See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323098891

Deformation Modulus of Rock Masses: An Assessment of the Existing

Empirical Equations

Article  in  Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · February 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-018-0491-1

CITATIONS READS

3 230

2 authors:

Ali Kayabasi Candan Gokceoglu

Eskisehir Osmangazi University Hacettepe University
20 PUBLICATIONS   659 CITATIONS    188 PUBLICATIONS   8,417 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

“Spatial Modeling in GIS and R for Earth and Environmental Science” View project

Interest in bimrocks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Candan Gokceoglu on 17 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0491-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Deformation Modulus of Rock Masses: An Assessment
of the Existing Empirical Equations
A. Kayabasi . C. Gokceoglu
Received: 2 November 2017 / Accepted: 5 February 2018 / Published online: 9 February 2018
Ó Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract Rock mass deformation modulus is an
important parameter for all geotechnical applications.
However, the determination of rock mass deformation
modulus with in situ tests are highly expensive and
time consuming. For this reason, rock engineers and
engineering geologists have proposed numerous
empirical equations based on various rock mass and
intact rock properties to estimate the deformation
modulus of rock masses. In the present study, an
assessment of the existing empirical equations was
undertaken. For the purpose of the study, the data
obtained from four investigation galleries opened
during a dam construction (Artvin Dam, Turkey) were
used. A total of 34 plate loading tests were employed
in these galleries. The tested rock mass is poor quality
tuff. Rock mass rating (RMR89), rock tunnelling
quality index (Q) and geological strength index of
each test levels were determined. The empirical
deformation modulus values of rock mass were
calculated by the 26 most cited empirical equations
proposed by various researchers. The cross-checks
between the measured rock mass deformation
A. Kayabasi
Department of Geological Engineering, Eskisehir
Osmangazi University, 26480 Eskisehir, Turkey
e-mail: akayabasi@ogu.edu.tr
C. Gokceoglu (&)
Department of Geological Engineering, Hacettepe
University, Beytepe, 06800 Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: cgokce@hacettepe.edu.tr
modulus and the empirically calculated rock mass
modulus values were performed by simple regression
analyses. The empirical equations with higher predic-
tion capacity were also examined with root mean
square error, values account for and prediction error
evaluations. Among the empirical equations compared
in this study, two empirical equation giving best
performance and other four empirical equations pro-
viding acceptable results were determined.
Keywords Deformation modulus
Rock mass

Regression
Empirical equation
Prediction error
1 Introduction
Deformation modulus of rock masses in geotechnical
projects, such as underground openings, dams and
slopes, is an important input parameter in the project
design stage. This modulus is determined by various
in situ tests (i.e., plate loading, dilatometer, flat jack
test and pressuremeter tests). However, all in situ test
equipment and hardware are highly expensive, and the
application of these in situ tests are time-consuming
and require experienced technical staff and difficult
installation processes, such as the excavation of long
galleries. Test procedure differences and blasting
damage are also disadvantageous sides of in situ
measurements (Palmström and Singh 2001). For this
reason, many researchers have proposed empirical
123
2684
equations for estimating the modulus of deformation
in the last two decades. These empirical equations for
estimating deformation modulus are simple and
cheaper to perform than in situ tests, but the perfor-
mance of these equations is not always sufficient.
Several of these empirical equations were produced
from intact rock and rock mass properties, such as
uniaxial strength, rock quality designation, and weath-
ering degree (Kayabasi et al. 2003; Gokceoglu et al.
2003; Zhang and Einstein 2004). Several others were
based on rock mass classification systems (i.e.,
Bieniawski 1973; Grimstad and Barton 1993; Sonmez
et al. 2006). Aksoy et al. (2012) compared of different
empirical equations of deformation modulus of rock
mass suggested by different researchers by using field
displacement measurements and numerical modeling
results. They stated that rock mass deformation
modulus obtained from Barton (2002) empirical
equation were higher than other empirical equations,
rock deformation modules obtained from empirical
equations suggested by Sonmez et al. (2004) and Hoek
and Diederichs (2006) are very close to each other.
However, rock mass deformation values obtained
from the equation suggested by Sonmez et al. (2004)
were lower in hard and big block-sized rock masses
and higher in weak and little block sized rock masses
than that suggested by Hoek and Diederichs (2006).
Lastly they stated that the performance of the equation
suggested by Sonmez et al. (2004) for determining the
rock mass deformation modulus in numerical mod-
elling was more realistic. Feng and Jimenez (2015)
presented a procedure, within the Bayesian framework
for model updating, to systematically update the
predictive distribution of deformation modulus of
rock mass, and its associated predictive uncertainty,
when new ‘‘project-specific’’ data are available.
Finally, they used an example case of an assumed
circular rock tunnel design to show that the reduction
of predictive uncertainties achieved with the Bayesian
updating has a significant influence on the computed
reliability estimates of a rock engineering design.
Zhang (2017) provided a comprehensive review of the
different empirical methods for determining the
deformation modulus of rock masses, and a compar-
ative analysis and discussion was subsequently con-
ducted on the accuracy and main issues of these
methods. Zhang (2017) concluded that the estimated
values from the various empirical methods could be
very different for certain of the rock masses; therefore,
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699
it is often difficult or even impossible to decide which
method is the most accurate.
Consequently, these equations are commonly used,
but they require special attention because almost each
empirical equation has certain limitations due to the
volume of data set used when developing such
parameters as the empirical equation and/or type of
rock mass. As a result of this evaluation and the
increase in the number of empirical equations, certain
assessments of the existing empirical equations are
indispensable. For this reason, the main purpose of this
paper is to assess the performances of these empirical
equations by in situ test results and to draw conclu-
sions on the existing empirical equations. The 26 most
cited empirical equations were collected from the
literature. Thirty-four in situ plate loading test results
which were performed at the Artvin dam project of
Turkey were used in this paper to determine the
performance of these empirical equations.
2 Intact Rock and Rock Mass Properties
of the Artvin Dam
The Artvin dam is one of the dam projects on the
Çoruh river in northwestern Turkey (see Fig. 1). The
data used in this study were provided from Artvin dam
site. All data employed were collected from plate
loading tests performed by EIEI (General Directorate
of Electrical Power Research Survey and Develop-
ment Administration) in research galleries (Gürsoy
and Uysal 1988). The galleries were opened by
blasting and excavation method with an utmost care
of undisturbance of rock masses. However disturbance
of the rock masses is inevitable with the blasting
method. The effect of blasting vary with rock prop-
erties, amount of explosive used and the distance of
the blast holes (Palmström and Singh 2001). One of
the disadvantageous point of study is the damage from
blasting is insignificant in this study.
The Artvin dam site is mainly covered by greenish
grey coloured, coarse to fine grained tuff and dark grey
coloured, laminated phyllitic lithologies. Both the
bedding of the tuff lithology and the lamination of
phyllite rock masses are NE striking and SE dipping.
The discontinuity spacings are generally medium
spaced to very closely spaced according to classifica-
tion recommended by ISRM (1981), while apertures
are wide to very narrow. The discontinuity surfaces are
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699
Fig. 1 Location map of Artvin dam site
generally moderately and highly weathered, but
rarely, slightly weathered and completely weathered
surfaces are observed (Table 1).
As seen in Table 1, the uniaxial compressive
strength values of the tuffs in the Artvin dam site
vary between 38.7 and 187.5 MPa, while the average
2685
static elasticity modulus of intact rock is 20.03 GPa.
Four investigation galleries were opened in the Artvin
dam site, and 34 plate loading test were performed in
these research galleries by EIEI. The in situ deforma-
tion moduli of rock masses were determined from
these plate loading test data. When these data were
123
2686 Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699

