-type hammer so that the corre- Er ¼ 0:268qd H þ 12:62 ðr2 ¼ 0:64Þ ð44Þ
sponding correlation(s) are used.
where Er is in GPa; H is unitless; qd is the dry density in g/
cm3; and r2 is the determination coefficient.
Deformation modulus versus needle penetration index
Based on the experimental data of shale, Shalabi,
Cording, and Al-Hattamleh (2007) also derived a similar
The test results of different types of rocks show that the
linear relation between Er and H:
relation between intact rock deformation modulus Er and
the needle penetration index (NPI) can be simply described Er ¼ 0:971H  26:91 ðr2 ¼ 0:85Þ ð45Þ
by a linear function: 2
where Er, H and r are as defined earlier.
Er ¼ A  NPI ð42Þ
where A is a coefficient; and Er and NPI are in GPa and N/ Effect of water content on deformation modulus
mm, respectively. The value of A ranges from 0.015 to 0.12,
with an average of 0.05. At A = 0.05, the determination Water content has a great effect on the deformability of
coefficient r2 is 0.62 (Aydan, Sato, & Yagi, 2014). intact rock. The deformation modulus of intact rock Er
decreases as the water content increases. For example,
Deformation modulus versus Shore Sclerscope hardness the experimental data of the massive gypsum of the Hafik
formation in the Sivas basin show that Er decreases with
Deere and Miller (1966) performed an extensive study water content w approximately following the relation
on different types of rocks (basalt, diabase, dolomite, below (Yilmaz & Yuksek, 2009):
gneiss, granite, limestone, marble, quartzite, rock salt, Er ¼ 13:94 lnðwÞ þ 43:71 ðr2 ¼ 0:84Þ ð46Þ
sandstone, schist, siltstone, and tuff) and derived the fol-
lowing empirical relations between deformation modulus where Er is in GPa; w is in %; and r2 is the determination
Er and Shore Sclerscope hardness H: coefficient.
Using about the same data, Yilmaz (2010) derived the
Er ¼ 0:739H þ 11:51 ðr2 ¼ 0:56Þ ð43Þ following relation between Er and w:

Table 6
Correlations between deformation modulus Er and Schmidt hammer rebound number Rn.
Correlation r2 Rock type Reference
Er ¼ 1:786qd RnðLÞ  29:58 0.53 28 lithological units, 3 base rock types Deere and Miller (1966)
Er ¼ 0:601qd RnðLÞ  20:27 0.72
Er ¼ 0:0069  10½1:061 logðqRnðLÞ Þþ1:861 25 lithological units Aufmuth (1973)
Er ¼ 0:192q2 RnðLÞ  12:71 20 lithological units Beverly, Schoenwolf, and Brierly
(1979)
Er ¼ 1:940RnðLÞ  33:92 0.78 Marble, limestone, dolomite Sachpazis (1990)
Er ¼ ecRnðLÞ þd c and d are coefficients depending on 0.77–0.92 Mica-sachist, prasinite, serpentinite, gabbro, Xu, Grasso, and Mahtab (1990)
rock type mudstone
Er ¼ 0:00013RnðN 3:09074
Þ 0.99 Chalk, limestone, sandstone, marble, syenite, Katz, Reches, and Roegiers (2000)
granite
Er ¼ e0:054RnðLÞ þ1:146 0.90 Gypsum Yilmaz and Sendir (2002)
Er ¼ 0:47RnðLÞ  6:25 0.85 Andesita, tuff, Basalt Dincer, Acar, Cobanoglu, and Uras
(2004)
Er ¼ 6:999e0:0345RnðLÞ 0.79 Gypsum Yilmaz and Yuksek (2009)
Notes: Er is in GPa; q is the rock density in g/cm ; Rn(L) and Rn(N) are, respectively, the L- and N-type Schmidt hammer rebound numbers; and r2 is the
3

