Bull Eng Geol Environ
DOI 10.1007/s10064-016-0974-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Comparative study of the deformation modulus of rock mass
Suman Panthee1,2 • P. K. Singh2 • Ashutosh Kainthola3 • Ratan Das2
T. N. Singh2
Received: 19 June 2016 / Accepted: 7 November 2016
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Abstract The deformation modulus of a rock mass (Em) is
an important parameter in rock mechanics and engineering
and its determination is a difficult task. Therefore, several
equations were proposed using regression analysis of Em
and rock mass class. Among them, widely used equations
based on Q and RMR were selected for the calculation of
Em values for different rock types which are encountered
along the tunnel alignment of the Kulekhani III Hydro-
electric Project, Nepal. From the results, it is found that
some of the equations show Em value to be highly sensitive
to the rock mass class while others show less sensitivity.
Different values of Em were obtained from different
equations for the same class and eight different rock types.
Even a small change in RMR causes large variation in Em
value. Maximum differences in obtained values are about
5–30 GPa for same rock class. In such condition, it
becomes very difficult to choose deformability value to
design engineering projects in rock mass. The graphs
obtained from different equations show linear to fluctuating
pattern depending upon the sensitivity of equation towards
rock class.
Keywords Deformation modulus (Em)  RMR and Q 
Tunnel
& P. K. Singh
psingh.geo@gmail.com
1
Central Department of Geology, Tribhuvan University,
Kirtipur, Nepal
2
Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India
3
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Srinagar, Uttarakhand, India
•
Introduction
Among the rock mass parameters, the deformation modu-
lus of a rock mass (Em) is one of the significant parameters
in rock engineering. The deformation modulus has a vital
importance for the design and successful execution of rock
engineering projects. Kayabasi et al. (2003) have shown
that the deformation modulus is the most representative
parameter of the pre-failure mechanical behavior of the
rock material and of a rock mass. Its application is wide in
the field of rock mechanics. It is also required to build
numerical models for many rock engineering projects, such
as open pit mining and tunnel excavations. In addition to
this, it also helps to understand the rock mass response in
stressed and newly stressed conditions.
Determination of the deformation modulus of a rock
mass is a difficult task. Laboratory tests, in situ loading
tests and prediction by empirical equations are the com-
monly used approaches for the estimation of a rock mass
deformation modulus (Shen et al. 2012). Rock mass sam-
pling and determination of the deformation modulus of a
rock mass at a laboratory scale are also very difficult tasks.
Palmström (1996) discussed that laboratory tests on lim-
ited-size rock samples containing discontinuities cannot
provide reliable values of Em because of the size limitation
of the testing equipment. In-situ testing does provide reli-
able values, however. Bieniawski (1973) noted that a single
and a few in situ tests cannot provide reliable Em values of
a rock mass.
There are several procedures for direct measurement of
the rock mass modulus but they are costly and time-con-
suming. Therefore, indirect estimation of the deformation
modulus is common in practice which is simple and cost-
effective. Several researchers have proposed equations
based on the deformation modulus of intact rock and field
123
 S. Panthee et al.

determination of rock mass deformation modulus. Besides
using an intact rock modulus, some researchers have pro-
posed several equations based on rock mass classification
schemes while some have also used both rock mass clas-
sification and an intact rock modulus.
Most of the equations were proposed on the basis of the
rock mass rating (RMR; Bieniawski 1973), the tunnelling
quality index (Q; Barton et al. 1974) and the geological
strength index (GSI; Hoek and Brown 1997) and few are on
the basis of the rock quality designation (RQD; Zhang and
Einstein 2004). In this research, the deformation modulus
Fig. 1 Different empirical equations for predicting the rock mass
deformation modulus compared with data from in situ measurements
[after Hoek and Diederichs (2006)]
values of the rock mass along the tunnel of the Kulekhani
III Hydroelectric Project are evaluated based on existing
empirical equations using the RMR and the Q classification
systems.
Deformation modulus of rock mass
Barton (1983) and Grimstad and Barton (1993) have pro-
posed equations based on Q. They derived the equation on
the basis of geophysical bore hole field data. Serafim and
Pereira (1983), Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990) and Hoek
et al. (2002) have proposed equations based on the RMR
and the deformation modulus of a rock mass. Sonmez et al.
(2004) have developed an equation based on the GSI.
Similarly, Grander (1987), Kayabasi et al. (2003) and
Zhang and Einstein (2004) have proposed equations on the
basis of the RQD.
Equations proposed by Serafim and Pereira (1983)
Bieniawski (1978), Mitri et al. (1994), Sonmez et al. (2004)
and Carvalho (2004) and Stephens and Banks (1989) are
based on field test data. These correlation equations are
either power law equations or exponential equations. Hoek
and Diederichs (2006) pointed out that most of these pro-
posed equations expressed in exponential form give poor
estimates of the deformation modulus for massive rock
because of the poorly defined asymptotes. Barton (2002)
and Read et al. (1999) proposed equations based on field
data that are in third power law form.
Hoek and Diederichs (2006) have plotted the most
widely known equations by several researchers, as shown
in Fig. 1, and their corresponding equation is presented in
Table 1. All the equations show that the deformability of