Table 1 Rock mass properties of testing levels

Rock mass property Gallery T1 Gallery T2 Gallery T3 Gallery T4
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg

UCS (MPa) 38.7 138.6 93.4 112.4 181.8 169.4 42.0 141.6 114.8 46.0 187.5 136.2
Ei (GPa) 20.01 20.04 20.03 20.03 20.09 20.04 20.01 20.04 20.03 20.01 20.05 20.04
Em (GPa) 2.5 12.64 7.97 3.38 20.13 11.39 1.52 12.05 4.8 3.8 19.15 10.03
RQD (%) 25 50 50 45 100 66 40 100 61 40 100 71
RMR 29.18 59.28 48.3 36.50 71.50 51.94 38.34 49.38 40.77 29.40 67.20 52.84
Q 0.19 5.46 1.55 0.43 21.23 10.56 0.21 1.80 7.21 0.20 13.20 3.83
GSI 17 43 28 18 48 28 16 28 24 16 55 39
Structural rating (SR) 28 68 31.2 30 68 43 30 68 42 30 68 43
Joint surface condition (SCR) 1 7 5 1 12 4 1 5 3 1 13 6
Spacing (mm) 600 to \ 50 mm 600 to \ 50 mm 600 to \ 50 mm 50–400 mm
Persistency (m) [ 20 m [ 20 m [ 20 m [ 20
Roughness Slickensided-rough Slickensided-rough Slickensided-rough Slickensided-rough
Aperture (mm) 1–30 1–5 1–5 1–15 cm
Weathering UW to HW SW to HW MW to CW UW–HW
Infilling [ 5 mm 2–5 mm 3–5 mm 2–5 cm
Groundwater condition Moisted Moisted-dry Moisted Moisted