determination coefficient.
10 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15
Er ¼ 13:23e0:4701w þ 9:3 ðr2 ¼ 0:92Þ ð47Þ
where Er, w and r2 are as defined earlier.
The effect of water on Er can also be clearly seen from
the ratio of the deformation modulus at saturated condi-
tion, Er,saturated, to that at dry condition, Er,dry, for different
rocks (Table 7). In general, Er,saturated is 20–80% of Er,dry.
Effect of temperature on deformation modulus
Temperature also affects the deformability of intact
rock. Fig. 4 shows the normalized deformation modulus
(Er/Er0) values at various temperatures for several granites
and one mudstone, where Er0 is the deformation modulus
at the lowest test temperature which is 30 °C for the British
granite, Salisbury granite, Remiremont granite, Senones
granite and Indian granite, 20 °C for the Ningbo granite,
and 25 °C for the mudstone. For the granites, when the
temperature is below 200 °C, the deformation modulus
may slightly increase, stay about the same or decrease with
higher temperature. After the temperature goes above 200 °
C, the deformation modulus decreases with higher temper-
ature for all of the granites. For the mudstone, however,
the deformation modulus increases substantially (more
than 50%) when the temperature is raised up to 400 °C.
After the temperature is above 400 °C, the deformation
modulus decreases when the temperature is higher. So the
Er/Er0 versus temperature trend is related to the specific
type of rock.
Scale effect on rock deformability
The scale effect on the deformability of rock masses can
be simply seen from the difference between the rock mass
deformation modulus measured in the field and the intact
rock modulus measured in the laboratory. Heuze (1980)
concluded that the rock mass deformation modulus mea-
sured in the field ranges between 20 and 60% of the intact
rock modulus measured in the laboratory. Fig. 5 shows the
variation of measured dynamic deformation modulus
(Edyn) with the test volume of rock. The intact rock defor-
mation modulus Er and rock mass deformation modulus
Em are also shown in this figure. One simple and apparent
Table 7
Ratio of deformation modulus at saturated condition Er,saturated to that at
dry condition Er,dry for different rocks.
Er,saturated/Er,dry Rock Reference
0.76 British sandstone Vasarhelyi (2003)
0.66 Miocene limestone Vasarhelyi (2005)
0.68 Jastrzez bie sandstone Kwasniewski and Oitaben
(2009)
0.34 Anna mudstone
0.54 Gypsum Yilmaz (2010)
0.79 Andesite Karakul and Ulusay (2013)
0.19 Ignimbrite
0.32 Marl
Fig. 4. Variation of normalized deformation modulus (Er/Er0) with
temperature (Er0 is the deformation modulus of rock at the lowest test
temperature for each data set). (See above-mentioned references for
further information.)
explanation to the reduction of rock mass deformation
modulus with greater test volume is that the effect of dis-
continuities is included in the rock mass.
Effect of confining stress on rock deformability
Although the effect of confining stress on rock deforma-
bility is not considered in many rock mechanics problems,
research results have shown that rock deformation modu-
lus increases significantly with the confining stress (Arora,
1987; Asef & Najibi, 2013; Asef & Reddish, 2002;
Gustkiewicz, 1985; Verman, Singh, Viladkar, & Jethwa,
1997; Zimmerman, 1991). Arora (1987) undertook compre-
hensive experimental studies on the effect of confining
stress on the deformation modulus of jointed rock masses.
He conducted triaxial tests on three types of rocks: plaster
of Paris, Jamrani sandstone and Agra sandstone with rc of
11.3, 55 and 110 MPa, respectively. The test specimens con-
tain clean and rough-broken discontinuities created at var-
ious inclinations ranging from 0 to 90°. Using the axial
stress versus strain plot, the deformation modulus was cal-
culated at 50% of the maximum stress. Fig. 6. shows the
normalized deformation modulus against the normalized
unconfined strength of the jointed rock mass, leading to
the development of the following expression:
 
Emðr3 ¼0Þ rcm
¼ 1  exp 0:1 ð48Þ
Emðr3 Þ r3
where Em(r3=0) is the deformation modulus of the jointed
rock mass at unconfined stress state; Em(r3) is the deforma-
tion modulus of the jointed rock mass at triaxial stress state
with r2 = r3; and rcm is the unconfined compressive
strength of the jointed rock mass. The equation can also
be used for intact rock deformation modulus Er if rcm is
substituted by rc.
 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15 11

the unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock.

