Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.jrmge.cn

Full Length Article

A new estimation method and an anisotropy index for the deformation

modulus of jointed rock masses
Bohu Zhang a, b, Junyan Mu a, b, Jun Zheng c, d, *, Qing Lv c, Jianhui Deng e
a
State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, 610500, China
b
School of Geoscience and Technology, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, 610500, China
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China
d
Center for Balance Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310007, China
e
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, College of Water Resource and Hydropower, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610065, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The deformation modulus of a rock mass is an important parameter to describe its mechanical behavior.
Received 15 January 2021 In this study, an analytical method is developed to determine the deformation modulus of jointed rock
Received in revised form masses, which considers the mechanical properties of intact rocks and joints based on the superposition
9 April 2021
principle. Due to incorporating the variations in the orientations and sizes of joint sets, the proposed
Accepted 10 June 2021
method is applicable to the rock mass with persistent and parallel joints as well as that with non-
Available online 22 July 2021
persistent and nonparallel joints. In addition, an anisotropy index AIdm for the deformation modulus is
defined to quantitatively describe the anisotropy of rock masses. The range of AIdm is from 0 to 1, and the
Keywords:
Deformation modulus
more anisotropic the rock mass is, the larger the value of AIdm will be. To evaluate the proposed method,
Analytical method 20 groups of numerical experiments are conducted with the universal distinct element code (UDEC). For
Anisotropy index each experimental group, the deformation modulus in 24 directions are obtained by UDEC (numerical
Jointed rock masses value) and the proposed method (predicted value), and then the mean error rates are calculated. Note
Mechanical behavior that the mean error rate is the mean value of the error rates of the deformation modulus in 24 directions,
Discrete fracture network (DFN) where for each direction, the error rate is equal to the ratio of numerical value minus predicted value to
the numerical value. The results show that (i) for different experimental groups, the mean error rates
vary between 5.06% and 22.03%; (ii) the error rates for the discrete fracture networks (DFNs) with two
sets of joints are at the same level as those with one set of joints; and (iii) therefore, the proposed
method for estimating the deformation modulus of jointed rock masses is valid.
Ó 2022 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction deformation modulus as an input parameter (Palmström and Singh,

The mechanical behavior of jointed rock masses should be
appropriately assessed when designing foundations, slopes, un-
derground openings, and anchoring systems (Zheng et al., 2014a;
Asadizadeh and Hossaini, 2016; Bahaaddini and Hosseinpour, 2019;
Hoek and Brown, 2019; Lai et al., 2020; Mo et al., 2020). The
deformation modulus is an important parameter of rock masses.
Numerous numerical methods for studying the stress and
displacement of rock masses are performed by using the
* Corresponding author. Department of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou, 310058, China.
E-mail address: zhengjun12@zju.edu.cn (J. Zheng).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
2001; Panthee et al., 2016; Alnedawi et al., 2019). In addition, the
deformation modulus is a parameter that best represents the pre-
failure mechanical behavior of a rock mass (Kayabasi et al., 2003).
In nature, a rock mass is a discontinuous medium with natural
fissures, fractures, joints, bedding planes, and faults (Zheng et al.,
2014b, 2017; Mohammad et al., 2015), which makes it much
more difficult to determine the deformation modulus of a rock
mass than that of an intact rock. Therefore, many scholars have
conducted in-depth studies on how to estimate the deformation
modulus of a rock mass. These estimation methods can be cate-
gorized into two main types: in situ test methods and indirect test
methods.
The in situ test methods for determining the deformation
modulus of a rock mass mainly include plate loading tests (PLTs),
plate jacking tests (PJTs), dilatometer tests, and Goodman jack tests.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.06.005
1674-7755 Ó 2022 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
154 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168
Among these methods, the most common in situ tests are PLTs and
PJTs. Both PLTs and PJTs are often referred to as plate bearing tests
(Kavur et al., 2014). PLTs measure displacements only on the rock
surface; conversely, PJTs, which use a central instrumentation hole
and multipoint borehole extensometers (MPBXs), measure dis-
placements at different depths within rock masses (Vrkljan et al.,
1995). In dilatometer tests, the volume of the tested area is too
small and the tensile stresses are involved in the borehole; hence,
the deformation modulus values calculated through dilatometer
tests are usually 2e3 times lower than those calculated through
PLTs and PJTs (Rocha, 1974; Bieniawski, 1978). The deformation
modulus values calculated through Goodman jack tests are also
lower than those calculated through PLTs and PJTs due to the
deformation of the loading platens in hard rock. Bieniawski (1989)
noted that few previous projects featured a sufficient number of
different tests to allow a meaningful comparison of in situ test data
types. In situ test results may be highly variable depending on
different test methods. Hence, it is not reliable to accept the results
from any in situ method, i.e. two or more methods are desirable to
be used to crosscheck the test results. Therefore, the in situ tests for
determining the deformation modulus of a rock mass can be
considered to be expensive, time-consuming, and difficult to
conduct.
The indirect test methods mainly include empirical methods
and analytical methods. In contrast to in situ measurements, due
to the advantages of simplicity, rapidity and low cost, empirical
methods have gradually become highly popular. Empirical
methods mainly use existing field data to establish a relationship
between deformation modulus and rock classifications, such as
the rock mass rating (RMR), tunneling quality index (Q), rock
quality designation (RQD), and geological strength index (GSI).
Bieniawski (1978) first proposed an empirical equation of the
deformation modulus that used RMR as the parameter. However,
this empirical equation can be applied only if the value of RMR is
greater than 50. Serafim and Pereira (1983) suggested another
equation that can be used when RMR is less than or equal to 50.
Following these works, many scholars have studied the defor-
mation modulus and developed some empirical formulae
(Nicholson and Bieniawski, 1990; Hoek and Brown, 1997; Zhang
and Einstein, 2004; Hoek and Diederichs 2006; Sonmez et al.,
2006; Chun et al., 2009; Martins and Miranda 2012; Khabbazi
et al., 2013; Alemdag et al., 2015). In recent years, in addition to
using traditional methods to obtain empirical formulae, fuzzy
mathematics, artificial intelligence, multiple and polynomial
regression analyses, and neural networks have also been used to
predict the deformation modulus (Ali Bashari et al., 2011;
Alemdag et al., 2015; Mohammad Rezaei et al., 2015; Asadizadeh
and Hossaini, 2016; Bahaaddini and Hosseinpour, 2019; Adeyemi
and Wang, 2019). For the aforementioned indirect estimation
methods, a range of differences in deformation moduli of the rock
mass Em obtained from different equations were observed for the
same rock mass (Hoek and Diederichs, 2006; Ajalloeian and
Mohammadi, 2014; Panthee et al., 2016). Moreover, neither in
situ tests nor empirical equations can reflect the anisotropy of the
deformation modulus of a rock mass. It is of great significance to
evaluate the anisotropy of the deformation modulus of a rock
mass for engineering design and construction.
The deformation modulus of a jointed rock mass can also be
estimated by analytical methods. Gerrard (1982) studied the
deformation modulus of a rock mass with several sets of joints
based on orthorhombic layer theory. Unfortunately, the joints in
the same set were assumed to be planar and approximately
equally spaced. Fossum (1985) deduced a formula for estimating
the deformation modulus of a rock mass with random persistent
joints based on a simple geometric averaging method. However,
the stiffness of the joints in the study was set to a constant value.
Amadei and Savage (1993) obtained a general solution of the
deformability of rock masses with regular joints and noted that
the deformation modulus of jointed rock masses is anisotropic.
Zhang (2010) regarded a heavily jointed rock mass as isotropic
and developed a method to estimate the deformation modulus of
heavily jointed rock masses. However, Zhang (2010) assumed
that all normal stiffness and shear stiffness values were equal,
which may deviate from the actual conditions. Li (2001) devel-
oped a method to estimate the deformation modulus of jointed
rock masses in three-dimensional (3D) space and presented it in
a hemispherical projection. This method reflected the anisotropy
of the deformation modulus of jointed rock masses, and different
values of stiffness were considered for different sets of joints.
However, the joints in the study were assumed to be infinite,
which limited the applicability of the method. Generally, previ-
ous research on analytical methods of estimating the deforma-
tion modulus of jointed rock masses does not fully reflect the
randomness of joints, and the assumptions of joints are idealized.
In summary, although determining the deformation modulus of
rock masses is a classic issue, there are still some defects in existing
solutions. This study aims to propose a new way to estimate the
deformation modulus of jointed rock masses. This new method has
the following advantages: (i) the deformation modulus of rock
masses with non-persistent and nonparallel joint networks can be
quickly estimated; (ii) the approach can be applied to jointed rock
masses at the engineering scale, which is different from the rele-
vant research achievements obtained by laboratory tests and nu-
merical methods for indoor test-scale rock samples with regular
joints (Singh et al., 2002; Wong and Einstein, 2009; Zhou et al.,
2018); and (iii) the deformation modulus can be obtained in any
direction. Therefore, this method can be used to characterize the
anisotropy of the deformation modulus of jointed rock masses.
Hence, an anisotropy index for the deformation modulus is defined
to describe the anisotropy of the deformation modulus of jointed
rock masses.
2. Analytical solution of the deformation modulus of a rock
mass with persistent joints
2.1. The case with a single persistent joint set
First, a square rock mass is taken as the research object (Fig. 1).
Morland (1974) proposed that the deformation of a rock mass is the
superposition of deformation of the joints and rock matrix, which
can be expressed as
ε ¼ εr þ εa (1)
where ε, εr and εa are the strains of the rock mass, the rock matrix
and the joints, respectively. Note that in this study, “εa”, not “εj”, is
used to represent the strain of the joints in order to avoid the
confusion with the joint set number j which is used in the later
sections. For simplicity, the rock matrix is considered to be a line-
arly elastic material, thus εr can be expressed as
s
εr ¼ (2)
Er
where Er is the deformation modulus of the rock matrix and s is the
normal stress acting on the upper and lower boundaries of the rock
 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168 155