Table 1 Data and equations of

Plots and Equation Researcher(s)
different researchers plotted in
curve no.
Fig. 1
 Field data Serafim and Pereira (1983)
e Field data Bieniawski (1978)
h Field data Stephens and Banks (1989)
1 Em = 2RMR-100 Bieniawski (1978)
2 Em = 10(RMR-10)/40 Serafim and Pereira (1983)
3 Em = Ei/100(0.0028RMR2 ? 0.9exp(RMR/22.82)) Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990)
Ei = 50Gpa
4 Em = Ei(0.5(1-cos(pRMR/100))) Ei = 50GPa Mitri et al. (1994)
5 Em = 0.1(RMR/10)3 Read et al. (1999)
6 1=3 Barton (2002)
Em = 10 Qc where Qc = Qrci/100
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
7 Em ¼ ð1  d2Þ rci =100  10ðRMR10Þ=40 Hoek et al. (2002)
a 0.4
8 Em = Ei(S ) Ei = 50GPa, s = exp((GSI-100)/9) Sonmez et al. (2004)
9 Em = Eis1/4 Ei = 50GPa, s = exp((GSI-100)/9) Carvalho (2004)
pffiffiffiffiffi
10 Em = 7(± 3) Q0 Q0 = 10((RMR-44)/21) Diederichs and Kaiser (1999)

123
Comparative study of the deformation modulus of a rock mass

Fig. 2 Geological map and

L-section of the tunnel
alignment of the study area
(modified after Panthee et al.
2016)

rock mass increases as the rock class value increases in
almost a power law or exponential manner. The manner of
the equations are similar but the inclinations with rock
mass class are different. Almost all the graphs erect stea-
dily or abruptly after 50–60 in GSI, 50–60 in RMR and
60–70 in RQD.
Geology along the tunnel alignment
The tunnel alignment passes through eight rock units of
five formations (Fig. 2). The stratigraphic units are
Bhainsedovan Marble, the Raduwa Formation, the Robang
Formation, Malekhu Limestone and Benighat Slates

123
 S. Panthee et al.

Table 2 Geo-mechanical classification on the basis of Q

Lithology Chainage Q max Q min Average (AM) SD Coefficient of
variation (CV; %)
From To

Marble 0 ? 000 0 ? 795.00 18.75 0.03 2.76 2.67 96.62

Garnetiferr-ous schist 0 ? 795 1 ? 029.73 2.50 0.05 1.05 0.69 65.49
Quartzitic schist 1 ? 029.73 1 ? 339.00 3.00 0.37 1.35 0.78 57.68
Schistose quartzite 1 ? 339.00 1 ? 420.00 2.71 0.27 1.26 0.74 58.85
Quartzite 1 ? 420.00 2 ? 476.00 6.25 0.10 1.48 1.06 71.69
Phyllite 2 ? 476.00 3 ? 826.00 6.25 0.07 1.97 1.11 56.07
Silicious dolomite 3 ? 826.00 4 ? 073.00 1.41 0.17 0.79 0.39 49.48
Slate 4 ? 073.00 4 ? 400.00 1.50 0.17 0.92 0.47 50.91

Table 3 Geo-mechanical classification on the basis of RMR

Lithology Chainage RMR max RMR min Average (AM) SD Coefficient of
variation (CV; %)
From To

Marble 0 ? 000 0 ? 795.00 76.4 15.4 48.8 11.31 23.18

Garnetiferrous schist 0 ? 795 1 ? 029.73 57.0 13.0 42.5 9.85 23.18
Quartzitic schist 1 ? 029.73 1 ? 339.00 58.8 31.1 45.1 6.47 14.33
Schistose quartzite 1 ? 339.00 1 ? 420.00 56.5 32.2 44.3 7.37 16.66
Quartzite 1 ? 420.00 2 ? 476.00 51.3 20.3 38.8 7.81 20.11
Phyllite 2 ? 476.00 3 ? 826.00 66.5 15.6 48.5 7.23 14.59
Silicious dolomite 3 ? 826.00 4 ? 073.00 54.1 27.4 40.2 7.47 18.58
Slate 4 ? 073.00 4 ? 400.00 52.6 27.1 41.9 6.96 16.64