evaluated together, the minimum and maximum
deformation modulus values were determined as
1.52 and 20.13 GPa, respectively. Farmer and
Kemeny (1992) determined that the intact rock
modulus is in the order of 5–20 times higher than
in situ measured values. In this study lowest in situ
measured deformation modulus is approximately 13
times lower than laboratory determined intact rock
modulus. This is arising from jointing systems,
weathering degree, aperture thickness differences.
The rock mass rating (RMR), Q system and the
geological strength index (GSI) values were calcu-
lated for each test location. The rock mass classifica-
tions RMR (Bieniawski 1989), Q system (Barton et al.
1980), GSI (Hoek and Brown 1997) and the quanti-
tative GSI chart, which was proposed by Sonmez and
Ulusay (1999), were used for the determination of GSI
values. The average RMR, Q and GSI values and the
plate loading test results of rock mass properties are
presented in Table 1.
3 Empirical Equations
Various empirical equations for determining defor-
mation modulus of rock masses were proposed.
Twenty-six empirical equations were collected from
the literature for this study. Many of these equations
use Rock Rass Rating (RMR) (Bieniawski 1973;
Serafim and Pereira 1983; Nicholson and Bieniawski
1990; Mitri et al. 1994; Aydan et al. 1997; Read et al.
1999; Gokceoglu et al. 2003; Ramamurty 2004;
Galera et al. 2005; Sonmez et al. 2006; Chun et al.
2006; Işık et al. 2008; Mohammadi and Rahmannejad
2010; Shen et al. 2012; Alemdag et al. 2015). Several
equations employ Tunnelling Quality Index
(Q) (Grimstad and Barton 1993; Barton 2002) and
the Geological Strength Index (GSI) (Hoek and Brown
1997; Hoek and Diederichs 2006; Beiki et al. 2010;
Ghamgosar et al. 2010) and others considered rock
mass properties, such as rock quality designation and
weathering degree (Kayabasi et al. 2003; Gokceoglu
et al. 2003; Zhang and Einstein 2004; Sonmez et al.
2006; Alemdag et al. 2016). Empirical equations used
in this study are given in Table 2. Each empirical
equation is numbered as seen in Table 2. The Bieni-
awski’s (1973) equation is numbered as Ee1 (estimated
equation 1). In situ plate loading test results are also
symbolized as Em (measured deformation modulus).
There are several limitations to this approach:
Bieniawski (1973) equations are for RMR [ 50; the
Grimstad and Barton (1993) equation is proposed for

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699 2687

Table 2 Summary of empirical equations considered in the study

No Author Equation Limitations Litology

Ee1 Bieniawski (1973) Em = 2RMR - 100 RMR [ 50 Mudstone, siltstone, sandstone,

shale, dolerite (hard rock masses)
Ee2 Serafim and Pereira (1983) Em = 100(RMR-10)/40 RMR \ 50 Granite, gneis, Mudstone, siltstone,
sandstone, shale, dolerite. (Soft
rock masses)
Ee3 Nicholson and Bieniawsk Em = Ei[0.0028 RMR2 Argillaceous, arenaceous,
(1990) ? 0.9 exp(RMR/22.92)] crystalline rocks
Ee4 Grimstad and Barton (1993) Em = 25 log Q For Q [ 1 Wide range of rock masses: chalk
marls, sandstones, shales,
gneisses, granites, ignimbrites,
tuffs
Ee5 Mitri et al. (1994) Em = Ei[0.5(1 - (Cos(p*RMR/100)))]
Ee6 Hoek and Brown (1997) Em = (rc/100)0.5*10(GSI-10)/40 rc \ 100 Slates, schist, phyllites, weak rocks
(MPa)
Ee7 Aydan et al. (1997) Em = 0.1(RMR/10)3 Gneiss, granite, sandstone
Ee8 Read et al. (1999) Em = 0.1(RMR/10)3 Graywacke sandstones, mudstones
Ee9 Barton (2002) Em = 10(Qrc/100)1/3 Schist, quartz, marble, phyllilte,
dolamite quartzite
Ee10 Kayabasi et al. (2003) Em = 0.135[(Ei(1 ? RQD/ Quatzdiorite, limestone
100))WD]1.811
Ee11 Gokceoglu et al. (2003) Em = 0.001[((Ei/UCS) Quartzdiorite, limestone, shale
(1 ? RQD/100))/WD]1.5528
Ee12 Gokceoglu et al. (2003) Em = 0.0736e(0.0755RMR) Quartzdiorite, limestone, shale
0.0186RQD-1.91)
Ee13 Zhang and Einstein (2004) Em = Ei10( Mudstone, siltstone, sandstone,
shale, dolerite, granite, limestone,
greywacke, gneiss
Ee14 Ramamurty (2004) Em = Eie(-0.035(5(100-RMR)) Wide range of rock masses and
intact rocks
Ee15 Galera et al. (2005) Em = Eie(RMR-100)/36 Wide range of igneous,
metamorphic, detritic and
carbonate sedimantary rock
masses
Ee16 Sonmez et al. (2004) Em = Ei(sa)0.4 Quartzdiorite, limestone, shale
Ee17 Sonmez et al. (2006) Em = Ei*10[((RMR - 100) Quartzdiorite, limestone, shale
(100 - RMR))/
(4000 exp(- RMR/100))]
Ee18 Hoek and Diederichs (2006) Em = Ei[0.02 ? (1 - (D/2))/ D=1 Sedimantary, igneous,
(1 ? e((60?15D-GSI)/11)] metamorphic rocks
Ee19 Chun et al. (2006) Em = 0.003228e(0.0495RMR) Granite, gneiss, andesite, tuff,
sandstone, shale
Ee20 Isık et al. (2008) Em = (6.7*RMR - 103.6)/1000 RMR C 27 Graywacke
Ee21 Mohammadi and Rahmannejad Em = 0.0003RMR3 - 0.0193RMR2 Limestone, marble
(2010) ? 0.315RMR ? 3.4065
Ee22 Beiki et al. (2010) Em = tan(1.56 ? (ln(GSI)2)1/2r1/3 Shale, sandstone-quartzite,
Limestone, marl-lime stone with
silica-veins, Sandstone, siltstone
and mudstone