Fig. 1. Decomposition of rock mass deformation. L is the side length of the square rock mass, l is the trace length of the joint, and q is the trace angle.

Fig. 2. Decomposition of joint deformation.

mass. Thus, the key to calculating the strain of the rock mass is to and shear stresses acting on the joint can be expressed as
calculate the strain of the joints. As shown in Fig. 2, the deformation (Goodman, 1989):
of joints can be decomposed into shear deformation and normal
deformation (Morland, 1974). For a single joint, the shear defor-
mation and normal deformation can be represented by the sn ¼ scos 2 q (7)
constitutive model proposed by Goodman (1968), wherein these
components are expressed as
1
ss ¼ s sinð2qÞ (8)
sn 2
dn ¼ (3)
kn Therefore, the deformation of a persistent joint under normal
stress is calculated by combining Eqs. (3)e(5) and (7) and (8), and
ss this deformation can be expressed as (Li, 2001):
ds ¼ (4)
ks
scos 3 q s sin q sinð2qÞ
where dn and ds are the normal and shear deformation of the joint, ua ¼ þ (9)
kn 2ks
respectively; sn and ss are the normal and shear stresses acting on
the joint, respectively; and kn and ks are the normal and shear Note that Eq. (9) is only applicable to persistent joints (Fig. 1)
stiffnesses of the joint, respectively. that do not intersect the upper and lower boundaries. However,
Note that the final deformation modulus of a rock mass is not some persistent joints intersect the upper or lower boundaries, as
affected by the whole deformation of the joints; only the defor- shown in Fig. 3. For those joints, the deformation can be obtained
mation of the joints in the loading direction contributes to the final by modifying Eq. (9), and this modified form can be expressed as
deformation modulus. Hence, the deformation of joints that can (Yang et al., 2011):
contribute to the deformation modulus can be expressed as


scos 3 q s sin q sinð2qÞ 
ua ¼ ds sin q þ dn cos q (5) ua ¼ þ l cos q L (10)
kn 2ks
where ua is the deformation of the joints that can contribute to the Therefore, as shown in Fig. 4, the deformation of the joint rep-
deformation modulus. The strain corresponding to this component resented by the black line in the loading direction can be calculated
of joint deformation can be expressed as by Eq. (9), while the joint represented by the red line can be
calculated by Eq. (10). However, for persistent joints that do not
εa ¼ ðds sin q þ dn cos qÞ = L (6) intersect the upper and lower boundaries (represented by black
line), lcosq/L ¼ 1, and Eq. (10) reduces to Eq. (9). Hence, Eq. (10) can
When the normal stress acts on the upper and lower boundaries of be applied to all types of persistent joints, regardless of whether
the rock mass, based on a force equilibrium analysis, the normal they intersect the upper and lower boundaries.
156 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168

Fig. 3. Persistent joints intersecting adjacent boundaries or upper and lower boundaries.

of the joints from the same set are constant. Therefore, Eq. (12) can
be rewritten as
("  # )
cos3 qj sinqj sin 2qj  s
uaj ¼ Nj E þ q
cos j E lj (13)
kn 2ks L

For simplicity, Eq. (13) can be rewritten as

     s
uaj ¼ Nj E f qj E lj (14)
L
"  #
  cos 3 qj sin qj sin 2qj
f qj ¼ þ cos qj (15)
kn 2ks

Fig. 4. Models with (a) persistent parallel and (b) nonparallel joints. Note that the
Moreover, according to the definition of the expectation, Eq. (14)
black lines represent the joints that do not intersect the upper and lower boundaries, can be rewritten as
whereas the red lines represent the joints that intersect the upper or lower boundaries.
Z ZþN
      s
uaj ¼ Nj f qj gqj qj dqj lj glj lj dlj (16)
L
2.2. The case with multiple persistent joint sets wj 0