50
The equation can also be used for intact rock deformation
Dynamic modulus Edyn modulus Er if rcm is substituted by rc. Fig. 7 is the compar-
Deformation modulus (GPa)

40
ison of Eq. (50) with new test data of Asef and Reddish
Er (2002).
30

20
Anisotropy of rock deformability

10
Anisotropy is one of the key aspects of rock properties.
Em
Some intact rocks, such as sandstone, shale, limestone,
0 schist, slate and gneiss belonging to sedimentary and meta-
100 1,000 10,000 morphic groups, show strong deformability anisotropy.
Test volume (cm3) Fig. 8 shows the anisotropy of deformation modulus for
diatomite, siltshale and mudshale under conditions of
Fig. 5. Effect of test volume on the deformation modulus of rock (after
Lo, Yung, & Lukajic, 1987).
unconfined compression. The highest and lowest values
of the deformation modulus correspond to the directions
parallel and perpendicular to the stratification plane,
Verman et al. (1997) obtained an empirical expression respectively. The tests by Cho, Kim, Jeon, and Min
showing the variation of the deformation modulus of rock (2012) on Asan gneiss, Boryeong shale and Yeoncheon
masses with depth: schist also show the anisotropy of deformation modulus
RMR20 in a trend similar to that in Fig. 8. The degree of deforma-
Em ¼ 0:4H a 10 38 ð49Þ
bility anisotropy can be quantified by the deformability
where a is a variable depending on RMR (a = 0.3 and 0.16 anisotropy ratio RE defined as:
at RMR = 68 and 31, respectively); and H is the depth in Er;max
meters. RE ¼ ð51Þ
Er;min
Asef and Reddish (2002) showed that Eq. (48) signifi-
cantly overestimates the deformation modulus at a given where Er,max and Er,min are the maximum and minimum
confining stress when compared with Eq. (49). By re- deformation modulus values, respectively. Table 8 lists
analyzing Arora’s original data, Asef and Reddish (2002) the values of RE for different rocks.
derived the following empirical equation: Rock masses containing discontinuities also display
deformability anisotropy. When using an empirical correla-
Emðr3 Þ 200 r3 þ b
¼ r3 rcm ð50Þ tion to determine the rock mass deformation modulus, it is
Emðr3 ¼0Þ rcm
þb important to specify the corresponding orientation of the
parameter(s) to be used. For example, RQD is a
where b = 15 + exp(0.18rc); Em(r3=0) is the deformation
directionally dependent parameter and its value may change
modulus of the jointed rock mass at unconfined stress state;
significantly at different orientations. Therefore, when the
Em(r3) is the deformation modulus of the jointed rock mass
Em/Er – RQD relations are used, the orientation of the
at triaxial stress state with r2 = r3; rcm is the unconfined
RQD used to determine the Em should be specified. To
compressive strength of the jointed rock mass; and rc is
reduce the directional dependence of RQD and thus Em,

Fig. 7. Variation of Er(r3)/Er(r3=0) or Em(r3)/Em(r3=0) with r3/rc or r3/rcm

Fig. 6. Variation of Em(r3=0)/Em(r3) with rcm/r3 (after Arora, 1987). (after Asef & Reddish, 2002).
12 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15

the volumetric discontinuity frequency kv can be used to Table 8

estimate RQD (ISRM, 1978; Palmström, 1974): Deformability anisotropy ratio RE for different rocks.
Rock Anisotropy Reference
RQD ¼ 115  3:3kv ð52Þ ratio RE
Cedillo slate 7.1 Peres Rodrigues (1979)
where the volumetric discontinuity frequency kv is the sum Rothbach sandstone 5.31 Louis et al. (2005)
of the number of discontinuities per unit length for all dis- Yeoncheon schist 4.0 Cho et al. (2012)
continuity sets, which can be determined from the discon- Diatomite 3.81 Allirot and Boehler (1979)
tinuity set spacings within a volume of rock mass as Boryeong shale 2.7 Cho et al. (2012)
Mudstone (dry) 2.06 Angabini (2003)
(Palmström, 1982):
Siltshale 2.06 Ajalloeian and Lashkaripour
1 1 1 (2000)
kv ¼ þ þ þ  ð53Þ Mudshale 1.72
s1 s2 s3 Asan gneiss 1.7 Cho et al. (2012)
Carboniferous 1.52 King, Andrea, and Shams (1994)
where s1, s2, s3, . . . are the mean discontinuity set spacings. mudstone
Random discontinuities in the rock mass can be considered Marble 1.5 Lepper (1949)
by assuming a random spacing sr for each of them. Accord- Bentheim sandstone 1.45 Louis et al. (2005)
Hast Schist 1.44 Read, Perrin, and Brown (1987)
ing to Palmström (2002), sr = 5 m can be assumed. So the
Hornfel 1.31 Chang and Haimson (2005)
volumetric discontinuity frequency kv can be generally Metapelite 1.29
expressed as Adamswiller sandstone 1.26 Gatelier, Pellet, and Loret (2002)
Sandstone 1.23 Müller (1930)
1 1 1 Nr
kv ¼ þ þ þ  þ ð54Þ
s1 s2 s3 5

where Nr is the number of random discontinuities. The

other way to reduce the directional dependence of RQD
and thus Em is to determine the RQDs based on core bor-
ing, scanline sampling and/or wave velocity measurements
at different directions and then use the average RQD to
determine an overall Em for the rock mass.