123
2688
Table 2 continued
No Author Equation
Ee23 Ghamgosar et al. (2010) Em = 0.0912e0.0866GSI
Ee24 Shen et al. (2012) Em = 1.14Eie-((RMR-116)/41)^2
Ee25 Alemdag et al. (2015) Em = 0.058e0.0785RMR
Ee26 Alemdag et al. (2016) Em = 0.00067RQD2 ? 0.00067RQDr
? (0.00067RQDr ? 0.00067r2)/
(RQD ? 99.5)
*Ee Emprical equation, Em Measured deformation modulus, Ei intact rock modulus, rc Intact rock strength, GSI Geological Strength
Index and s and a Rock mass constants for GSI
Q [ 1; Mitri et al. (1994) is for rc \ 100 MPa. Beiki
et al. (2010) provides negative values for extreme GSI
values (Tahir and Mohammad 2014). Due to these
limitations, the number of regression input parameters
are decreased, and negative values were discarded in
regression analysis.
4 Cross-Checks Between Measured Deformation
Modulus and Empirical Equations Derived
from RMR
The collected empirical equations were grouped in this
study according to the classification systems on which
they are based. The first group was the RMR based
equations. Sixteen of 26 empirical equations estimate
the deformation modulus with RMR values of the rock
mass. Testing locality RMR values were calculated
from testing locality rock mass properties according to
Bieniawski (1989).
In situ measured deformation modulus and empir-
ical estimated deformation modulus based on RMR
plotted with RMR values of testing localities are
shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows 14 empirical
equations and measured deformation modulus values
plotted against RMR values of plate loading testing
localities. Ee24 (Shen et al. 2012) and Ee25 (Alemdag
et al. 2016) equations overestimated deformation
values; therefore, in the interest of clarity, these
equations were plotted separately as Fig. 3.
The following equations produce lower estimated
deformation values than measured deformation val-
ues: Ee21 (Işık et al. 2008), Ee3 (Nicholson and
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699
Limitations Litology
Limestone, schist slate
Mudstone, siltstone, sandstone,
shale, dolerite (hard rock
masses), Granite, gneis,
Mudstone, siltstone, sandstone,
shale, dolerite. (Soft rock masses)
Basalt, tuffites, diabases, sitstones
Siltstones
Bieniawski 1990), Ee16 (Galera et al. 2005), Ee11
(Gokceoglu et al. 2003), Ee14 (Ramamurthy 2004),
Ee17 (Sonmez et al. 2006), Ee5 (Mitri et al. 1994).
Meanwhile, these equations produce higher estimated
deformation values: Ee21 (Mohammadi and Rahman-
nejad 2010), Ee2 (Serafim and Pereira 1983), Ee19
(Chun et al. 2006), Ee7 (Aydan et al. 1997), Ee1
(Bieniawski 1973) and Ee8 (Read et al. 1999). enerally,
all of the equations’ estimates of the deformation
modulus value are close to the measured deformation
modulus. The estimated deformation modulus values
tend to scatter with increasing RMR values.
Figure 4 shows both estimated and deformation
modulus data plotted by test location. The overesti-
mating equations were excluded for clarity. The Ee5
(Mitri et al. 1994), Ee12 (Gokceoglu et al. 2003), Ee15
(Galera et al. 2005), Ee17 (Sonmez et al. 2006) and Ee19
(Chun et al. 2006) tend to be closer to the measured
deformation values (Em) (see Fig. 4).
5 Cross-Checks Between Measured Deformation
Modulus and Empirical Equations Derived
from the Q Index
The second group of equations were based on the Q
index classification. There are two empirical equations
that use Q data to evaluate the deformation modulus of
rock masses. One of them is the Grimstad and Barton
(1993) equation. The limitation of this equation is for
Q [ 1. Therefore, 24 of the total in situ test sites were
correlated with the empirical equation of Grimstad and
Barton (1993). The other equation is the Barton
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699
Fig. 2 Estimated
deformation modulus values
from RMR
Fig. 3 Outlier estimation of
deformation modulus by
Ee25 and Ee26 equations from
RMR
(2002). Figure 5 shows the plots of Q index based on
empirical deformation modulus and in situ measure-
ments of the plate loading tests. Both empirical
equations give estimated deformation modulus closer
to in situ test results for Q \ 5. With higher Q index
values, estimated deformation values are higher than
in situ determined deformation test results. Barton
(2002) specifically estimates a higher deformation
modulus.
2689
Figure 6 shows the measured deformation modulus
and estimated deformation moduli at each test loca-
tion. The Grimstad and Barton (1993) equation is valid
for Q [ 1. Broken lines show that this equation is not
valid along these testing localities. The estimated
deformation modulus values from Ee4 (Grimstad and
Barton 1993) and Ee9 (Barton 2002) are in closer
agreement with measured deformation values. The
Grimstad et al. (2002) equation overestimated
123
2690 Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699

Fig. 4 Estimated
deformation modulus from
RMR and measured
deformation modulus at
each test location

Fig. 5 Relationship
between measured
deformation modulus and
estimated deformation
modulus from Q index

deformation values at the T17, T18 and T28, T29
locations because the rock masses along these test
locations have higher Q index values. A slight
overestimation is also observed with the Barton
(2002) equation. This overestimation is
attributable to the high intact rock strength value of
the rock mass. Both Grimstad and Barton (1993) and
Barton (2002) provide higher estimated deformation
values than measured deformation values under good
rock mass conditions.
6 Cross-Checks Between Measured Deformation
Modulus and Empirical Equations Derived
from GSI Index
The third group was the Geological Strength Index
(GSI)-based empirical equations. A qualitative GSI
chart based on visual inspection has been available
since 1994. Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) suggested a
quantitative numerical basis for evaluating the GSI
system. Later, the quantitative GSI chart was slightly