(Fig. 2). The stratigraphic units are based on Stöcklin and
Bhattarai (1977). The tunnel crosses five stratigraphic
formations which comprise eight lithological units—mar-
ble, garnetiferrous schist, quartzitic schist, schistose
quartzite, quartzite, phyllite, silicious dolomite and slate.
The topography and rock type along the tunnel alignment is
given in Fig. 2. The thickness of the rock type differs.
observe the variations in Em along the tunnel. There are
several equations which use other parameters (RQD, GSI)
along with rock mass class but presently only those equa-
tions were selected which use either only RMR or Q rock
mass class. The aim of the research is to understand the
efficiency and sensitivity of the proposed equations and
how the Em values relate on the basis of rock mass class
and rock types.

Geo-mechanical properties of the study area Deformation modulus estimation based on Q

Empirical relations on the basis of classification schemes
such as the RMR (Bieniawski 1973) and the Q (Barton
et al. 1974) were used to classify the rock mass of the study
area. The observed values [maximum, minimum, average
and standard variation (SD)] obtained from Q and RMR are
given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
Em values along the tunnel alignment were calculated
based on equations proposed by Grimstad and Barton
(1993), Palmstrom and Singh (2001) and Barton (1983).
There are only these four equations that are based on only
rock mass classification (applicable only for Q [ 1).
Grimstad and Barton (1993)
Em ðGPaÞ ¼ 25logQðAverageÞ ð1Þ

Results Barton (1983)

Em ðGPaÞ ¼ 10logQðMinimumÞ ð2Þ
Several equations are in practice for determination of Em
based on geo-mechanical classification. In this study, Grimstad and Barton (1993)
equations listed below using Q and RMR are selected to Em ðGPaÞ ¼ 40logQðMaximumÞ ð3Þ

123
Comparative study of the deformation modulus of a rock mass
Palmstrom and Singh (2001)
Em ðGPaÞ ¼ 8Q0:4 ð4Þ
The observed Em values of the above-mentioned rela-
tions were plotted in a graph according to chainage of each
rock types. Figure 4 below shows the average, minimum
and maximum values of Em along the tunnel for different
rock types. Values are based on Q.
The first three equations (Eqs. 1, 2, 3) based on Q use
logarithmic functions indicating that a value less than one
will produce negative results. The negative values have
been discarded from the main data set. Therefore, gaps in
the graphs indicate Q values less than one at that chainage.
In contrast, Eq. 4 follows an exponential form which gives
a continuous pattern (Fig. 3). Em values for all eight rock
types were plotted in a graph according to the chainage.
The graphs having fewer gaps indicate the rock has better
rock mass values than the rock having more gaps. So, an
added benefit of a logarithmic function over other functions
is that it eliminates the values less than one, enabling direct
identification of poor rock mass condition from graphs.
From Fig. 3, the average values of Em obtained from
Grimstad and Barton (1993) are slightly higher than min-
imum values obtained from Barton (1983), but the maxi-
mum values obtained from Grimstad and Barton (1993) are
much higher than average values. It is observed that as the
Q value increases, the difference of average and maximum
Em values increase in comparison to differences between
average and minimum values. Therefore, the trend
of minimum value almost looks linear, the average value
looks almost wavy and the maximum value highly fluctu-
ates for all rock types. It is observed from these values that
the influence of rock class is more significant than rock
type. Similarly, the Em value obtained from Palmstrom and
Singh (2001) is found either below the maximum value
obtained from Grimstad and Barton (1993) or somewhere
above it. From a closer look at the data, it is found that the
Em value obtained from Eq. 4 exceeds the maximum Em
value obtained from Eq. 3 for a Q value less than 1.78;
otherwise, the values are generally lower.
Em estimation based on RMR
Among various equations proposed for estimation of Em,
some widely used equations were selected for the study.
The following five equations were selected for the study of
Em of various rock types along the tunnel alignment.
RMR-based relations
Bieniawski (1978)
Em ðGPaÞ ¼ 2RMR  100 for RMR [ 50
Serafim and Pereira (1983)
Em ðGPaÞ ¼ 10ðRMR10Þ=40 for RMR\50
Read et al. (1999)
Em ðGPaÞ ¼ 0:1ðRMR=10Þ3
Gokceoglu et al. (2003)
Em ðGPaÞ ¼ 0:0736e0:0755RMR
Palmström (2000)
Em ðGPaÞ ¼ 5:6ðRMRÞ0:375
Em values observed from RMR-based relations for each
rock type are plotted in the graph presented in Fig. 4.
From Fig. 4, the trend and values of Em obtained from
different widely accepted equations based on RMR show
dissimilarities along the chainage for different rock types.
Em values of Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and Pereira
(1983) and Read et al. (1999) have almost similar trends
and values. Values form Palmström (2000) also have a
similar trend as Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and Pereira
(1983) and Read et al. (1999) but it is 10–15 GPa higher
than the others. The values of Gokceoglu et al. (2003) show
large fluctuations. The Em values obtained from Gokceoglu
et al. (2003) for low RMR are around or below the values
obtained from Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and Pereira
(1983) and Read et al. (1999), and for higher RMR values,
the value revolves above or around the value obtained from
Palmström (2000). Obtained values of Em from these
equations also show the importance of rock class rather
than rock type.
Discussion
Almost all study has highlighted that Em increases with an
increase in rock mass class, either exponentially or via a
power function. This can be seen in Fig. 1 and their cor-
responding equation in Table 1.
In this study, the values of Em obtained from widely
accepted equations proposed by Grimstad and Barton
(1993), Barton (1983), Palmstrom and Singh (2001),
Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and Pereira (1983), Read et al.
(1999), Gokceoglu et al. (2003) and Palmström (2000)
were calculated along the tunnel alignment for eight dif-
ferent rock types. The obtained values from the empirical
equations were compared to understand the disparity or
similarity emanating from rock mass class and rock types.
However, a significant pattern of Em with rock classes was
not observed for all equations. This type of study was
carried out by Kayabasi et al. (2003) where indirect esti-
mation of the Em from some simple regression analyses
between Em and rock mass class were performed; however,
a significant result was not obtained. Some equations show
123
 S. Panthee et al.