For simplicity, first, a set of persistent joints is considered where gqj(qj) is the probability density function of qj, glj(lj) is the
(Fig. 4), which is labeled j. The linear frequency is denoted as probability density function of the trace length lj, and wj is the
lmj in the mean normal direction of joints, and the acute angle range of values for qj. Then, substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (16) can
between the loading direction and the mean normal direction give
of the joints is denoted qmj. According to Fig. 4, the number of
joints in the model is equal to the number of joints intersecting Z ZþN
       
left and lower boundaries or right and upper boundaries uaj ¼ s lmj cos qmj þ lmj sin qmj f qj gqj qj dqj lj glj lj dlj
(Fig. 5). Therefore, the number of joints in the model can be wj 0
expressed as
(17)
Furthermore, if there are J sets of persistent joints in the area,
Nj ¼ Llmj cos qmj þ Llmj sin qmj (11) according to Eq. (17), the total deformation ua of J sets of joints can
be written as
where Nj is the number of joints from set j, lmjcosqmj is the linear
frequency in the direction of the left or right boundary, and " Z ZþN #
X
J
       
lmjsinqmj is the linear frequency in the direction of the lower or top ua ¼ s lmj cos qmj þlmj sin qmj f qj gqj qj dqj lj glj lj dlj
boundary. j¼1 wj 0
The deformation uaj of all persistent joints from set j in the
loading direction can be expressed as (18)
The strain of all joints in the loading direction can be given by
("  # )
  scos 3 qj s sin qj sin 2qj  εa ¼ ua =L (19)
uaj ¼ Nj E uaj ¼ Nj E þ lj cos qj L
knj 2ksj
Then, the deformation modulus of the rock mass can be
(12) expressed as

where Xj represents the X value of a joint from set j, wherein X ¼ kn, 

Em ¼ s ε (20)
ks, q, or l; and E($) or E{,} is the expected value of the function. We
assume that the distributions of qj and the trace length lj of the Therefore, the deformation modulus of the rock mass can be
joints are independent from each other, and the values of knj and ksj calculated by combining Eqs. (1), (2) and (18)e(20) as
 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168 157

1
Em ¼ 2 3 (21)
Z Z þN
P
J         1
1 4 lmj cos qmj þ lmj sin qmj f qj gqj qj dqj lj glj lj dlj 5 þ
L Er
j¼1 0
wj

According to the definition of the expectation, Eq. (21) can be normal and shear directions, respectively. However, there is an
rewritten as essential difference between the two mechanical parameters.
When the stress is divided by the stiffness, the deformation is ob-
1 tained, whereas when the stress is divided by the modulus, the
Em ¼ (22)
J 
P      
result is strain. Therefore, further processing is needed in order to
1 lmj cos qmj þ lmj sin qmj E f qj E lj þ E1r
L use the deformation and shear moduli to describe the deformation
j¼1
capacity of the rock bridge. Kulatilake et al. (1992) proposed the
In practice, we can easily estimate the deformation modulus of a concept of fictitious joints to represent the rock bridges for
rock mass with multiple persistent joint sets according to Eq. (22) modeling a rock mass containing non-persistent joints using
based on the geometric and mechanical parameters of joints and discrete element method. As stated by Kulatilake et al. (1992), it is
intact rocks. necessary to generate fictitious joints when they are combined
with the non-persistent joints and discretize the problem domain
into polygons in 2D space or into polyhedra in 3D space. The pro-
3. Analytical solution of the deformation modulus of a rock
posed fictitious joint (Fig. 6) is a kind of joint, whose mechanical
mass with non-persistent joints
properties are identical to those of intact rock. Kulatilake et al.
(1992) also suggested a method for estimating the normal and
3.1. The case with a single non-persistent joint
shear stiffnesses for the fictitious joint, which is expressed as

It is well known that there are a very limited number of actual 

cases where the joints are persistent, i.e. joints are usually non- Gr kfs ¼ 0:008 to 0:012 (23)
persistent. Therefore, this section will discuss a method for esti-
mating the deformation modulus of rock masses that contain non-
persistent joints.
There is no doubt that if the method for calculating the defor-
mation modulus of rock masses with persistent joints is applied to
rock masses with non-persistent joints, the obtained deformation
modulus will be smaller than the actual value. This underestima-
tion occurs because, for a rock mass with persistent joints, all
deformation along the plane of a given joint is due to the contri-
bution from the persistent joints, whereas for a rock mass with
non-persistent joints, the deformation is a combination of contri-
butions from the non-persistent joints and the rock bridges.
Furthermore, rock bridges are stiffer than joints under the same
load. Hence, the existence of a rock bridge can constrain the
deformation of non-persistent joints and result in a negative
contribution to the deformation of non-persistent joints.
It is obvious that the normal and shear stiffnesses can describe
the deformation capacity of joints in the normal and shear di-
rections, respectively. Similarly, the deformation and shear moduli Fig. 6. Adding fictitious joints to represent a non-persistent joint. lb is the length of the
can also describe the deformation capacity of a rock bridge in the rock bridge.

Fig. 5. Intersection situations of joints and boundaries: (a) All joints; (b) Joints intersecting the left and lower boundaries; and (c) Joints intersecting the right and upper boundaries.
The numbers of joints in (a), (b) and (c) are the same.
158 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168

  For persistent joints, k ¼ 1 and Eq. (30) reduces to Eq. (10).

kfn kfs ¼ Er Gr (24) Therefore, Eq. (30) is applicable to any type of joint, including
persistent and non-persistent joints.
where kfs and kfn are the shear and normal stiffnesses of the ficti-
tious joint, respectively; and Gr and Er are the shear and deforma-
tion moduli of the rock matrix, respectively. Fortunately, because
3.2. The case with multiple non-persistent joint sets
the rock bridge is a part of the rock, the normal and shear stiff-
nesses of the fictitious joint can be applied to quantitatively
For simplicity, first, a set of non-persistent joints is considered,
describing the deformation capacity of the rock bridge. After this
which is labeled j. Then, a scanline along the mean normal direction
process, the mechanical parameters that quantitatively describe
of joint set j is set, and the linear frequency along the scanline and
the deformation capacity of joint and rock bridge are unified.
the joint plane density are denoted lmj and lpj, respectively.
Similar to Eq. (10), the deformation of the rock bridge can be
Moreover, the relationship between lmj and lpj can be expressed as
given by
(Zheng et al., 2020):
" #
scos 3 q s sin q sinð2qÞ 
ub ¼ þ lb cos q L (25) l
kfn 2kfs lpj ¼    mj  (31)
E lj E lmj $nj

where ub is the rock bridge deformation that can contribute to the where nj is the unit normal vector of the joints and lmj is the unit
deformation modulus. vector of the scanline, which is in the mean normal direction of
Jennings (1970) computed the weighted mean for the shear joint set j. Therefore, the number of joints from set j can be
strength parameters of joint and rock bridge by regarding the expressed as
connectivity rate as the weight, and then the weighted mean was
taken as the shear strength of the rock masses. The detailed pro- l
mj
cesses in this computation can be expressed as Nj ¼ L2     (32)
E lj E lmj $nj
c ¼ kca þ ð1  kÞcb (26) Similar to Eq. (12), based on Eq. (30), the deformation of all non-
persistent joints from set j in the loading direction can be expressed
tan4 ¼ k tan4a þ ð1  kÞtan4b (27) as
h   s   s i
s ¼ c þ sn tan4 (28) unpaj ¼ Nj E f qj lj kj þ F qj lbj 1  kj (33)
L L
where ca and cb are the cohesions of the joint and rock bridge, "  #
respectively; 4a and 4b are the friction angles of the joint and rock   cos3 qj sin qj sin 2qj
bridge, respectively; and k is the connectivity rate of a non- F qj ¼ þ cos qj (34)
kfnj 2kfsj
persistent joint. Eqs. (26)e(28) are called the Jennings strength
criteria, which are widely used due to their simplicity and accuracy. where kj is the connectivity rate of one non-persistent joint from
Similarly, the weighted mean can also be applied to calculating the set j. We assume that the distributions of qj and the trace length lj of
deformation of non-persistent joints. More specifically, this process the joints are independent from each other, and the values of knj
can be described in three steps. For simplicity, a single non- and ksj of the joints from the same set are constant. Then, Eqs. (33)
persistent joint is considered. First, the connectivity rate should and (34) can be written as
be calculated. Subsequently, the deformation of the non-persistent
joint without constraints and the deformation of the rock bridge s n           o
corresponding to the non-persistent joint in the loading direction unpaj ¼ Nj E f qj E lj kj þ E F qj E lbj 1  kj (35)
L
should be represented by Eqs. (10) and (25), respectively. Finally,
the weighted mean of the two deformation components is calcu- "  #
  cos3 qj sin qj sin 2qj
lated using the connectivity rate as the weight, which is taken as F qj ¼ þ cos qj (36)
the deformation of the non-persistent joint in the loading direction kfn 2kfs
and can be expressed as
Moreover, according to the definition of expectation, substitut-
unpa ¼ kua þ ð1  kÞub (29) ing Eq. (32) into Eq. (35) can give