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699
Fig. 6 Deformation moduli
estimated from Q index and
measured deformation
modulus at each test location
modified by Sönmez and Ulusay (2002). This latest
version of quantitative GSI chart was used for the
determination of GSI values of rock masses in this
study.
There are four equations that use the GSI value to
estimate the deformation modulus. Hoek and Brown
(1997) was the first to use GSI value and intact rock
strength of the rock masses for estimation of the
deformation modulus of rock masses. The intact rock
strength must be higher than 100 MPa for this
equation. Due to this limitation, 10 test locations are
discarded from calculations. Later, Hoek and Dieder-
ichs (2006) proposed an equation. These researchers
used a rock materials laboratory elasticity modulus
with GSI values for estimating deformation value of
rock masses. Beiki et al. (2010) estimates deformation
modulus with GSI and intact rock strength (r) values.
Ghamgosar et al. (2010) produced an equation with
only the GSI value. Figure 7 shows plots of the
measured deformation modulus values and estimated
deformation modulus values versus GSI values by
testing location. All of the equations estimate the
deformation modulus to be lower than the measured
deformation modulus. The Beiki et al. (2010) equation
provided negative deformation value when the GSI
value of rock mass was under 18.85, i.e., this equation
provided a negative deformation value at six testing
locations.
Both measured and estimated deformation are
plotted by test location. The broken line of Ee6 (Hoek
and Brown 1997) arises from the limitation of this
2691
empirical equation. The broken line of Ee22 (Beiki
et al. 2010) arises from the negative value estimation
of this empirical equation. The empirical equations
proposed with GSI produce estimations of the defor-
mation modulus that are lower than the measured
deformation values in general (Fig. 8).
7 Cross-Checks Between Measured Deformation
Modulus and Empirical Equations Derived
from Different Rock Mass and Intact Rock
Parameters
The fourth group were the empirical equations based
on the rock mass and intact rock properties (i.e. RQD,
WD, rci, s and a). This group consists of five empirical
equations that estimate the deformation modulus using
rock mass parameters, such as rock quality designation
(RQD), weathering degree (WD), intact rock strength
(rci), and rock mass constants (s, a).
According to Fig. 9, the empirical equation pro-
posed by Kayabasi et al. (2003) is overestimating the
deformation modulus at four testing localities (TT9,
T10, T18 and T29). The properties that these testing
localities have in common are high RQD, high
weathering degree and high intact rock strength.
Kayabasi et al.’s (2003) equation overestimates the
deformation modulus for good rock conditions. Other
empirical equations Gokceoglu et al. (2003), Zhang
and Einstein (2004), Sonmez et al. (2004), Alemdag
et al. (2016) estimate the deformation modulus within
123
2692 Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699

Fig. 7 Relationship
between measured
deformation modulus and
estimated deformation
modulus from GSI

Fig. 8 Estimated
deformation moduli from
GSI and measured
deformation modulus at
each test location

a range of 20 GPa over or under the measured
deformation modulus values.
8 Correlation Measured Deformation Modulus
with Estimated Deformation Modulus
As mentioned in the previous sections, many empirical
equations have been proposed in the literature. The 26
most cited empirical equations were selected for this
study. The estimated deformation modulus values at
plate loading test locations were calculated from these
empirical equations. Simple regression analyses were
performed between estimated deformation values and
the measured deformation values. The graphs of
simple regression analyses are shown in Fig. 10.
A number of equations, such as those of Bieniawski
(1978), Grimstad and Barton (1993) and Beiki et al.
(2010), have limitations. Due to these limitations, the
deformation modulus for some testing locations was
not estimated. RMR values of 23 plate loading testing
locations are lower than 50; therefore, the number of
the estimated deformation values are 11 from Bieni-
awski’s equation. Grimstad and Barton (1993) is for
the typical range of Q values, and it produces a
negative value of deformation modulus for Q \ 1. Q

