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

net/publication/282070975

Comparative Study of Rock Mass Deformation Modulus Using Different

Approaches

Conference Paper · October 2014

CITATIONS READS

3 2,527

1 author:

Kedar Birid

21 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kedar Birid on 27 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

Comparative Study of Rock Mass Deformation Modulus Using Different

Approaches
K. C. Birida*
a
Asst. Manager, Toyo Engineering India Ltd., Mumbai, India
* kedarbirid@ŐŵĂŝů͘com, kedar.birid@toyo-eng.com

Abstract

Rock mass characterization is essential for numerous applications in rock engineering practice
such as underground rock excavation design, tunnel design, rock slope design, design of foundations
on rock etc. It is therefore necessary to obtain design input parameters such as in-situ deformation
modulus (Em) and strength parameters for numerical modeling. These parameters can be obtained
from in-situ test such as pressure meter test. However during the preliminary design stage, the detailed
soil investigation is often not carried out, leading to unavailable or insufficient in-situ test data. Hence
it becomes crucial to evaluate rock mass modulus by indirect means using correlations based on rock
mass classification systems.
Over the years, many classification systems, such as Rock Quality Designation (RQD), Modified
Rock Mass Rating (RMR), Q-system, Geological Strength Index (GSI) systems, Rock mass index
(RMi) etc. have been developed. The deformation modulus of rock mass can be estimated using these
classification systems with different empirical correlations proposed by many authors. Other such
correlations are based on laboratory test parameters such as elastic modulus of intact rock core or
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS).
The comparative study of rock mass deformation modulus evaluated based on in-situ testing and
selected correlations is presented in this paper. The in-situ testing consisted of pressuremeter test
conducted on Basalt, Tuff and Breccia formations below the seabed. The laboratory testing was
carried out on the rock samples drilled and retrieved from the identical boreholes and depths at which
pressuremeter tests have been carried out. The comparison demonstrates overestimation of Em using
empirical correlations and necessitate more rigorous technique for estimation of Em, which can
estimate Em values nearer to in-situ test results.

Keywords:Rock mass, deformation modulus, rock mass rating

1. Introduction
Rock mass deformation modulus (Em) is an important parameter in rock engineering to analyze
behavior of rock masses. The In-situ testing methods as well as empirical correlations based on other
engineering properties of rock are available in the literature to evaluate rock mass modulus. However,
in-situ tests are relatively expensive and cannot be carried out at all the times due to several practical
difficulties and other reasons. Among various correlations the foremost correlation is based on the
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system developed by Bieniawski which was commonly adopted till recent.
Apart from this, there are many other correlations available in the literatures which have been evolved
over the years as illustrated by the relationships summarized in table 1. These correlations are based
on more easily measured properties of intact rock and visual observations of rock mass or rock core
samples. This paper summarizes some of these correlations and compares the outcome with in-situ
test results to assess applicability of empirical equations.

2. Review of literature
Estimation rock mass deformation modulus using a correlation based on geomechanical
classifications appeared as a traditional tool in rock mechanics since Bieniawski (1973) and his RMR.
Subsequent correlations have included RQD (Gardner, 1987; Kayabasi et al., 2003; and Zhang and
Einstein, 2004), Q system (Barton, 1983; Grimstad and Barton, 1993), Modified RMR (Serafim and
Pereira, 1983; Nicholson and Bieniawski, 1990), Rock Mass Index (RMi) (Palmström, 1995) and

&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI5RFN0DVV'HIRUPDWLRQ0RGXOXV8VLQJ'LIIHUHQW$SSURDFKHV
K. C. Birid 553
 8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

Geological Strength Index (GSI) (Hook et al., 1995) (Galera J. M. et. Al, 2007). Each of these
classifications systems is described in subsequent chapters with brief introduction about the required
parameters.
Fig.1 indicates the commonly adopted correlations proposed by Bieniawki and Serafim & Periera.