" Z ZþN
where unpa is the deformation in the loading direction of the non- mj l      
unpaj ¼ Ls     kj f qj gqj qj dqj lj glj lj dlj þ
persistent joint. Substituting Eqs. (10) and (25) into Eq. (29) results E lj E lmj $nj
in an equation of the deformation of the non-persistent joint in the wj 0
loading direction, which is expressed as

  Z ZþN #
        
scos3 q s sin q sinð2qÞ 1  kj F qj gqj qj dqj lb glb j lbj dlbj (37)
unpa ¼ þ l cos q L kþ
kn 2ks
wj 0
(" # )
scos3 q s sin q sinð2qÞ  where glb ðlb Þ is the probability density function of the rock bridge.
þ lb cos q L ð1  kÞ (30) Furthermore, if there are J sets of non-persistent joints in the area,
kfn 2kfs
Eq. (37) can be written as
 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168 159

Table 1
" Z ZþN Geometric parameters of the persistent joints for generating the DFN models.
X
J
mj l      
ua ¼ Ls     kj f qj gqj qj dqj lj glj lj dlj þ
E lj E lmj $nj Group Number of joint Set Intersection angle Joint position lmj
j¼1 wj No. sets No. ( ) distribution
0
1 1 1-1 - Uniform 2
2 2 2-1 0 2
Z ZþN # 2-2 0 2
       
3 2 3-1 15 2
1  kj F qj gqj qj dqj lb glb j lbj dlbj (38)
3-2 15 2
wj 0 4 2 4-1 30 2
4-2 30 2
In summary, the deformation modulus of rock masses with 5 2 5-1 45 2
joints can be estimated by combining Eqs. (1), (2), (19), (20) and 5-2 45 2
(38), the result of which can be expressed as 6 2 6-1 60 2
6-2 60 2
8 " Z 7 2 7-1 75 2
<XJ ZþN
lmj       7-2 75 2
Em ¼     kj f qj gqj qj dqj lj glj lj dlj þ 8 2 8-1 90 2
:
j¼1
E lj E lmj $nj
8-2 90 2
wj 0
Note: Group 2 has two joint sets with an intersection angle of 0 , which is a case that
is nearly nonexistent in natural rock masses. Here, this group is used to illustrate the

Z ZþN # )1 relation between the deformation modulus and the intersection angle of two
        1 persistent joint sets.
1  kj F qj gqj qj dqj lbj glb j lbj dlbj þ (39)
Er
wj 0

According to the definition of the expectation, Eq. (39) can be 5. Numerical validation of proposed method
rewritten as
5.1. A rock mass with persistent joint sets
8
<XJ
l     
Em ¼   
mj
 kj E f qj E lj þ 5.1.1. Procedure for the numerical experiments
: E l E
l

j¼1 j mj $nj To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed method for rock

      o 1 1
1  kj E F qj E lbj þ
Er
In practice, we can easily estimate the deformation modulus of a
rock mass with multiple non-persistent joint sets according to Eq.
(40) based on the geometric and mechanical parameters of joints
and intact rocks.
4. Anisotropy index for the deformation modulus of rock
masses
Generally, it is not easy to quantitatively represent the anisot-
ropy of the deformation modulus of a rock mass, since it is difficult
to obtain the values of the deformation modulus of a rock mass in
different directions. As described above, this study provides a
method to estimate the deformation modulus of a rock mass in any
direction, which makes it possible to quantitatively represent the
aforementioned anisotropy. Consequently, an anisotropy index for
the deformation modulus is defined as
Emmax  Emmin
AIdm ¼
Emmax
where Emmax and Emmin are the maximum and minimum values of
the deformation modulus of the rock mass in different directions,
respectively; and AIdm is the anisotropy index of the deformation
modulus. The following conclusions can be drawn from Eq. (41): (i)
if Emmax ¼ Emmin, all the values of the deformation modulus in the
different directions are equal, thus AIdm ¼ 0; (ii) if Emmax [ Emmin
or Emmin ¼ 0, then AIdm ¼ 1; and (iii) the range of AIdm is from 0 to 1,
and the more anisotropic the rock mass is, the larger the value of
AIdm will be. Note that a similar index was defined by Zheng et al.
(2020) to quantitatively represent the anisotropy of the perme-
ability of rock masses.
masses with persistent joint sets, some experiments were con-
(40) ducted with the universal distinct element code (UDEC) (Itasca,
2015). UDEC was originally formulated for evaluating fluid flow
paths through fractured rock masses and is currently used in nu-
merical experiments for determining the mechanical properties of
fractured rocks (Min et al., 2004). Several material behavior models
have been built in UDEC for both the intact blocks and joints, which
permit the simulation of response representative of jointed
geologic (or similar) materials. Based on a “Lagrangian” calculation
scheme, UDEC is well-suited to model the large movements and
deformations of a rock mass system. The joints in this study are
assigned to joint area contact model, which provides a linear rep-
resentation of joint stiffness and yield limit.
Eight 10 m  10 m discrete fracture network (DFN) models (i.e.
eight groups in Table 1) were generated by Monte Carlo simulations
in MATLAB and the coordinate data of fractures were saved. In
UDEC, it is not easy to mesh complex networks including many
nonparallel joints. Thus, in the simulations, the trace angles of the
joints from the same set were assigned constant values, i.e. parallel
joint sets were used in the simulations. Since the purpose of this
study is to investigate the deformation modulus in all directions, a
5 m  5 m block in the 10 m  10 m generated model rotates 15
(41) around the center of the zone in every rotation, from 0 to 345 , for
each DFN model (Fig. 8). Therefore, there are 24 blocks of 5 m  5 m
from each 10 m  10 m model (i.e. a group in Table 1) to be im-
ported to UDEC. Since the coordinate data of original joints were
saved before, the joint coordinate data within the range of
5 m  5 m after a certain angle of rotation can be obtained through
coordinate transformation. The related code for clipping and co-
ordinate transformation was developed in MATLAB. By applying a
unidirectional load on the upper and lower boundaries and
recording the corresponding stress and strain data, the stress-strain
curve of each 5 m  5 m DFN model can be obtained. It should be
noted that the value of the deformation modulus obtained by UDEC
is the slope (secant modulus) from the origin point to the point on
160 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168

Table 2
Mechanical parameters of joints and intact rock.