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699
Fig. 9 Estimated
deformation moduli from
RQD, WD, rci, s–a and
measured deformation
modulus at each test location
values of 10 of the plate loading testing locations are
lower than 1, and the number of the deformation
modulus values successfully estimated with Grimstad
and Barton (1993) equation was 24. The suggested
equation by Beiki et al. (2010) provides negative rock
mass deformation values for values of GSI under
18.85, and the estimated number of deformation
values was 28 with this equation.
The data placement along the 1:1 line is indicative
of the estimation performance for the equations. The
better placements along the 1:1 line are observed with
the equations of Hoek and Brown (1997), Gokceoglu
et al. (2003), Hoek and Diederichs (2006), and
Ghamgosar et al. (2010).
The root mean square error (RMSE) indices and
values accounted for (VAF) are calculated to quantify
the prediction performance of the equations for simple
regression analysis. A perfect prediction is represented
with 0 in RMSE values and 100% in VAF values. The
coefficient of determination (R2), RMSE and VAF
indices for each equation are tabulated in Table 3.
The VAF value of the empirical equation of Barton
(2002) (Ee9) is the lowest with a value of – 6404.50%,
whereas the highest value of VAF is 70% with the
empirical equation of Sonmez et al. (2004) (Ee16). The
best RMSE performances are observed with the
empirical equations of Mitri et al. (1994) (Ee5) and
Alemdag et al. (2016) (Ee27).
Regression analysis and coefficient of determina-
tion values, RMSE and VAF values are not enough for
prediction performance. Prediction performance of
empirical equation is calculated with the prediction
error value in statistics. The calculated prediction error
2693
(PE) and cumulative frequency chart was drawn to
determine prediction performance of empirical equa-
tions and is shown in Fig. 10.
The empirical equations performances are con-
verging mainly at - 400 (%) and ? 200 (%) predic-
tion values. Negative values of PE mean that the
empirical equation is overestimating the measured
deformation values. Accumulation of the negative side
of the horizontal axes show the overestimation of the
empirical equation. To improve upon the clarity of
Fig. 11a, the equations with higher VAF and RMSE
values were removed and the optimal empirical
equations were found and displayed in Fig. 11b.
According to Fig. 1b, the equations of Nicholson
and Bieniawski (1990), Mitri et al. (1994), Hoek and
Brown (1997), Gokceoglu et al. (2003), Zhang and
Einstein (2004), Galera et al. (2005), Sonmez et al.
(2004), Hoek and Diederichs (2006) and Ghamgosar
et al. (2010) produce good prediction performances.
The RMSE and VAF revealed that the highest
predictive capability was provided by the Galera
et al. (2005) equation among the empirical equations
compared in this study. Gokceoglu et al.’s (2003)
equation is the second best when considering all data.
Hoek and Diederich’s (2006), Ghamgosar et al.
(2010), Nicholson and Bieniawski’s (1990) and Hoek
and Brown’s (1997) equations also exhibited good
performances. Mitri et al.’s (1994) and Sonmez et al.’s
(2004) equations yielded more inconsistent results
among the equations having good prediction
performances.
123
2694 Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699

Fig. 10 Graphs showing the relation between measured deformation values (Em) and the estimated deformation values (Ee)

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699
Fig. 10 continued
9 Results and Conclusions
There are considerable numbers of empirical equation
that have been proposed in the rock mechanics
literature. However, the prediction performance of
these empirical equations have not been widely tested.
As mentioned in the introduction, the purpose of this
study was to determine the performance of these
empirical equations. For this reason, 34 plate loading
tests results which were performed in research
galleries of Artvin dam sites, loading test location
RMR, Q and GSI values were used as data in this
study. RMi rock mass classification system was not
performed in this study because RMi values were not
determined directly. In other words, the transiton
2695
equation between rock mass classification systems
were not used in this study due to the rudeness of
method and may cause wrong values as stated by
Palmström and Singh (2001).
The 26 most cited equations were compiled, and
these equations were grouped according to classifica-
tion systems on which they are based. The first group
was the RMR based equations. Sixteen of the 26
empirical equations estimate the deformation modulus
with RMR values of the rock mass. The simple
regression analysis between RMR values and mea-
sured-estimated deformation values showed that Shen
et al. (2012) and Alemdag et al. (2015), Mohammadi
and Rahmannejad (2010), Serafim and Pereira (1983),
Chun et al. (2006), Aydan et al. (1997), Bieniawski
123
2696 Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699

Table 3 Coefficient of determination (R2), the values of root mean square errors (RMSE) and values account for (VAF) indices of
the estimated modulus of deformation from the empirical equations
Equation no Equation type The coefficient of Value account Root mean square
determination R2 for VAF (%) error RMSE

Ee1 Linear 0.7441 - 393.52 10.71

Ee2 Linear 0.6261 15.46 4.59
Ee3 Linear 0.6504 38.13 6.85
Ee4 Linear 0.4117 - 404.12 8.87
Ee5 Linear 0.6378 61.69 2.93
Ee6 Power 0.5082 45.01 5.44
Ee7 Linear 0.6326 - 11.19 5.13
Ee8 Linear 0.6433 - 12.47 6.07
Ee9 Logarithmic 0.6376 - 6404.50 38.76
Ee10 Linear 0.2307 - 1240.20 19.76
Ee11 Power 0.2645 - 269.38 9.39
Ee12 Linear 0.5981 59.44 5.87
Ee13 Power 0.1432 - 65.07 6.77
Ee14 Linear 0.6532 41.48 3.63
Ee15 Linear 0.6530 99.44 3.22
Ee16 Linear 0.4219 70.07 3.78
Ee17 Linear 0.6426 - 61.75 1.94
Ee18 Logarithmic 0.4819 55.29 5.62
Ee19 Linear 0.6364 66.47 3.45
Ee20 Linear 0.6394 3.97 8.14
Ee21 Logarithmic 0.6336 0.09 4.59
Ee22 Power 0.2426 72.93 5.21
Ee23 Logarithmic 0.4806 52.69 6.24
Ee24 Logarithmic 0.6492 - 2994.40 39.28
Ee25 Logarithmic 0.6395 - 24371 73.49
Ee26 Linear 0.3475 22.45 3.11