Fig. 1. RMR Vs Em as per Bieniawki and Serafim & Periera

2.1 Rock Mass Classification Methods

2.1.1 The RMR (Geomechanics) system
The engineering classification system of RMR which was developed by Bieniawski in 1973,
utilizes the following six rock mass parameters:
• Uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock (UCS);
• Rock quality designation (RQD)
• Spacing of discontinuities
• Condition of discontinuities
• Groundwater conditions; and
• Orientation of discontinuities
To apply the RMR classification, the ratings are assigned to the six parameters for each site
considering typical, rather than the worst, conditions. Bieniawski has modified the RMR rating in
subsequent years.

2.1.2 The Q-system
In a similar way to the RMR system, the Q-rating is developed by assigning values to six
parameters. These are:
• Rock quality designation (RQD)
• Number of joint sets (J n)
• Roughness of the most unfavorable joint or discontinuity (J r)
• Degree of alteration or filling along the weakest joint (J a)
• Water inflow (J w)
• Stress condition given as the stress reduction factor (SRF); composed of
− Loosening load in the case of shear zones and clay bearing rock,
− Rock stress in competent rock, and
− Squeezing and swelling loads in plastic, incompetent rock.
These six parameters are grouped into three quotients to give the overall rock mass quality related
to stability as:
RQD J Jw
Q = . r . 
Jn J a SRF

2.1.3 The RMi system

Earlier, the rock mass index (RMi) system has been presented by Palmström (1995, 1996, and
1997). In addition to its use in tunnel support estimates, the RMi can be used in several applications,
such as characterization of rock mass strength, calculation of the constants in the Hoek and Brown

&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI5RFN0DVV'HIRUPDWLRQ0RGXOXV8VLQJ'LIIHUHQW$SSURDFKHV
554 K. C. Birid
8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

failure criterion for rock masses, and assessment of TBM penetration rate. RMi is a volumetric
parameter expressing the approximate uniaxial compressive strength of a rock mass. It is given as:

i. For jointed rock: RMi = ıc × JP = ıc × 0.2 jc .V b

D

(D = 0.37 jC -0.2 )

ii. For massive rock: RMi = ıc × fı = ıc × (0.05/Db)0.2 § 0.5ıc This equation is used
where the factor for scale effect fı < JP

The symbols in the expressions above are:

ıc = The uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock, measured on 50 mm samples.
Vb = The block volume, measured in m3 ; Db = Vb 3
is the equivalent block diameter
fı = The massivity parameter, which is an adjustment for the scale effect of compressive strength in
massive rock (where Db > approx. 1 m). For most types of ground fı varies between 0.3 and 0.6 with
an average fı = 0.5, which for most practical purposes, can be used with sufficient accuracy.
JP = The jointing parameter, which incorporates the main joint features in the rock mass. Its value can
be found from chart or from JP = 0.2 j c .Vb D
jC = The joint condition factor, which is a combined measure for the joint size (jL), joint roughness (jR),
and joint alteration (jA), given as jC = jL × jR/jA

2.1.4 GSI System
The GSI classification is a careful engineering geology description of the rock mass which is
essentially qualitative. This index is based upon an assessment of the lithology, structure and
condition of discontinuity surfaced in the rock mass and it is estimated from visual examination of the
rock mass exposed in outcrops, in surface excavations such as road cuts and in tunnel faces and
borehole cores. The GSI, by combining the two fundamental parameters of the geological process, the
blockiness of the mass and the conditions of discontinuities, respects the main geological constraints
that govern a formation. Once the GSI number is decided upon, this number is entered into a set of
empirically developed equations to estimate the rock mass properties.

2.2 Existing Empirical Correlations

Few of existing equations to estimate rock mass modulus, which are based on RMR, RQD and
laboratory elastic modulus (Ei) are summarized in table 1. The other correlations which are based on
Q-system, RMi, and GSI are not considered in the present scope of this study.
Chun B. et al. and Galera F. S. et al. presented various correlations of rock mass deformation
modulus based on RMR and laboratory deformation modulus (Ei) as tabulated in table 1.

Table 1. Empirical Correlations (after Chun B. et al. and Galera F. S. et al.)