Fig. 3 Obtained values of Em

on the basis of Q for different
rock types

123
Comparative study of the deformation modulus of a rock mass

Fig. 4 Obtained values of Em

on the basis of RMR

123

Table 4 Empirical equations used in this study, their reference and mathematical function
Input parameter Empirical equation
Q Em (GPa) = 25logQ
Em (GPa) = 10logQ
Em (GPa) = 40logQ
0.4
Em (GPa) = 8Q
RMR Em (GPa) = 2RMR-100 for RMR [ 50
Em(GPa) = 10(RMR-10)/40 for RMR \ 50
Em(GPa) = 0.1(RMR/10)3
Em(GPa) = 0.0736e0.0755RMR
Em(GPa) = 5.6(RMR)0.375
that Em values have high sensitivity with rock mass class
whereas others show less sensitivity. Similarly, a range of
Em values was obtained in this study where some equations
provided lower Em values while others suggested a higher
range of Em values.
The value obtained from Grimstad and Barton (1993)
shows higher sensitivity with Q. Out of the four cases
(Eqs. 1–4), the Em of rocks were highly sensitive for the
maximum case obtained from Grimstad and Barton (1993)
and less sensitive for the minimum case obtained from
Barton (1983; Fig. 3). The equation proposed by Palm-
strom and Singh (2001) gives higher Em values for Q less
than 1.78 in comparison to the maximum Em value
obtained from Grimstad and Barton (1993). The Em value
obtained from Barton (1983) is comparable with the values
obtained from Bieniawski (1978) and Serafim and Pereira
(1983) which are the lowest among the observed values
(Figs. 3, 4). Therefore, it can be said that Em obtained from
Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and Pereira (1983) and (Barton
(1983) provides the minimum Em values obtained on the
basis of RMR and Q. The average Em values obtained from
Grimstad and Barton (1993) are slightly less than the Em
obtained from Bieniawski (1978) and Serafim and Pereira
(1983). Similarly, Em values obtained from Palmström
(2000) are less sensitive with the rock class (RMR) and
follow similar trends as Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and
Pereira (1983) and Read et al. (1999) with a 12–18-GPa
difference (Fig. 4). Em values obtained from Palmström
(2000) based on RMR give higher values than the Em
values obtained from Palmstrom and Singh (2001) based
on Q. This type of pattern is observed for all rock types in
the study. The Em values obtained for Gokceoglu et al.
(2003) are highly inconsistent along the alignment for all
rock types (Fig. 4). This indicates that the values are highly
sensitive with rock class as a large change was observed for
a slight change in RMR value. This observed ambiguity in
selection of Em for designing an engineering project in rock
becomes a very difficult task.
123
S. Panthee et al.
Mathematical function References
Logarithmic Grimstad and Barton (1993)
Logarithmic Barton (1983)
Logarithmic Grimstad and Barton (1993)
Power Palmstrom and Singh (2001)
Linear Bieniawski (1978)
Inverse log Serafim and Pereira (1983)
Third power Read et al. (1999)
Exponential Gokceoglu et al. (2003)
Power Palmström (2000)
The proposed equations are of different modes and of
different mathematical functions. Some mathematical
functions are more sensitive towards the parameters while
some are less sensitive. Table 4 summarizes the mathe-
matical function used in the equations used in this research.
A range of differences in Em values obtained from dif-
ferent equations was observed for the same rock class. This
difference is because of the sensitivity of the equations
towards the rock mass class. The sensitivity depends upon
the mathematical function of the equation. Based on RMR,
the Em values obtained from Gokceoglu et al. (2003) and
Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and Pereira (1983) show a
wide range of difference, somewhere around 5–30 GPa.
The equation used by Bieniawski (1978) is in linear
function which is less sensitive with the parameters, while
the equation used by Gokceoglu et al. (2003) is an expo-
nential function which is very sensitive to the parameters.
Similarly, a 2–40-GPa range of difference is obtained in
the case of Q determined from Grimstad and Barton (1993)
and Barton (1983). Both equations use logarithmic func-
tions which leads to a sharp increase in Em values as the
Q value increases. From this study, it is observed that the
variation of the values of Em is only due to the sensitivity
of the mathematical function to the rock mass parameter.
Equations that use logarithmic functions are found to be
more suitable to identify rock mass class directly from
graphs as values less than one will be neglected. This
information may also help in directly identifying the
characteristic of a rock mass.
Conclusion
Determination of Em at a field scale or laboratory scale is a
difficult task. So, an indirect estimation of the deformation
modulus is common in practice. Several equations were
proposed that are mostly obtained by regression analysis of
Em and rock mass class. Among them, widely used
Comparative study of the deformation modulus of a rock mass
equations based on Q and RMR were selected to calculate
the Em values for different rock types from the Kulekhani
III Hydroelectric Project, Nepal. The following conclusions
were drawn from the present study.
(a) Em values obtained from the equations based on
RMR and Q show high sensitivity with rock mass
class while some are less sensitive. The sensitivity is