(1973) and Read et al. (1999) overestimate deforma-
tion values where as Isık et al. (2008), Nicholson and
Bieniawski (1990), Galera et al. (2005), Gokceoglu
et al. (2003), Ramamurthy (2004), Sonmez et al.
(2006), Mitri et al. (1994) produce lower estimates of
deformation values. 20 testing location RMR values
are lower than 50; therefore, Bieniawski (1973)
equation was evaluated with 14 data points. This
equation tends to overestimate those with high RMR
values (RMR [ 60) and underestimate those with low
RMR values (RMR \ 60).
The second group was the Q index classification
based empirical equations. There are two empirical
equations that use Q data to evaluate the deformation
modulus value of rock massess. One of these equations
is the Grimstad and Barton (1993) equation, and the
other is the Barton (2002) equation. When Q \ 5, both
equations give estimated deformation modulus closer
to in situ test results. At higher Q index values,
estimated deformation values with these equations
yield higher values than in situ determined deforma-
tion test results.
The third group was the geological strength index
(GSI) based empirical equations. Four empirical
equations use GSI for estimation of deformation
modulus, Hoek and Brown (1997), Hoek and Dieder-
ichs (2006), Beiki et al. (2010) and Ghamgosar et al.
(2010). These empirical equations’ estimates of the