Year References Equations Remarks

1978 Bieniawski Em=2RMR-100 (Gpa) RMR>50

1983 Serafim and Pereira Em=10 (RMR-10)/40 (Gpa) RMR<50

1983 Serafim and Pereira Em=e(RMR-10)/18 (Gpa) ---

1987 Gardner Em= ĮE . Ei (Gpa), ---

ĮE = 0.0231 RQD-1.32 (•0.15)
1990 Nicholson & Em/Ei=1/100 x 0.0028RMR2 + 0.9 e(RMR/22.82) ---
Exclude effect of
(0.07RMR) -3
1993 Kim, Kyowon Em=300 . e x10 (Gpa) ground water
from RMR

&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI5RFN0DVV'HIRUPDWLRQ0RGXOXV8VLQJ'LIIHUHQW$SSURDFKHV
K. C. Birid 555
 8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

1994 Mitri et al. Em/Ei=0.5 [1-cos(ɥ.RMR/100)] ---

1997 Aydan Em=0.0097 RMR3.54x10-3 (Gpa) ---

1997 Mohammad Em=0.562 RMR+0.183 (Gpa) ---

2003 Gokceoglu et al. Em=0.0736 . e(0.0755RMR) (Gpa) ---

2004 Zhang and Einstein Em/Ei (Mean) = 100.0186RQD-1.91 ---

2005 Galera J. S. et al. Em= 147.28. e (RMR-100)/24 – 0.202 RMR (Gpa) ---

2005 Galera J. S. et al. Em= Ei . e (RMR-100)/36 (Gpa) ---

Em = Rock Mass Modulus
Ei = Elastic Modulus of Intact Rock Core

3. In-situ and laboratory testing programme

The in-situ and laboratory testing for this study was a part of the geotechnical investigation
programme for the offshore bridge project located near west coast of Mumbai, India.
The geology of Mumbai is believed to be slightly younger than the flood basalts of the main
Deccan province, having been extruded in the early Tertiary period (Palaeocene), approximately 63
million years ago. The principal characteristics of the Mumbai Tertiary Deccan traps may be
summarized as follows:
• Dominance of sub aqueous basalt in the form of spilitic lava flows, exhibiting frequent pillow
structures.
• The presence of volcanic breccias and tuffaceous beds of considerable thickness.
• Distinctive more acidic lavas having been extruded in association with the Basalts.
• Westerly dipping strata inclined at between 50 and 100 to the horizontal (Sethna 1999).
The majority of in-situ and laboratory was carried out on Basalt rock and few on Breccia and Tuff
rock. The weathering condition of Basalt, Breccia and Tuff rock was varying from moderately
weathered to fresh with highly jointed rock mass.

3.1 In-situ Measurement of Deformation Modulus

The In-situ measurement of deformation modulus was carried out using High Pressure Dilatometer
(HPD). The HPD essentially is an in-situ measurement device for both stiffness and strength. The
HPD tests are in-situ loading tests executed by the expansion of a cylindrical cavity. The stresses up
to 20Mpa are exerted on the walls of 76mm diameter prebored hole in soils or rocks by means of a
pressurized fluid acting on one or several inflatable membranes. Pressuremeter theory assumes that
the cavity is of infinite length and is subjected to a uniform pressure (Baguelin et al. 1978).
Pressuremeters which are usually used in rocks and have probes which can withstand high pressure
are called as 'Dilatometers' or 'Elastometers' as shown in Fig. 2a which are covered by a rubber
membrane over it.

             &ŝŐ͘Ϯa. Dilatometers &ŝŐ͘2b. Typical Loading Cycles

&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI5RFN0DVV'HIRUPDWLRQ0RGXOXV8VLQJ'LIIHUHQW$SSURDFKHV
556 K. C. Birid
8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

The radial displacement, and the pressure necessary to cause the movement, is continuously
monitored by strain gauged transducers contained within the instrument and the loading curve is
plotted with these readings with loading cycles as shown in Fig. 2b.
It was observed from the HPD test results that the elastic modulus value was increasing with the
increase in applied pressure during the measurement. This is due to the closure of cracks or joints in
the rock mass under stress, making the material stiffer at higher stresses. Hence the first cycle was not
considered for the determination of modulus values as most of the closure of joints takes place during
this process. Altogether 22 numbers of pressuremeter tests were carried out and the results are
presented in table 2.