Summary and conclusions

This paper reviewed and evaluated the various empir-

ical methods for determining rock mass deformation
modulus Em and outlined the key aspects related to the
evaluation of rock mass deformability. The conclusions
are as follows:

1. A large number of empirical methods are available for

2. The estimated Em values from the various empirical
3. Many of the empirical methods need to use the intact
Fig. 8. Anisotropy of deformation modulus of intact rocks: (a) Montagne
d’Andance diatomite based on two or three tests at each stratification
angle (after Allirot & Boehler, 1979); and (b) Siltshale and mudshale (after
Ajalloeian & Lashkaripour, 2000).
determining the Em of rock masses. It is hard or impos-
sible to decide which method is the most accurate. One
possible reason is that the empirical methods were devel-
oped based on databases of different sources.
methods can be very different. So the evaluation of Em
should not rely only on a single empirical method.
Instead, various empirical methods should be used to
get an idea on the possible range of the Em. For a speci-
fic project, it will be beneficial if measured Em data, even
limited, are available and used to calibrate several
empirical correlations and then the calibrated correla-
tions are used to determine the Em of the site.
rock deformation modulus Er in the determination of
Em. As a first estimate, the typical values of Er for differ-
ent rocks can be used. The Er can also be determined
using one or more of the empirical correlations.
 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15
4. Rock mass deformability is strongly scale and stress
dependent and usually shows strong anisotropy. How-
ever, the empirical methods do not consider either the
effect of scale and stress on Em or the anisotropy of
Em. It is important to specify the corresponding condi-
tions such as orientation of the parameter(s) used in
the determination of Em.
5. For effective evaluation of rock mass deformability
using the empirical methods, it is important to consider
all of the key aspects outlined in this paper.
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest.
References
AASHTO (1989). Standard specifications for highway bridges (14th
edition). Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
Ajalloeian, R., & Lashkaripour, G. R. (2000). Strength anisotropies in
mudrocks. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 59,
195–199.
Alber, M., & Heiland, J. (2001). Investigation of a limestone pillar failure,
Part 1: Geology, laboratory testing and numerical modeling. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 34, 167–186.
Allirot, D., & Boehler, J. -P. (1979). Evolution of mechanical properties of
a stratified rock under confining pressure. In Proc. 4th Int. Cong. Rock
Mech., Montreux, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 15-22 (in French).
Amadei, B. (1983). Rock anisotropy and the theory of stress measure-
ments, lecture notes in engineering. In C. A. Brebbia & S. A. Orszag
(Eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Amadei, B., & Savage, W. Z. (1993). Effect of joints on rock mass strength
and deformability. In J. A. Hudson (Ed.), Comprehensive rock
engineering – principle, practice and projects, Vol. 1, Pergamon, Oxford,
UK, pp. 331-365.
Angabini, A. (2003). Anisotropy of rock elasticity behavior and of gas
migration in a Variscan Carboniferous rock mass in the South
Limburg, the Netherlands. Engineering Geology, 67, 353–372.
Arora, V. K. (1987). Strength and deformational behavior of jointed rocks
PhD thesis. India: IIT Delhi.
Asef, M. R., & Najibi, A. R. (2013). The effect of confining pressure on
elastic wave velocities and dynamic to static Young’s modulus ratio.
Geophysics, 78(3), D135–D142.
Asef, M. R., & Reddish, D. J. (2002). The impact of confining stress on the
rock mass deformation modulus. Geotechnique, 52, 235–241.
ASTM (2004). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 4.08, Soil and Rock.
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
Philadelphia, PA.
Aufmuth, R. E. (1973). A systematic determination of engineering criteria
for rocks. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, 11,
235–245.
Aydan, Ö., Sato, A., & Yagi, M. (2014). The inference of geo-mechanical
properties of soft rocks and their degradation from needle penetration
tests. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 47, 1867–1890.
Barton, N. (2002). Some new Q value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39, 185–216.