because of the mode of equations and mathematical
functions, i.e. exponential and logarithmic functions
are more sensitive with the parameter than a linear
function. In exponential and logarithmic functions,
there is a rapid increase/decrease in Em as the rock
mass class increases, while in linear functions, the
increment of Em is linear following a straight line.
That is the reason the Em values obtained from
equations proposed by Grimstad and Barton (1993)
for the average and upper boundary condition and
Gokceoglu et al. (2003) are highly sensitive to rock
mass class. Therefore, in these conditions, highly
irregular graphs were observed along the tunnel
alignment for all rock types. Similarly, the Em values
obtained from the equation proposed for a lower
boundary condition by Grimstad and Barton (1993),
Barton (1983), Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and
Pereira (1983) and Read et al. (1999) are also
sensitive to the rock mass class, but are less sensitive
than Grimstad and Barton (1993) and Gokceoglu
et al. (2003) for the average and upper boundaries.
(b) From Fig. 4, it was observed that Palmström (2000)
and Read et al. (1999) have almost similar trends. The
Em values obtained from Palmström (2000) show
values 10–15 GPa higher than Read et al. (1999). The
difference increases for a lower rock mass class values
while it decreases for a higher rock mass class.
Likewise, graphs obtained from Bieniawski (1978),
Serafim and Pereira (1983) and Palmström (2000) also
have similar trends but the difference is 12–18 GPa.
However, the curves in Fig. 4 representing Em values
coincide with Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and Pereira
(1983) and Read et al. (1999).
(c) Among the equations proposed by different research-
ers based on Q and RMR for determining Em,
Bieniawski (1978), Serafim and Pereira (1983) and
Read et al. (1999) provided the minimum Em value.
These equations give lower values of Em for all rock
types in comparison to the values given by other
equations based on RMR. Gokceoglu et al. (2003)
uses an exponential equation whereas Palmström
(2000) has a factor of 5.6 multiplied by the power
root of RMR.
(d) A large disparity in the values of the Em were
observed from different empirical equations used in
this study. The observed range of difference is about
5–30 GPa for the selected equations. This is due to
the sensitivity of the mathematical function to the
rock parameters. Therefore, the higher the rock mass
class, the higher the difference of the Em values.
References
Barton N (1983) Application of Q system, index tests to estimate
shear strength and deformability of rock masses. In: Proceedings
of the international symposium on engineering geology and
underground construction, vol I(II), Lisbon, pp. 51–70
Barton N (2002) Some new Q value correlations to assist in site
characterization and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
39:185–216
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech
6(4):189–236
Bieniawski ZT (1973) Engineering classification of rock masses.
Trans S Afr Inst Civ Eng 15(12):335–344
Bieniawski ZT (1978) Determining rock mass deformability—
experience from case histories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 15(5):237–247
Carvalho J (2004) Estimation of rock mass modulus (see paper by
Hoek and Diederichs 2006)
Diederichs MS, Kaiser PK (1999) Stability of large excavations in
laminated hard rock masses: the Voussoir analogue revisited. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:97–117
Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A (2003) Predicting the
deformation moduli of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
40:701–710
Grander WS (1987) Design of drilled piers in the Atlantic Piedmont.
In: Smith RE, editor. Foundations and excavations in decom-
posed rock of the piedmont providence. 1 GSP ASCE, no 9,
pp 62–86
Grimstad E, Barton N (1993) Updating the Q-system for NMT. In:
Proceedings of the international symposium on sprayed concrete,
Fagernes. Norw Concr Assoc, Oslo, p 20
Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):1165–1186
Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass
modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(2):203–215
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B (2002) Hoek-Brown failure
criterion-2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the fifth North
American rock mechanics symposium, vol 1, Toronto,
pp 267–73
Kayabasi A, Gokceoglu C, Ercanoglu M (2003) Estimating the
deformation modulus of rock masses: a comparative study. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 40:55–63
Mitri HS, Edrissi R, Henning J (1994) Finite element modeling of
cable bolted stopes in hard rock ground mines. In: Presented at
the SME annual meeting, New Mexico, Albuquerque, pp 94–116
Nicholson GA, Bieniawski ZT (1990) A nonlinear deformation
modulus based on rock mass classification. Int J Min Geol Eng
8:181–202
Palmstrom A (1996) RMi—a rock mass characterization system for
rock engineering purposes. Ph. D. Thesis, Oslo University
Palmström A (2000) Recent developments in rock support estimates
by the RMi. J Rock Mech Tunn Technol 6(1):1–19
Palmstrom A, Singh R (2001) The deformation modulus of rock
masses—comparisons between in situ tests and indirect esti-
mates. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16(3):115–131
123