3.2 In-situ Rock Core Logging and Laboratory Testing

The rock core logging was carried out as soon as rock sample was taken out of the core barrel. The
logging included measurement of RQD, assessment of spacing and condition of discontinuity, type
and thickness of infillings etc.
The intact rock core samples from different depths were identified to carry out laboratory testing
such as uniaxial compressive strength, point load strength index test and modulus of elasticity (Ei).
The rock core samples from the test depth at which in-situ pressuremeter test was carried out were
preferred for lab testing for the comparison purpose between lab and field properties.

3.3 RMR and In-situ Rock Mass Modulus

The deformation moduli from HPD tests are summarized in table 2 along with RMR values and
other in-situ and laboratory test parameters. The RMR has been evaluated for the rock mass at the
depth where HPD test has been carried out.

Table 2 Rock Mass Properties

Sr. RQD UCS Lab Elastic Elastic Modulus

Rock Type RMR Modulus (Em) from HPD
No. (%) (Gpa)
(Ed) (Gpa) (Gpa)
1 Compact Basalt 7 0.26 43 11.50 2.862
2 Compact Basalt 14 0.24 43 11.50 0.712
3 Compact Basalt 90 0.09 67 25.32 1.777
4 Compact Basalt 100 0.07 59 32.93 4.592
5 Compact Basalt 57 0.11 56 31.13 1.493
6 Compact Basalt 0 0.02 9 --- 0.273
7 Compact Basalt 0 0.02 9 --- 1.137
8 Compact Basalt 9 0.02 10 --- 4.531
9 Compact Basalt 10 0.03 12 27.45 4.761
10 Compact Basalt 82 0.08 60 39.64 0.812
11 Compact Basalt 29 0.00 33 6.32 1.600
12 Compact Basalt 6 0.01 28 2.26 0.837
13 Compact Basalt 0 0.01 29 2.29 0.164
14 Compact Basalt 0 0.01 31 2.29 0.213
15 Compact Basalt 0 0.00 31 2.29 0.008
16 Tuff 9 0.01 28 3.27 3.177

&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI5RFN0DVV'HIRUPDWLRQ0RGXOXV8VLQJ'LIIHUHQW$SSURDFKHV
K. C. Birid 557
 8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

17 Tuff 53 0.04 40 3.27 6.835

18 Tuff 9 0.06 32 --- 0.373
19 Tuff 52 0.02 43 2.70 0.164
20 Breccia 42 0.01 34 1.48 1.942
21 Breccia 50 0.03 41 1.56 1.667
22 Breccia 0 0.03 31 --- 0.017

4. Comparison
4.1 Comparison among Rock Mass Elastic Modulus Using Correlations
The parameters listed in table 2 are utilized to estimate rock mass modulus using different
empirical equations as listed in table 1 except first equation proposed by Bieniawaski (1978) which is
applicable for RMR values more than 50. The comparison of Em with different physical properties of
intact rock and rock mass parameters is indicated below;

Fig. 3. RMR Vs Rock Mass Elastic Modulus

Fig. 4. RQD Vs Rock Mass Elastic Modulus

&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI5RFN0DVV'HIRUPDWLRQ0RGXOXV8VLQJ'LIIHUHQW$SSURDFKHV
558 K. C. Birid
8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