Group Number of joint Set Joints Intact rock

No. sets No.
kn (GPa/ ks (GPa/ Er Gr cr 4r
m) m) (GPa) (GPa) (MPa) ( )

1 1 1-1 20 15 50 20 20 40
2 2 2-1 20 15
2-2 20 5
3 2 3-1 20 15
3-2 20 5
4 2 4-1 20 15
4-2 20 5
5 2 5-1 20 15
5-2 20 5
6 2 6-1 20 15
6-2 20 5
7 2 7-1 20 15
7-2 20 5
8 2 8-1 20 15
8-2 20 5

Fig. 7. Calculation of deformation modulus based on the stress-strain curve from UDEC Note: cr and 4r are the cohesion and friction angle of the intact rock, respectively.
(a schematic diagram).

5 m  5 m block in the 10 m  10 m generated model rotates 15

the stress-strain curve where the stress is equal to half of the uni-
axial compressive strength, sc (Fig. 7). Some mechanical parame-
ters needed in this study are listed in Table 2.
5.1.2. Results and analysis
For Group 1, which has a set of persistent joints, the predicted
and numerical values of directional deformation modulus are
shown in Fig. 9. Note that (i) the directional deformation modulus
represents the deformation modulus in different directions; (ii) the
predicted values are obtained according to Eq. (22); (iii) the values
of the directional deformation modulus obtained from UDEC are
denoted as the numerical values; and (iv) as described above, the
around the center of the zone in every rotation, from 0 to 345 , for
each DFN model (Fig. 8), and so for each DFN model, there are 24
values of the deformation modulus in 24 directions.
The results in Fig. 9 show that the predicted values of the
deformation modulus in different directions are close to the nu-
merical values, and their change trends in different directions are
similar. To quantitatively compare the predicted and numerical
values of the directional deformation modulus, the mean error
rates are calculated for the 24 predicted values for this DFN model
and the mean value is 6.41%. Note that the mean error rate is the
mean value of the error rates in 24 directions, where for each di-
rection the error rate is equal to the ratio of numerical value minus
predicted value to the numerical value. In addition, the predicted
and numerical values of AIdm for Group 1 are calculated according
to Eq. (41) and the values are both equal to 0.85. By the above
analysis, it seems that the method for estimating the deformation
modulus of a rock mass with one persistent joint set is valid.

Fig. 8. The 5 m  5 m DFN models with two sets of persistent joints with an inter- Fig. 9. Predicted and numerical values of the directional deformation modulus of the
section angle of 30 (Group 4 in Table 1). Dimensions are in m. Note that there are DFN models with one set of persistent joints (Group 1). The values of the directional
twenty four 5 m  5 m blocks for each 10 m  10 m model, but eight models are shown deformation modulus from UDEC are regarded as the numerical values. The numbers
in this figure due to limited space. around the circle are in degree.
 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168 161

Fig. 10. Predicted and numerical values of directional deformation modulus of the DFN models containing two sets of persistent joints: (a) Group 2, (b) Group 3, (c) Group 4, (d)
Group 5, (e) Group 6, (f) Group 7, and (g) Group 8. The numbers around the circle are in degree.
162 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168
Fig. 10 shows the results of the directional deformation modulus
for the DFN models containing two sets of persistent joints with
different intersection angles (Groups 2e8). The results also indicate
that the predicted values are close to the numerical values, and
their change trends in different directions are similar. The mean
error rates are also calculated for 24 predicted values in each DFN
model, and the results are shown in Fig. 11. The following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
(1) When the intersection angle of the two persistent joint sets
varies between 0 and 90 , the mean error rate of the pre-
dicted values of the deformation modulus varies between
5.06% and 7.12%, all of which are at satisfactory levels.
(2) As the intersection angle of the two persistent joint sets in-
creases, the mean error rate of the predicted values of the
deformation modulus fluctuates by approximately 5.9%, i.e.
the error rate seems to have no relation with the intersection
angle of two joints.
(3) The error rates for the DFN models with two sets of persis-
tent joints are at the same levels as those with one persistent
set of joints; therefore, the error rate does not increase as the
number of joint sets increases.
The predicted and numerical values of AIdm for Groups 2e8 are
also calculated with Eq. (41), and the results are shown in Fig. 12.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) For different groups, the predicted values of AIdm are very
close to the numerical values, and all the error rates are less
than 12.71%.
(2) As the intersection angle of the two joint sets increases, the
values of AIdm decrease, i.e. the larger the intersection angle
of the two joint sets is, the less anisotropic the rock mass is,
which is sensible for a rock mass containing two sets of
joints.
(3) When the intersection angle of the two joint sets is 75 , AIdm
reaches the smallest value, i.e. the rock mass has the weakest
anisotropy. This is because the anisotropy of the deformation
modulus of a rock mass is related to the normal and shear
stiffnesses of joint sets in addition to the intersection angle of
the two joint sets. Fig. 12 further indicates that the proposed
method has a good capacity to estimate the deformation
Fig. 11. Mean error rates of the predicted and numerical values for Groups 2e8.
modulus of rock masses with two persistent joint sets and
can be the basis for studying the method of estimating rock
masses with non-persistent joints.
5.2. A rock mass with non-persistent joint sets
5.2.1. Procedure for the numerical experiments
To evaluate the method developed for a rock mass with non-
persistent joint sets in this study, some experiments were also
conducted with the UDEC (Table 3). Although it is easy to model
rock masses with persistent joints in UDEC, it is difficult to model
rock masses with non-persistent joints in UDEC. Fortunately, a
fictitious joint is introduced to solve this problem. The fictitious
joint as proposed by Kulatilake et al. (1992) is a kind of joint whose
mechanical properties are identical to those of intact rock (Fig. 6).
Therefore, it is necessary to add fictitious joints for each non-
persistent joint. To improve efficiency, a MATLAB code is devel-
oped to add fictitious joints for each non-persistent joint in this
study. The coordinates of the non-persistent joints are input into
the code, and the resulting output can be input to UDEC. DFN
models with non-persistent joints (Fig. 13) were generated ac-
cording to Table 3. Then, through the above code and the same
process as described in Section 5.1.1, the deformation modulus of
each 5 m  5 m DFN model can be obtained.
Note that the value of Gr/kfs in Eq. (23) is assigned as 0.01 while
using Eq. (40) to calculate the value of deformation modulus, which
is the middle of the range of values. Huang and Huang (1998)
derived a formula to estimate the connectivity rate based on the
measuring window method, and this formula can be expressed as
n1j þ 2n0j
kj ¼ (42)
2Nj þ n2j
where n1j is the number of joints that are visible at one end from set
j, n2j is the number of joints that are visible at both ends from set j,
and n0j is the number of joints that are not visible at both ends from
set j. The connectivity rate of a rock mass can be estimated by Eq.
(40) through the application of a measuring window. Hence, Eq.
(42) was used to calculate the connectivity rate of a rock mass
found in Eq. (40).
Fig. 12. Comparison between the predicted and numerical values of AIdm for Groups
2e8.
 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168 163

Table 3
Geometric parameters of the non-persistent joints for generating the DFN models.

Group No. Number of joint sets Set No. Trace length Intersection angle ( ) Joint position distribution lmj
Expected value (m) Standard deviation (m) Distribution

9 1 9-1 1 0.1 Normal - Uniform 2

10 1 10-1 2 0.2 - 4
11 1 11-1 3 0.3 - 6
12 1 12-1 4 0.4 - 8
13 1 13-1 5 0.5 - 10
14 2 14-1 1 0.1 0 2
14-2 1 0.1 0 2
15 2 15-1 1 0.1 15 2
15-2 1 0.1 15 2
16 2 16-1 1 0.1 30 2
16-2 1 0.1 30 2
17 2 17-1 1 0.1 45 2
17-2 1 0.1 45 2
18 2 18-1 1 0.1 60 2
18-2 1 0.1 60 2
19 2 19-1 1 0.1 75 2
19-2 1 0.1 75 2
20 2 20-1 1 0.1 90 2
20-2 1 0.1 90 2

Note: Group 14 has two non-persistent joint sets with an intersection angle of 0 , which is a case that is nearly nonexistent in natural rock masses. Here, this group is used to
illustrate the relation between the deformation modulus and the intersection angle of two non-persistent joint sets.