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699
Fig. 11 Graphs showing the relationships between prediction error and cumulative frequency for the empirical equations evaluated in
this study a the evaluation all empirical equations b the evaluation for the empirical equations between - 80 and ? 100%
deformation modulus are lower than measured defor-
mation modulus. The Beiki et al.’s (2010) equation
gives a negative deformation value for GSI values
under 18.85, so negative deformation value estimates
were produced for 6 of the testing locations in this
study.
The fourth group was the rock mass and intact rock
properties (i.e. RQD, WD, rci,s and a) based empirical
equations. There are five empirical equations estimat-
ing deformation modulus with RQD, WD, rci,s and a.
Kayabasi et al. (2003) overestimates the deformation
modulus of rock masses whereas other empirical
equations suggested by Gokceoglu et al. (2003),
Zhang and Einstein (2004), Sonmez et al. (2004),
Alemdag et al. (2016) estimate the deformation
modulus within the range of 20 GPa over or under
the measured deformation modulus values.
Estimated deformation and measured deformation
modulus values were compared for each of the
empirical equations. The best data accumulations
along the 1:1 line were observed with the equations
Hoek and Brown (1997), Gokceoglu et al. (2003),
2697
Hoek and Diederichs (2006) and Ghamgosar et al.
(2010).
The RMSE, VAF and the prediction error (%) and
the cumulative frequency of data graph revealed the
best equations for prediction of the deformation
modulus. The highest predictive capability was pro-
vided by the Galera et al.’s (2005) equation among the
empirical equations compared in this study. Gokceo-
glu et al.’s (2003) equation is the second best after
Galera et al.’s (2005) equation when considering all
data. Hoek and Diederichs (2006), Ghamgosar et al.
(2010), Nicholson and Bieniawski’s (1990) and Hoek
and Brown’s (1997) equations also displayed good
performances. The modulus of deformation of rock
masses is governed by discontinuity characteristics
such as aperture, spacing, infilling etc., weathering
degree, strength and deformability of intact rock
pieces in rock mass, mineralogy and texture of intact
rock pieces, in situ stress conditions etc. Due to this
complexity, to estimate and/or to determine modulus
of deformation accurately is very difficult. On the
other hand, an empirical equation is based on the
123
2698
dataset employed. For this reason, when assessing or
using an empirical equation, this complex situation
should be considered. Additionally, the type of rock
mass and the number of the in situ tests used in the
present study are limited. Consequently, it is not
forgotten that the findings obtained from the present
study based on a dataset representing one rock type.
Otherwise, the results and conclusions presented here
is open to speculation. Additionally, depending on
various factors, in situ measurements of deformation
modulus of rock masses have sometimes some uncer-
tainties. These uncertainties were summarized by
Palmström and Singh (2001). During the present
study, to minimize these uncertainties, testing condi-
tions were assessed and rock mass parameters were
selected carefully.
Finally, this paper reviewed and evaluated the
performance of empirical equations for estimating the
rock mass deformation modulus (Ee). However, these
type studies should be supported and continued by
additional data and studies for other rock masses. Even
under ideal conditions, it is difficult or impossible to
decide which method is the most accurate (Zhang
2017). For these reasons, a crosscheck should be
performed before using these empirical equations for
an important project.
Acknowledgements The authors thank Geological Engineers
N. Gürsoy and B. Uysal for permission to use the data and the
General Directorate of Electrical Power Research Survey and
Development Administration for performing the tests.
References
Aksoy OC, Geniş M, Aldaş UC, Özacar V, Özer CS, Yılmaz Ö
(2012) A comparative study of the determination of rock
mass deformation modulus by using empirical approaches.
Eng Geol 131–132:19–28
Alemdag S, Gurocak Z, Gokceoglu C (2015) A simple regres-
sion based approach to estimate deformation modulus of
rock masses. J Afr Earth Sci 110:75–80
Alemdag S, Gurocak Z, Cevik A, Cabalar AF, Gokceoğlu C
(2016) Modeling deformation modulus of a stratified sed-
imentary rock mass using neural network, fuzzy inference
and genetic programming. Eng Geol 203:70–82
Aydan Ö, Ulusay R, Kawamoto T (1997) Assessment of rock
mass strength for underground excavations. In: Proceed-
ings of the 36th US rock mechanics symposium, New
York, pp 777–786
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
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699
Barton N, Loset F, Lien R, Lune J (1980) Application of
Q-system in design decisions concerning dimensions and
appropriate support for underground installations. Sub-
surface Space, Pergamon, 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. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 47:1091–1103
Bieniawski Z (1973) Engineering classification of rock masses.
Trans S Afr Inst Civ Eng 15:335–344
Bieniawski ZT (1978) Determining rock mass deformability:
experience fromcase histories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 15:237–247
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications.
Wiley, New York
Chun B, Lee Y, Seo D, Lim B (2006) Correlation of deformation
modulus by PMT with RMR and rock mass condition.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 21(3–4):231–232
Farmer IW, Kemeny JM (1992) Deficiencies in rock test data.
In: Proceedings of international conference on Eurock
1992. Thomas Telford, London. pp 298–303
Feng X, Jimenez R (2015) Estimation of deformation modulus
of rock masses based on Bayesian model selection and
Bayesian updating approach. Eng Geol 199:19–27
Galera JM, Alvarez Z, Bieniawski ZT (2005) Evaluation of the
deformation modulus of rock masses: comparison between
pressure meter and dilatometer tests with RMR predictions.
In: Gambin M, Mestat P, Baguelin F (eds) Proceedings of
ISP5-PRESSIO 2005. LCPC publication Paris
Ghamgosar M, Fahimifar A, Rasouli V (2010) Estimation of
rock mass deformation modulus from laboratory experi-
ments in Karun dam. In: Zhao, Laboise, Dudt, Mathier
(eds) Proceedings of the international symposium of the
international society for rock mechanics. Taylor & Francis
Group, pp 805–808
Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A (2003) Predicting the
deformation moduli of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 40:701–710
Grimstad E, Barton N (1993) Updating the Q-System for NMT.
In: Proceedings of the international symposium on sprayed
concrete-modern use of wet mix sprayed concrete for
underground support, Oslo, Norwegian Concrete
Association
Grimstad E, Kankes K, Bhasin R, Magnussen AW, Kaynia A
(2002) Rock Mass Q used in designing Reinforced Ribs of
Sprayed Concrete and Energy Absorption. 4 th Int. Symp.
on Sprayed Concrete, Davos, Switzerland
Gürsoy N, Uysal B (1988) Orta Çoruh Havzası Artvin Baraj
Yeri Hidrolik Kriko Yükleme Deney Sonuçları. General
Directorate of Electrical Power Researchers Survey and
Development Administration Report (in Turkish)
Hoek E, Brown ET (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass
strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):1165–1186
Hoek E, Diederichs M (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass
modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:203–215
Işık NS, Ulusay R, Doyuran V (2008) Deformation modulus of
heavily jointed-sheared and blocky greywackes by pres-
suremeter tests: numerical, experimental and empirical
assessments. Eng Geol 101:269–282
ISRM (International Society for Rock Mechanics) (1981) Part 1.
Site characterization, the quantitative description of
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:2683–2699
discontinuities in rock masses. In: Brown ET (ed) ISRM
suggested method: rock characterization, testing and
monitoring. Pergamon Press, London
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. Presented
at the SME annual meeting, New Mexico, Albuquerque
pp 94–116
Mohammadi H, Rahmannejad R (2010) The estimation of
deformation modulus using regression and artificial neural
network analyis. Arab J Sci Eng 15:205–217
Nicholson GA, Bieniawski ZT (1990) A nonlinear deformation
modulus based on rock mass classification. Int J Min Geol
Eng 8:181–202
Palmström A, Singh R (2001) The deformation modulus of rock
masses—comparisons between in situ tests and indirect
estimates. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16(3):115–131
Ramamurthy T (2004) A geo-engineering classification for
rocks and rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:89–101
Read SAL, Richards LR, Perrin ND (1999) Applicability of the
Hoek–Brown failure criterion to New Zealand greywacke
rocks. In: Vouille G, Berest P (eds) Proceedings of the
nineth international congress on rock mechanics, Paris,
August 2, pp 655–660
Serafim JL, Pereira JP (1983) Considerations on the geome-
chanical classification of Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of
the symposium on engineering geology and underground
openings, Lisboa, Portugal, pp 1133–1144
View publication stats
2699
Shen J, Karakus M, Xu C (2012) A comparative study for
empirical equation in estimating deformation modulus of
rock masses. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 32:245–250
Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modifications to the geological
strength index (GSI) and their applicability to stability of
slopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:743–760
Sönmez H, Ulusay R (2002) A discussion on the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion and suggested modification to the criterion
verified by slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri
(Earthsciences) 26:77–99
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R (2004) Indirect determina-
tion of the modulus of deformation of rock masses based on
the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1:849–857
Sonmez H, Nefeslioglu HA, Gokceoglu C, Kayabasi A (2006)
Estimating of rock modulus: for intact rocks with an arti-
ficial neural network and for rock masses with a new
empirical equation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:224–235
Tahir M, Mohammad N (2014) Prediction performance and
generalization of the empirical estimationof rockmass
deformation modulus based on rockmass classification
systems. Int J Sci Eng Technol 3(12):1488–1498
Zhang L (2017) Evaluation of rock mass deformability using
empirical methods—a review. Undergr Space. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.undsp.2017.03.003
Zhang L, Einstein HH (2004) Using RQD to estimate the
deformation modulus of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 41:337–341
123