Barton, N., Loset, F., Lien, R., & Lunde, J. (1980). Application of the Q-
system in design decisions. In M. Bergman (Ed.), Subsurface Space,
Vol. 2, pp. 553–561.
Beiki, M., Bashari, A., & Majdi, A. (2010). Genetic programming
approach for estimating the deformation modulus of rock mass using
sensitivity analysis by neural network. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 47, 1091–1103.
Belikov, B. P., Alexandrov, K. S., & Rysova, T. W. (1970). Uprugie
svoistva porodo-obrasujscich mineralov I gornich porod. Nauka,
Moskva: Izdat.
13
Beverly, B. E., Schoenwolf, D. A., & Brierly, G. S. (1979). Correlations of
rock index values with engineering properties and the classification of
intact rock. Washington, DC: FHWA.
Bieniawski, Z. T. (1978). Determining rock mass deformability: Experi-
ence from case histories. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 15, 237–248.
Chang, C., & Haimson, B. (2005). Non-dilatant deformation and failure
mechanism in two Long Valley Caldera rocks under true triaxial
compression. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 42, 402–414.
Chen, E. P. (1989). A constitutive model for jointed rock mass with
orthogonal sets of joints. Journal of Applied Mechanics ASME, 56,
25–32.
Chen, Y.-L., Ni, J., Shao, W., & Azzam, R. (2012). Experimental study on
the influence of temperature on the mechanical properties of granite
under uni-axial compression and fatigue loading. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 56, 62–66.
Cho, J.-W., Kim, H., Jeon, S., & Min, K.-B. (2012). Deformation and
strength anisotropy of Asan gneiss, Boryeong shale, and Yeoncheon
schist. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
50, 158–169.
Coon, R. F., & Merritt, A. H. (1970). Predicting in situ modulus of
deformation using rock quality indices. Determination of the in Situ
Modulus of Deformation of Rock, ASTM STP, 477, 154–173.
Deere, D. U., Hendron, A. J., Patton, F. D., & Cording, E. J. (1967).
Design of surface and near surface construction in rock. In C.
Fairhurst (Ed.), Failure and breakage of rock, proc. 8th U.S. symp. rock
mech (pp. 237–302).
Deere, D. U., & Miller, R. P. (1966). Engineering Classification and Index
Properties for Intact Rock. Tech. Rep. No. AFWL-TR-65-116, Air
Force Weapons Lab, Kirtland Air Base, New Mexico.
Dershowitz, W. S., Baecher, G. B., & Einstein, H. H. (1979). Prediction of
rock mass deformability. Proc. 4th Int. Cong. on Rock Mech. Montreal,
Canada, 1, 605–611.
Dincer, I., Acar, A., Cobanoglu, I., & Uras, Y. (2004). Correlation
between Schmidt hardness, uniaxial compressive strength and Young’s
modulus for andesites, basalts and tuffs. Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment, 63, 141–148.
Duncan, J. M., & Goodman, R. E. (1968). Finite element analysis of slopes
in jointed rocks. U.S. Army corps of Engineers Report TR, 1–68.
Dwivedi, R. D., Goel, R. K., Prasad, V. R. R., & Sinha, A. (2008).
Thermo-mechanical properties of Indian and other granites. Inter-
national Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 45,
303–315.
Ebisu, S., Aydan, O., Komura, S., & Kawamoto, T. (1992). Comparative
study on various rock mass characterization methods for surface
structures. In J. A. Hudson (Ed.), ISRM Symp.: Eurock ‘92, Rock
Characterization, Chester, UK, pp. 203–208.
Eissa, E. A., & Kazi, A. (1988). Relation between static and dynamic
Young’s moduli of rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 29, 479–482.
El-Naqa, A., & Kuisi, M. A. (2002). Engineering geological characteri-
sation of the rock masses at Tannur Dam site, South Jordan.
Environmental Geology, 42, 817–826.
Fossum, A. F. (1985). Effective elastic properties for a randomly jointed
rock mass. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 22, 467–470.
Gardner, W. S. (1987). Design of drilled piers in the Atlantic Piedmont. In
R. E. Smith (Ed.), Foundations and Excavations in Decomposed Rock of
the Piedmont Province, Vol. 9, GSP, RE, ASCE, pp. 62-86.
Gatelier, N., Pellet, F., & Loret, B. (2002). Mechanical damage of an
anisotropic porous rock in cyclic triaxial tests. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39, 249–257.
Gerrard, C. M. (1982a). Elastic models of rock masses having one, two
and three sets of joints. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 19, 15–23.
Gerrard, C. M. (1982b). Joint compliances as a basis for rock mass
properties and the design of supports. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 19,
285–305.