(1) When the expected value of the trace length of the joint set
varies from 1 m to 5 m, the mean error rate of the predicted
deformation modulus varies between 12.16% and 20.75%.
(2) As the expected value of the trace length increases, the mean
error rate of the predicted deformation modulus first in-
creases and then remains relatively stable. This is likely
caused by the boundary effect of the joints (Zheng et al.,
2015), which increases as the size of the joints increases.
This boundary effect indicates that some of the joints that
intersect the 5 m  5 m block have center points outside of
the 5 m  5 m block.
(3) In addition, the reason that the results of Groups 11e13 have
relatively large mean error rates than those of Groups 9 and
10 (Fig. 15) is that most of the deformation moduli in
different directions of Groups 11e13 are relatively smaller
than those of Groups 9 and 10 (Fig. 14), and a same absolute
error will bring a larger relative error rate. Actually, the ab-
solute errors of Groups 11e13 seem to be smaller than those
of Groups 9 and 10 (Fig. 14).

In order to evaluate the error caused by this method in esti-

Fig. 13. The 5 m  5 m DFN models with two sets of joints with an intersection angle of
30 (Group 16). Dimensions are in m. Note that there are twenty four 5 m  5 m blocks
for each 10 m  10 m model, but eight models are shown in this figure due to limited
space.
5.2.2. Results and analysis
The results in Fig. 14 show that the predicted values of the
deformation modulus in different directions are very close to the
numerical values, and their change trends in different directions
are similar. To quantitatively compare the predicted and numerical
values of the directional deformation modulus, the mean error
rates are also calculated for the 24 predicted values for each DFN
model, and the results are shown in Fig. 15. The following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
mating the deformation modulus of rock mass, the results ob-
tained by the proposed method and some empirical and test
methods are compared. As for in situ tests, Bieniawski (1989)
stated that ‘very different in situ results may be obtained depend-
ing on the test method. Even in an extensive in situ test program in
fairly uniform and good quality rock mass conditions, deformability
data may feature a deviation of 25%, or as much as 10 GPa’. For
laboratory tests, Farmer and Kemeny (1992) found that the re-
sults from laboratory tests are 5e20 times higher than those of
the in situ test, which may due to the failure of the specimen size
to reach the representative elementary volume (REV) of the rock
mass. Even for empirical methods, the error is inevitable. With
respect to a rock mass with GSI ¼ 70, disturbance factor D ¼ 0,
and intact rock deformation modulus Er ¼ 50 GPa, Shen et al.
(2012) applied three empirical equations proposed by Carvalho
(2004), Sonmez et al. (2004), and Hoek and Diederichs (2006)
to calculate the deformation modulus of the rock mass, and the
results are equal to 21.7 GPa, 25.6 GPa, and 36.6 GPa, respectively.
164 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168

Fig. 14. Predicted and numerical values of the directional deformation modulus of the DFN models with one set of joints: (a) Group 9, (b) Group 10, (c) Group 11, (d) Group 12, and
(e) Group 13. The numbers around the circle are in degree.

The difference between the maximum and minimum values is up
to (36.6e21.7)/21.7 ¼ 69%. Besides, some scholars (Aksoy et al.,
2012; Karaman et al., 2015) have also studied the differences
between different empirical methods, which can even reach
several times. Therefore, the mean error rate of approximately
16% for all cases with one set of joints indicates that the proposed
method for estimating the deformation modulus is valid.
In addition, the predicted and numerical values of AIdm for
Groups 9e13 are calculated according to Eq. (41), and the results
are shown in Fig. 16. This figure shows that for different groups,
the predicted values of AIdm are very close to the numerical
values, and all the error rates are less than 17%. Moreover, with
an increase in the expected value of the trace length of the joints,
the values of AIdm increase, i.e. the larger the joint sizes are, the
more anisotropic the rock mass is, which is sensible for a rock
mass containing one set of joints. Fig. 16 presents a comparison
between the predicted and real anisotropies, which further in-
dicates that the developed method has a good capacity to esti-
mate the deformation modulus of jointed rock masses with one
set of joints.
 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168
Fig. 15. Mean error rates of the predicted and numerical values for Groups 9e13.
Fig. 16. Comparison between the predicted and numerical values of AIdm for Groups
9e13.
Fig. 17 shows the results of the directional deformation modulus
for the DFN models containing two sets of non-persistent joints
with different intersection angles (Groups 14e20). The results also
indicate that the predicted values are close to the numerical values,
and their change trends in different directions are similar. The
mean error rates are calculated for 24 predicted values in each DFN
model, and the results are plotted in Fig. 18. The following con-
clusions can be drawn:
(1) When the intersection angle of the two joint sets varies be-
tween 0 and 90 , the mean error rate of the predicted values
of the deformation modulus varies between 12.98% and
22.03%, all of which are at satisfactory levels.
(2) As the intersection angle of the two joint sets increases, the mean
error rate of the predicted values of the deformation modulus
fluctuates by approximately 17%, i.e. the error rate seems to have
no relation with the intersection angle of two joints.
(3) A comparison of Figs. 15 and 18 shows that the error rates for
the DFN models with two sets of joints are at the same level
as those with one set of joints. Hence, the error rate does not
increase as the number of joint sets increases.
165
The predicted and real values of AIdm for Groups 14e20 are also
calculated using Eq. (41), and the results are shown in Fig. 19. The
following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) For different groups, the predicted values of AIdm are very
close to the numerical values, and the mean errors rates are
less than 12.71%.
(2) Overall, as the intersection angle of the two joint sets increases,
the values of AIdm decrease, i.e. the larger the intersection angle
of the two joint sets is, the less anisotropic the rock mass is,
which is sensible for a rock mass containing two sets of joints.
(3) When the intersection angle of the two joint sets is 75 , AIdm
reaches the smallest value, i.e. the rock mass has the weakest
anisotropy. This is because the anisotropy of the deformation
modulus of a rock mass is related to the normal and shear
stiffnesses of joint sets in addition to the intersection angle of
the two joint sets.
(4) The anisotropy variation laws with the intersection angle
for deformation modulus of rock mass with non-
persistent joints are similar to that of the rock mass
with persistent joints. Fig. 19 further indicates that the
developed method has a good capacity to estimate the
deformation modulus of jointed rock masses with two
non-persistent joint sets.
In conclusion, the above error analysis shows that the
analytical method for estimating deformation modulus proposed
in this study is validated, but for parts of the cases, the error
rates reach 20%. Therefore, to obtain reliable results of defor-
mation modulus of rock masses, we recommend combining the
multiple methods.
6. Discussion
The proposed method can only be applied to a rock mass
having a REV. Because if a REV does not exist, the equivalent
continuum model cannot be used to analyze the deformation
behaviors of the rock mass. Therefore, the size of the analyzed
rock mass should not be less than its REV when using the
developed method.
The proposed method requires the values of the normal and
shear stiffnesses, which can be obtained from uniaxial
compression tests and shear tests. These test methods are
relatively cheap and easy to perform, which increases the
practicality of the method proposed in this study. In addition,
the developed formula incorporates the variations in the ori-
entations and sizes of joint sets. Note that in the numerical
validation experiments, parallel joints are used for the same
sets, because when a complicated nonparallel and non-
persistent joint network is input to UDEC, it requires fine
meshing, and the computation process is likely to fail. Hence,
UDEC does not have sufficient capacity to deal with a compli-
cated nonparallel and non-persistent joint network. However, it
is very convenient to use the proposed method to deal with the
aforementioned complicated networks. For example, when the
trace angle in Group 9 is normally distributed with a standard
deviation of 5 , the predicted values of the directional defor-
mation modulus of this case are plotted in Fig. 20. Moreover, the
proposed method can reflect the directional deformation
modulus and quantitatively describe the degree of anisotropy of
rock masses.
Considering that it is not easy to perform a validation procedure
for 3D complicated joint networks, the proposed method is
developed in 2D space. However, actual rock masses exist in 3D
space, and their deformation behaviors usually have obvious 3D
166 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168