Fig. 5. UCS Vs Rock Mass Elastic Modulus

Fig. 6. Lab Elastic Modulus Vs Rock Mass Elastic Modulus

Based on the best fit trendline it can be observed that very high estimates are obtained using
correlations proposed by Nicholson & Bieniawski (1990) and Mohammad (1997). The correlations
proposed by Zhang and Einstein (2004) and Galera J. S. et al. (2005) indicates erratic trend when rock
mass modulus is compared with UCS. However this erraticness can be attributed towards possible
erraticness in measurement of UCS due to micro cracks, veins, variation in in-situ rock mass and lab
specimen etc. rather than inefficiency of correlations.
It can also be observed that the most conservative output is obtained using correlation proposed by
Gokceoglu et al. (2003) in all the comparison (Fig. 4 to 6) except in plot of RMR Vs Elastic Modulus
(Fig. 3) where correlation proposed by Gardner (1987) indicates the most conservative best fit curve.
The values of rock mass deformation modulus based on all the correlations are also compared with
corresponding value of insitu deformation modulus based on HPD. The comparison is carried out for
those rock specimens where all the correlations are utilised to evaluate in-situ modulus. The
contribution level of different correlations which gives nearest estimation is indicated in fig. 7. It can
be observed from this comparison that the method proposed by Gokceoglu et al. (2003) has maximum
number of estimates which are close to in-situ deformation modulus values followed by Zhang and
Einstein (2004) method and Gardner (1987) method.

&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI5RFN0DVV'HIRUPDWLRQ0RGXOXV8VLQJ'LIIHUHQW$SSURDFKHV
K. C. Birid 559
 8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

Fig. 7. Contribution by different equation

4.2 Comparison among rock mass modulus based on In-situ testing and correlations
The rock mass elastic modulus evaluated using HPD is compared with that evaluated using the
correlation. Out of 12 different correlation equations, the one with the most conservative results i.e.
proposed by Gokceoglu et al. (2003) is compared with in-situ modulus based on HPD. The
comparative charts are presented in Fig. 8 to Fig. 11. For comparison of Em with RMR, the equations
proposed by gardbner (1987) is also used along with Gokceoglu et al. (2003) equation.

Fig. 8. RMR Vs Rock Mass Elastic Modulus

&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI5RFN0DVV'HIRUPDWLRQ0RGXOXV8VLQJ'LIIHUHQW$SSURDFKHV
560 K. C. Birid
8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

Fig. 9. RQD Vs Rock Mass Elastic Modulus

Fig. 10.UCS Vs Rock Mass Elastic Modulus

Fig. 11. Lab Elastic Modulus Vs Rock Mass Elastic Modulus

It can observed from above comparison that the most conservative correlation proposed by
Gokceoglu et al. (2003), overestimates the rock mass modulus when compared with in-situ modulus.

&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI5RFN0DVV'HIRUPDWLRQ0RGXOXV8VLQJ'LIIHUHQW$SSURDFKHV
K. C. Birid 561
 8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

5. Discussions
It can be observed from this study that every correlation estimates the value of Em which is
different from each other. The equations proposed by Mohammad (1997) and Nocholson &
Bieniawski (1990) indicated very high values compared to other equations. Among rest of the
correlations, Gokceoglu (2003) and Galera J. S. et al. (2005) method indicates most coservative
estimates with lesser Em among all the equations. However when compared Em values estimated
using these equations with in-situ moduli based on HPD tests, the estimated Em values are still higher
than in-situ results.
The maximum descripancies are observed in estimated elastic modulus when compared with RMR
for higher RMR values of more than 35. The amount of descripancies in rock mass modulus when
compared with RQD, UCS and lab elastic modulus is comparatively less. RQD and UCS are two
parameters among other four to evaluate rock mass rating out of which three are qualitatively related
with discontinuities in rock. Hence the possible errors are involved in qualitative assessment of few
parameters in RMR system which can vary user to user compared to measurable parameters such as
RQD or UCS. This necessitates introduction some other measurable parameters within RMR to
increase the accuracy in estimation of rock mass modulus. The error can also arise due to the
provision of single rating value for a broad range of parameters which does not affect total RMR but
can affect in-situ results.
As far as other systems are concerned the RMR, RMi and Q-system are supposed to provide better
trend of the data because of detailed assessment of joint conditions.
On the other hand RQD is only one the six major components of the RMR classification and on
alone is not expected to provide realistic estimation.
GSI system introduces more impirism in a classification that itself is empirical as was stated in a
review by Palmström (2003) hence the rating can vary from user to user.
The number of in-situ test carried out for this study are limited hence due to lack of large number
of data, there is a possibility of non conclusive trend in the variation of Em with RMR or other
properties. If in-situ Em values based on the first loading cycle of HPD test were used in the
comparison, then the difference between measured and estimated Em values would have been much
higher. This is because Em values based on first loading cycle are very less and goes on increasing
with each cycle.