Gerrard, C. M. (1991). The equivalent elastic properties of stratified and
jointed rock masses. In G. Beer, J. R. Brooker, & J. P. Carter (Eds.),
Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Meth. and Advances in Geomech., Cairns
(pp. 333–337). Rotterdam: Balkema.
14 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15
Gokceoglu, C., Sonmez, H., & Kayabasi, A. (2003). Predicting the
deformation moduli of rock masses. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 40, 701–710.
Gustkiewicz, J. (1985). Deformation and failure of the Rowa Ruda
sandstone in a three-axial state of stress with gas under pressure in the
pores. Archiwum Gornictwa, 30, 401–424.
Heuze, F. E. (1980). Scale effects in the determination of rock mass
strength and deformability. Rock Mechanics, 12, 167–192.
Heuze, F. E. (1983). High-temperature mechanical, physical and thermal
properties of granitic rocks – A review. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr., 20, 3–10.
Hoek, E. (2004). Personal communication.
Hoek, E., & Brown, E. T. (1997). Practical estimates of rock mass
strength. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
34, 1165–1186.
Hoek, E., & Diederichs, M. S. (2006). Empirical estimation of rock mass
modulus. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 36, 203–215.
Homand-Etienne, H., & Houpert, R. (1989). Thermally induced micro-
cracking in granites: Characterization and analysis. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts, 26, 125–134.
Huang, T. H., Chang, C. S., & Yang, Z. Y. (1995). Elastic moduli for
fractured rock mass. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 28(3),
135–144.
ISRM (1978). ‘‘Suggested methods for the quantitative description of
discontinuities in rock masses”. ISRM, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 15(6),
319–368.
Justo, J. L., Justo, E., Durand, P., & Azanon, J. M. (2006). The
foundation of a 40-storey tower in jointed basalt. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 43, 267–281.
Karakul, H., & Ulusay, R. (2013). Empirical correlations for predicting
strength properties of rocks from P-wave velocity under different
degrees of saturation. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 46,
981–999.
Katz, O., Reches, Z., & Roegiers, J.-C. (2000). Evaluation of mechanical
rock properties using a Schmidt hammer. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37, 723–728.
Kayabasi, A., Gokceoglu, C., & Ercanoglu, M. (2003). Estimating the
deformation modulus of rock masses: A comparative study. Interna-
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 40, 55–63.
King, M. S. (1983). Static and dynamic elastic properties of rock from the
Canadian Shield. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 20, 247-241.
King, M. S., Andrea, M. O., & Shams, K. M. (1994). Velocity anisotropy
of Carboniferous mudstones. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 31, 261–263.
Kulatilake, P. H. S. W., Wang, S., & Stephansson, O. (1993). Effect of
finite size joints on the deformability of jointed rock in three
dimensions. International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences
& geomechanics abstracts.
Kulhawy, F. H. (1978). Geomechanical model for rock foundation
settlement. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 104(2), 211–227.
Kwasniewski, M., & Oitaben, P. R. (2009). Effect of water on the
deformability of rocks under uniaxial compression. In ISRM regional
symposium EUROCK2009: Rock engineering in difficult ground condi-
tions-soft rock and karst, Dubrovnik, Cavtat, Croatia, pp. 271–276.
Lashkaripour, G. R. (2002). Predicting mechanical properties of mudrock
from index parameters. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, 61, 73–77.
Leite, M. H., & Ferland, F. (2001). Determination of unconfined
compressive strength and Young’s modulus of porous materials by
indentation tests. Engineering Geology, 59, 267–280.
Lepper, H. A. Jr., (1949). Compression tests on oriented specimens of
Yule marble. American Journal of Science, 247, 570–575.
Lo, K. Y., Yung, T. C. B., & Lukajic, B. (1987). A field meted for the
determination of rock-mass modulus. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
24, 406–413 (Ottawa, Canada).
Louis, L., David, C., Metz, V., Robion, P., Menéndez, B., & Kissel, C.
(2005). Microstructural control on the anisotropy of elastic and
transport properties in undeformed sandstones. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 42, 911–923.
McCann, D. M., & Entwisle, D. C. (1992). Determination of Young’s