Fig. 17. Predicted and numerical values of directional deformation modulus of the DFN models containing two sets of joints: (a) Group 14, (b) Group 15, (c) Group 16, (d) Group 17,
(e) Group 18, (f) Group 19, and (g) Group 20. The numbers around the circle are in degree.
 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168
Fig. 18. Mean error rates of the predicted and numerical values for Groups 14e20.
Fig. 19. Comparison between the predicted and numerical values of AIdm for Groups
14e20.
Fig. 20. Predicted values of the deformation modulus when the joint angle in Group 9
is normally distributed and the standard deviation is 5 . The numbers around the circle
are in degree.
167
effects. Therefore, the proposed method will be extended to 3D
space in future research.
Finally, since it is extremely difficult to carry out a verification
test of this method in practice, the proposed method was only
evaluated by numerical modeling herein. Therefore, the proposed
method must still be tested in practical applications.
7. Conclusions
A new method for estimating the deformation modulus of
jointed rock masses is proposed. The developed formula (Eq. (39) or
(40)) incorporates the variations in the orientations and sizes of the
joint sets and can accordingly be used to study the directional
deformation modulus of jointed rock masses. Moreover, an
anisotropy index for the deformation modulus AIdm is defined to
quantitatively describe the deformation modulus anisotropy.
Moreover, some numerical experiments were conducted with
UDEC to evaluate the method proposed in this study. The results
show that the predicted values of the deformation modulus are
close to the numerical values, and the specific results are summa-
rized as follows:
(1) For a rock mass with a set of persistent joints, the mean error
rate of the deformation modulus in 24 directions is 6.41%.
When the intersection angle of the two persistent joint sets
varies between 0 and 90 , the error rate of the predicted
values of the deformation modulus varies between 5.06% and
7.12%.
(2) For a rock mass with one non-persistent joint set, when the
expected value of the trace length of the joint set varies from
1 m to 5 m, the mean error rate of the predicted values of the
deformation modulus varies between 12.16% and 20.75%, all
of which are at satisfactory levels. Moreover, the larger the
joint sizes are, the more anisotropic the rock mass is.
(3) For a rock mass containing two non-persistent joint sets,
when the intersection angle of the two joint sets varies be-
tween 0 and 90 , the mean error rate of the predicted values
of the deformation modulus varies between 12.98% and
22.03%, all of which are at satisfactory levels. Moreover, the
larger the intersection angle of the two joint sets is, the less
anisotropic the rock mass is.
Therefore, the proposed method for estimating the deformation
modulus is valid. In addition, this method lays a foundation for
future studies on estimating the deformation modulus in 3D space.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of
China (Grant Nos. 2017YFE0119500 and 2018YFC1505005), and the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
41972264).
References
Adeyemi, E.A., Wang, Y., 2019. Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus using
indirect information from multiple sources. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 85,
76e83.
Ajalloeian, R., Mohammadi, M., 2014. Estimation of limestone rock mass deforma-
tion modulus using empirical equations. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 73, 541e550.
168 B. Zhang et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 14 (2022) 153e168
Aksoy, C., Genis, M., Aldas, G.U., Ozacar, V., Ozer, S., Yilmaz, O., 2012. A comparative
study of the determination of rock mass deformation modulus by using
different empirical approaches. Eng. Geol. 131e132, 19e28.
Alnedawi, A., Nepal, K.P., Alameri, R., 2019. Effect of vertical stress rest period on
deformation behaviour of unbound granular materials: experimental and nu-
merical investigations. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 11 (1), 172e180.
Alemdag, S., Gurocak, Z., Cevik, A., Cabalar, A.F., Gokceoglu, 2016. Modeling defor-
mation modulus of a stratified sedimentary rock mass using neural network,
fuzzy inference and genetic programming. Eng. Geol. 203, 70e82.
Ali, B., Morteza, B., Alireza, T., 2011. Estimation of deformation modulus of rock
masses by using fuzzy clustering-based modeling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 48,
1224e1234.
Amadei, B., Savage, W.Z., 1993. Effect of joints on rock mass strength and deform-
ability. In: Hudson, J.A. (Ed.), Comprehensive Rock Engineering d Principle,
Practice and Projects. Pergamon, London, UK, pp. 331e365.
Asadizadeh, M., Hossaini, M.F., 2016. Predicting rock mass deformation modulus by
artificial intelligence approach based on dilatometer tests. Arab. J. Geosci. 9 (2),
1e15.
Bahaaddini, M., Hosseinpour, M.E., 2019. Evaluation of empirical approaches in
estimating the deformation modulus of rock masses. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 78
(5), 3493e3507.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1978. Determining rock mass deformability: experience from case
histories. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 15 (5), 237e247.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley, New York, USA.
Carvalho, J., 2004. Estimation of Rock Mass Modulus. Personal communication.
Chun, B.S., Ryu, W.R., Sagong, M., Do, J.N., 2009. Indirect estimation of the rock
deformation modulus based on polynomial and multiple regression analyses of
the RMR system. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 46, 649e658.
Farmer, I.W., Kemeny, J.M., 1992. Deficiencies in rock test data. In: Proceedings of
the ISRM Symposium: Eurock’92. Thomas Telford, London, UK, pp. 298e303.
Fossum, A.F., 1985. Effective elastic properties for a randomly jointed rock mass. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 22 (6), 467e470.
Gerrard, C.M., 1982. Elastic models of rock masses having one, two and three sets of
joints. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 19, 15e23.
Goodman, R.E., 1989. Introduction to Rock Mechanics, second ed. Wiley, New York,
USA.
Goodman, R.E., Taylor, R.L., Brekke, T.L., 1968. A model for the mechanics of jointed
rock. J. Soil Mech. Found. 194 (3), 637e659.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 2019. The HoekeBrown failure criterion and GSI e 2018
edition. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 11 (3), 445e463.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (8), 1165e1186.
Hoek, E., Diederichs, M.S., 2006. Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43, 203e215.
Huang, G., Huang, R., 1998. Estimating connectivity rate of discontinuities by
measuring window. Hydrogeol. Eng. Geol. 6, 29e32.
Itasca, 2015. UDEC User’s Guide. Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, Min-
nesota, USA.
Jennings, J.E., 1970. A mathematical theory for the calculation of the stability of
open cast mines. In: Van Rensburg, P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on
the Theoretical Background to the Planning of Open Pit Mines, with Special
Reference to Slope Stability. Johannesburg, South Africa, pp. 87e102.
Karaman, K., Cihangir, F., Kesimal, A., 2015. A comparative assessment of rock mass
deformation modulus. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 25, 735e740.