6. Conclusions
RMR classification have some limitations such as; the personal errors due to each user's judgment
from the quantitative definition in RMR itself, the unreliability of the weighted points to 100 points as
a full grade in rating of each classified factors, and the gap between maximum value and minimum
value within the fixed range of properties values. (Chun et al.)
All the correlations are based on easily measured properties of rock and rock mass index; however
it shall be noted that most of these correlations were developed specifically for application to
tunneling.
All the empirical estimations indicates overestimated rock mass modulus.
As the rock mass modulus evaluated based on pressuremeter test is even lesser than the most
conservative value based on correlation, in-situ test is preferred over the correlations.
The evaluation of RMR based on rock core logs from the boreholes is more representative of rock
mass along the vertical direction; however rock anisotropy in lateral direction remains undetected and
does not reflect in RMR. On contrary pressuremeter test applies pressure in radial direction and
records radial displacement, thus representing Em in lateral direction.
It is recommended to develop site specific correlations based on in-situ testing or to check
applicability of available correlations based on few in-situ tests before using them.

References
Baguelin F., Jezequel J. F., Shields D. H. (1978). The pressuremeter and foundation engineering,
Trans Tech Publications, pp. 452.
Bieniawski Z. T. (1989). Engineering Rock mass classifications, A complete manual for engineers
and Geologists in mining, civil, and petroleum engineering, John Wiley & Sons Publishers.
Chun B. S., Lee Y. J., Seo D. D., Lim B. S. (2006). Correlation of Deformation Modulus by PMT
with RMR and Rock Mass Condition, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
incorporating Trenchless Technology Research vol. 21 issue 3-4 May - July, 2006. pp. 231-232

&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI5RFN0DVV'HIRUPDWLRQ0RGXOXV8VLQJ'LIIHUHQW$SSURDFKHV
562 K. C. Birid
 8th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium ARMS8
14-16 October 2014, Sapporo, Japan

Galera J. M., Alvarez M., Bieniawski Z. T. (2005). Evaluation of the deformation modulus of rock
masses: comparison of pressuremeter and dilatometer tests with RMR prediction (2005),
ISP5-PRESSIO 2005 International Symposium
Galera J. M., Alvarez M., Bieniawski Z. T. (2007). Evaluation of the deformation modulus of rock
masses using RMR. Comparison with dilatometer
tests,http://subterra-ing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2007.-Evaluation-of-the-formation-mod
ulus-of-rock-masses-using-RMR.pdf., “Underground Works under Special Conditions” organizado
en Madrid el 6 de julio de 2007, por ISRM.
Marinos V., Marinos P., Hoek E. (2005). The geological strength index: applications and limitations,
Bull Eng Geol Environ, pp. 55-65
Palmström A. (1996). The rock mass index (RMi) applied in rock mechanics and rock engineering, J.
of Rock Mechanics and Tunneling Technology, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1996, pp. 1-40
Palmström A., Singh Rajbal (2001). The deformation modulus of rock masses-comparison between in
situ tests and indirect estimates, Tunneling and underground space technology, vol. 16, no. 3,
2001, pp. 115-131.
Sethna S. F. 1999. Geology of Mumbai and Surrounding Areas and its Position in the Deccan
Volcanic Stratigraphy, India, Journal Geological Society of India, Vol. 53. March 1999, 359-365.

&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RI5RFN0DVV'HIRUPDWLRQ0RGXOXV8VLQJ'LIIHUHQW$SSURDFKHV
K. C. Birid 563

View publication stats