modulus of the rock mass from geophysical well logs. In Hurst, A.,
Griffiths, C. M., & Worthington, P. F. (Eds.), Geological Applications
of Wireline Logs II, Geological Society Special Pub. No. 65, pp. 317-
325.
McLaren, J. R., & Titchel, I. (1981). Physical properties of granite relevant
to near field conditions in a nuclear waste depository. AERE, Harwell,
Report AERE-R-10046.
Mitri, H. S., Edrissi, R., & Henning, J. (1994). Finite element modeling of
cable-bolted stopes in hardrock underground mines. In SME Annual
Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 94-116.
Müller, O. (1930). Untersuchungen an Karbongesteinen zur Klärung von
Gebirgsdruckfragen. Glückauf, 66, 1601–1612.
Nicholson, G. A., & Bieniawski, Z. T. (1990). A nonlinear deformation
modulus based on rock mass classification. International Journal of
Mining, 8, 181–202.
Oda, M. (1988). An experimental study of the elasticity of mylonite rock
with random cracks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 25, 59–69.
Oda, M. (1993). Modern developments in rock structure characterization.
Comprehensive Rock Engineering - Principle, Practice and Projects In J.
A. Hudson (Ed.), Pergamon Press, London, UK, Vol. 1, pp. 185–200.
Ohen, H. A. (2003). Calibrated wireline mechanical rock properties
method for predicting and preventing wellbore collapse and sanding.
SPE 82236.
Ozsan, A., & Akin, M. (2002). Engineering geological assessment of the
proposed Urus Dam, Turkey. Engineering Geology, 66, 271–281.
Ozsan, A., Ocal, A., Akin, M., & Bassarir, H. (2007). Engineering
geological appraisal of the Sulakyurt dam site, Turkey. Bulletin of
Engineering Geology and the Environment, 66, 483–492.
Palchik, V. (2011). On the ratios between elastic modulus and uniaxial
compressive strength of heterogeneous carbonate rocks. Rock Mechan-
ics and Rock Engineering, 44, 121–128.
Palmström, A. (1974). Characterization of jointing density and the
quality of rock masses. Internal report. A.B. Berdal, Norway (in
Norwegian).
Palmström, A. (1982). ‘‘The volumetric joint count–a useful and simple
measure of the degree of rock mass jointing.” In Proc. 4th Cong. of Int.
Association of Eng. Geol., Vol. 2, New Delphi, p. 221-228.
Palmström, A. (2002). ‘‘Measurement and characterization of rock mass
jointing”. In Sharma, V. M., Saxena, K. R. (Eds.), In-situ character-
ization of rocks. A.A. Balkema, Lisse, p. 49–98.
Palmström, A., & Singh, R. (2001). The deformation modulus of rock
masses- comparisons between in situ tests and indirect estimates.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 16, 115–131.
Pappalardo, G. (2015). Correlation between P-wave velocity and physical–
mechanical properties of intensely jointed dolostones, Peloritani
Mounts, NE Sicily. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 48,
1711–1721.
Peres Rodrigues, F. (1979). The anisotropy of the moduli of elasticity and
of the ultimate stresses in rocks. In Proc. 4th Int. Cong. Rock Mech.,
Vol. 2, Montreux, Balkema, Rotterdam, 517–523.
Rabbani, E., Sharif, F., KoolivandSalooki, M., & Moradzadeh, A. (2012).
Application of neural network technique for prediction of uniaxial
compressive strength using reservoir formation properties. Interna-
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 56, 100–111.
Ramamurthy, T. (2004). A geo-engineering classification for rocks and
rock masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 41, 89–101.
Read, S. A. L., Perrin, N. D., & Brown, I. R. (1987). Measurement and
analysis of laboratory strength and deformability characteristics of
schistose rocks. In Proc. 6th Int. Cong. on Rock Mech., Vol. 1,
Montreal, Canada, pp. 233–238.
Read, S. A. L., Richards, L. R., & Perrin, N. D. (1999). Applicability of
the Hoek-Brown failure criterion to New Zealand greywacke rocks. In
G. Vouille, P. Berest (Eds.), Proc. of 9th Int. Cong. on rock Mech., Vol.
2, Paris, pp. 655–660.
Rowe, R. K., & Armitage, H. H. (1984). The Design of Piles Socketed into
Weak Rock. Faculty of Engineering Science, the University of Western
Ontario, London, Ont., Research Report GEOT-11-84.
Sachpazis, C. I. (1990). Correlating Schmidt hardness with compressive
strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate rocks. Bulletin of
International Association of Engineering Geologists, 42, 75–84.
Salamon, M. D. G. (1968). Elastic moduli of stratified rock mass.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, 5, 519–527.
 L. Zhang / Underground Space 2 (2017) 1–15
Serafim, J. L., & Pereira, J. P. (1983). Considerations of the geomechanics