Kavur, B., Stambuk Cvitanovi
c, N., Hr
zenjak, P., 2015. Comparison between plate
jacking and large flat jack test results of rock mass deformation modulus. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 73, 102e114.
Kayabasi, A., Gokceoglu, B., Ercanoglu, M., 2003. Estimating the deformation
modulus of rock masses: a comparative study. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40,
55e63.
Khabbazi, A., Ghafoori, M., Lashkaripour, G.R., Cheshomi, A., 2013. Estimation of the
rock mass deformation modulus using a rock classification system. Geo-
mechanics Geoengin. 8, 46e52.
Kulatilake, P.H.S.W., Ucpirti, H., Radberg, G., Stephansson, O., 1992. Use of the
distinct element method to perform stress analysis in rock with non-persistent
joints and to study the effect of joint geometry parameters on the strength and
deformability of rock masses. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 25 (4), 253e274.
Lai, H., Zheng, H., Chen, R., Kang, Z., Liu, Y., 2020. Settlement behaviors of existing
tunnel caused by obliquely under-crossing shield tunneling in close proximity
with small intersection angle. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 97, 103258.
Li, C., 2001. A method for graphically presenting the deformation modulus of
jointed rock masses. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 34 (1), 67e75.
Martins, F.F., Miranda, T.F.S., 2012. Estimation of the rock deformation Modulus and
RMR based on data mining techniques. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 30, 787e801.
Min, K.B., Jing, L., Stephansson, O., 2004. Determining the equivalent permeability
tensor for fractured rock masses using a stochastic REV approach: method and
application to the field data from Sellafield, UK. Hydrogeol. J. 12 (5), 497e510.
Mo, P., Fang, Y., Yu, H.S., 2020. Benchmark solutions of large-strain cavity contrac-
tion for deep tunnel convergence in geomaterials. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng.
12 (3), 596e607.
Mohammad, R., Mostafa, A., Abbas, M., Mohammad, F.H., 2015. Prediction of
representative deformation modulus of longwall panel roof rock strata using
Mamdani fuzzy system. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 25, 23e30.
Morland, L.W., 1974. Continuum model of regularly jointed mediums. J. Geophys.
Res. 79 (2), 357e362.
Nicholson, G.A., Bieniawski, Z.T., 1990. A nonlinear deformation modulus based on
rock mass classification. Int. J. Min. Geol. Eng. 8, 181e202.
Palmström, A., Singh, R., 2011. The deformation modulus of rock masses d com-
parisons between in situ tests and indirect estimates. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 16, 115e131.
Panthee, S., Singh, P.K., Kainthola, A., Singh, N.T., 2016. Control of rock joint pa-
rameters on deformation of tunnel opening. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 8 (4),
489e498.
Rocha, M., 1974. Present possibilities of studying foundations of concrete dams. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Rock Mechanics, pp. 879e896.
Serafim, J.L., Pereira, J.P., 1983. Consideration of the geomechanics classification of
Bieniawski. In: International Symposium on Engineering Geology and Under-
ground Construction, pp. 1133e1144.
Shen, J.Y., Karakus, M., Xu, C.S., 2012. A comparative study for empirical equations in
estimating deformation modulus of rock masses. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
32, 245e250.
Singh, M., Rao, K.S., Ramamurthy, T., 2002. Strength and deformational behaviour of
a jointed rock mass. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 35 (1), 45e64.
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. 41, 849e857.
Sonmez, H., Gokceoglu, C., Nefeslioglu, H.A., Kayabasi, A., 2006. Estimation of rock
modulus: for intact rocks with an artificial neural network and for rock masses
with a new empirical equation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43, 224e235.
Vrkljan, I., Kavur, B., Mehinrad, A., Ghiassi, S., 1995. Rock mass deformability by
extra large flat jack (ELFJ), plate load (PLT) and dilatometer testing. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 8th International Congress on Rock Mechanics, pp. 185e191.
Wong, L., Einstein, H.H., 2009. Systematic evaluation of cracking behavior in spec-
imens containing single flaws under uniaxial compression. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 46 (2), 239e249.
Yang, J., Chen, W., Dai, Y., 2011. Study of scale effect of deformation modulus for
fractured rock mass - part II: analytical method. Rock Soil Mech. 32 (6), 1607e
1612.
Zhang, L., Einstein, H.H., 2004. Using RQD to estimate the deformation modulus of
rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41, 337e341.
Zhang, L., 2010. Method for estimating the deformability of heavily jointed rock
masses. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 136 (9), 1242e1250.
Zheng, J., Deng, J., Zhang, G., Yang, X., 2015. Validation of Monte Carlo simulation for
discontinuity locations in space. Comput. Geotech. 67, 103e109.
Zheng, J., Kulatilake, P.H.S.W., Shu, B., Sherizadeh, T., Deng, J., 2014a. Probabilistic
block theory analysis for a rock slope at an open pit mine in USA. Comput.
Geotech. 61, 254e265.
Zheng, J., Deng, J., Yang, X., Wei, J., Zheng, H., Cui, Y., 2014b. An improved Monte
Carlo simulation method for discontinuity orientations based on Fisher distri-
bution and its program implementation. Comput. Geotech. 61, 266e276.
Zheng, J., Wang, X., Lü, Q., Sun, H., Guo, J., 2020. A new determination method for
the permeability tensor of fractured rock masses. J. Hydrol. 585, 124811.
Zheng, J., Zhao, Y., Lü, Q., Liu, T., Deng, J., Chen, R., 2017. Estimation of the three-
dimensional density of discontinuity systems based on one-dimensional mea-
surements. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 94, 1e9.
Zhou, S., Xia, C., Zhou, Y., 2018. A theoretical approach to quantify the effect of
random cracks on rock deformation in uniaxial compression. J. Geophys. Eng. 15
(3), 627e637.
Jun Zheng is an Associate Professor and a doctoral su-
pervisor in College of Civil Engineering and Architecture at
Zhejiang University, China. He obtained his Joint PhD in
geotechnical engineering from Sichuan University (China)
and the University of Arizona (USA) in 2014. He was a
Visiting Scholar at Delft University of Technology in 2016.
His research interests are in rock mechanics and geohazard
prevention and mitigation, particularly including (1) geo-
metric model and computer simulation of rock mass
structures; (2) relationship between geometric model and
mechanical behaviors of rock masses; (3) application of
artificial intelligence in rapid acquisition of geometric pa-
rameters of rock discontinuities; and (4) probabilistic sta-
bility analysis of rock masses. He is responsible for two
projects sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and has
published over 60 scientific papers. Dr. Zheng has won several awards including
Excellent Doctoral Dissertation Award of Chinese Society for Rock Mechanics and
Engineering (CSRME) in 2016 and Natural Science Award of CSRME in 2018. He was
selected in Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by China Association for Sci-
ence and Technology (CAST) in 2018. He is serving as a young editorial board member
of an international journal and a specially invited editorial board member of a do-
mestic journal, and has served as a reviewer for about 28 rock mechanics/geotechnical/
engineering geology journals.