Panthee S, Singh PK, Kainthola A, Singh TN (2016) Control of rock
joint parameters on deformation of tunnel opening. J Rock Mech
Geotech Eng 8(4):489–498
Read SAL, Richards LR, Perrin ND (1999) Applicability of the
Hoek–Brown failure criterion to New Zealand greywacke rocks.
In: Vouille G, Berest P, editors. Proceedings of the ninth
international congress on rock mechanics, vol 2, Paris,
pp 655–60
Serafim JL, Pereira JP (1983) Consideration of the geomechanical
classification of Bieniawski. In: Proc. Int. Symp. Eng Geol
Underground Construction, vol 1(II) (Lisbon), pp 33–44
Shen J, Karakus M, Xu C (2012) A comparative study for empirical
equations in estimating deformation modulus of rock masses.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 32:245–250
123
S. Panthee et al.
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R (2004) Indirect determination of
the modulus of deformation of rock masses based on the GSI
system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1:849–857
Stephens RE, Banks DC (1989) Moduli for deformation studies of the
foundation and abutments of the Portugues Dam—Puerto Rico.
In: Rock mechanics as a guide for efficient utilization of natural
resources: Proceedings of the 30th US symposium, Morgantown.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 31–38
Stöcklin J, Bhattarai KD (1977) Geology of Kathmandu Area and
Central Mahabharat Range, Nepal Himalaya. Kathmandu:
Report of Department of Mines and Geology, UNDP, p 86
Zhang L, Einstein HH (2004) Using RQD to estimate the deformation
modulus of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:337–341