classification of Bieniawski. In Proc. Int. Symp. Eng. Geol. Under-
ground Constr., Vol. 1, Lisbon, pp. II33-II42.
Shalabi, F. I., Cording, E. J., & Al-Hattamleh, O. H. (2007). Estimation of
rock engineering properties using hardness tests. Engineering Geology,
90, 138–147.
Singh, B. (1973a). Continuum characterization of jointed rock masses.
Part I – The constitutive equations. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 10,
311–335.
Singh, B. (1973b). Continuum characterization of jointed rock masses.
Part II – Significance of low shear modulus. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 10,
337–349.
Sonmez, H., Gokceoglu, C., & Ulusay, R. (2004). Indirect determination
of the modulus of deformation of rock masses based on the GSI
system. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
41, 849–857.
Sonmez, H., Gokceoglu, C., Nefeslioglu, H. A., & Kayabasi, A. (2006).
Estimation of rock modulus: For intact rocks with an artificial neural
network and for rock masses with a new empirical equation.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 43,
224–235.
Stacey, T. R., van Veerden, W. L., & Vogler, U. W. (1987). Properties of
intact rock. In F. G. Bell (Ed.), Ground Engineer’s Reference Book,
Butterworths, London, UK.
Ulusay, R., & Hudson, J. A. (2007). The complete ISRM suggested
methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006.
Commission on Testing Methods: International Society for Rock
Mechanics.
Vasarhelyi, B. (2003). Some observations regarding the strength and
deformability of sandstones in case of dry and saturated conditions.
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 62, 245–249.
Vasarhelyi, B. (2005). Statistical analysis of the influence of water content
on the strength of the Miocene limestone. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, 38, 69–76.
Verman, M., Singh, B., Viladkar, M. N., & Jethwa, J. L. (1997). Effect of
tunnel depth on modulus of deformation of rock mass. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 30, 121–127.
15
Xu, S., Grasso, P., & Mahtab, A. (1990). Use of Schmidt hammer for
estimating mechanical properties of weak rock. In 6th Int. IAEG Cong.,
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 511–519.
Yasar, E., & Erdoğan, Y. (2004). Correlating sound velocity with the
density, compressive strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate
rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
41, 871–875.
Yilmaz, I. (2010). Influence of water content on the strength and
deformability of gypsum. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 47, 342–347.
Yilmaz, I., & Sendir, H. (2002). Correlation of Schmidt hardness with
unconfined compressive strength and Young’s modulus in gypsum
from Sivas (Turkey). Engineering Geology, 66, 211–219.
Yilmaz, I., & Yuksek, G. (2009). Prediction of the strength and elasticity
modulus of gypsum using multiple regression, ANN, and ANFIS
models. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
46, 803–810.
Yoshinaka, R., & Yambe, T. (1986). Joint stiffness and the deformation
behavior of discontinuous rock. International Journal of Rock Mechan-
ics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 23, 19–28.
Zhang, L. (2004). Drilled shafts in rock – analysis and design. A. A.
Balkema Publishers, p. 384.
Zhang, L. (2010). Method for estimating the deformability of heavily
jointed rock masses. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 136(9), 1242–1250.
Zhang, L. (2016). Engineering Properties of Rocks (2nd ed.). Elsevier:
Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 378.
Zhang, L., & Einstein, H. H. (2004). Estimating the deformation modulus
of rock masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 41, 337–341.
Zhang, L., Mao, X., Liu, R., Guo, X., & Ma, D. (2014). The mechanical
properties of mudstone at high temperatures: An experimental study.
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 47, 1479–1484.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., Kelly, D. W., & Bettess, P. (1977). The coupling of the
finite element method and boundary solution procedures. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 11, 355–375.
Zimmer, M. (2003). Seismic velocities in unconsolidated sands: Measure-
ments of pressure, sorting and compaction effects. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford
University.
Zimmerman, R. R. (1991). Deformability of sandstones. Developments in
Petroleum Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.