Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2022) 15:1559

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10839-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Assessment of rock mass quality and deformation modulus

by empirical methods in Nepal Himalaya
Kanchan Chaulagai1 · Ranjan Kumar Dahal1 · Kobid Panthi2

Received: 13 April 2022 / Accepted: 11 September 2022

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2022

Abstract
Several rock mass properties need to be determined for engineering project execution; among them, rock mass quality and the
deformation modulus have a vital importance for the design and successful execution of rock engineering projects. Estimation
of deformation modulus of rock mass is done by in situ measurement as well as existing empirical relationship derived from
various rock mass classification system. In situ tests are more time-consuming, more expensive, and have operation difficul-
ties. In contrast, estimation of deformation modulus by rock mass classification system is very simple, less time-consuming,
and economical but due to a large number of existing empirical equations, the question arises to which empirical relationship
provides the most reliable estimation of the deformation modulus. This paper will review and compare the performance of
existing empirical equations derived from rock mass classification system, RMR, Q, and GSI on Nepal Himalayan terrain.
For the purpose of the study, the data obtained from Headrace tunnel of upper Chaku A hydroelectric project was used. The
RMR, Q, and GSI values were calculated along the headrace tunnel for the assessment of rock mass. The values of Em were
calculated using the existing empirical equations based on the RMR, Q, and GSI. The estimated values of Em by various
equations are compared with respect to variation trend of rock mass quality of study area. The relationships between Em and
RMR, Em and Q, and Em and GSI were obtained via simple regression analysis using geometric average Em. The proposed
equations were validated from the field investigation results of deformation modulus.

Keywords Deformation modulus · Rock mass classification · Empirical relationships · In situ measurements

Introduction The existing empirical equations have been the valuable

In rock engineering, design and execution of several values
of rock mass properties are required. These values are gen-
erated from the laboratory tests, specific site measurement,
or by indirect approaches. As far as possible, these values
should be taken from laboratory and in situ field measure-
ment test for realistic design. It is not always possible for
the designer to adopt it in all cases and circumstances due to
nature of project, its size, cost, and time; hence, they have to
choose alternative method for generating the required data.
Responsible Editor: Zeynal Abiddin Erguler
* Kanchan Chaulagai
geologistkanchan@gmail.com
1
Central Department of Geology, Tribhuvan University,
Kathmandu, Nepal
2
Chilime Engineering and Services Company Limited,
Kathmandu, Nepal
assets for these works in present.
The deformation modulus has a vital importance for
the design and successful execution of rock engineering
projects among several other rock mass properties. The
deformation modulus can be determined in the field by
plate jacking, plate loading, radial jacking, flat jack, cable
jack, Goodman jack, pressuremeter, and dilatometer tests
(Bahaaddini & Hosseinpour Moghadam 2018; Kayabasi
et al. 2003). These in situ tests are not easy and simple to
carry out in every terrain and topography which requires
extensive and difficult procedures to execute (Alemdag
et al. 2015). Most of these tests are costly, have operation
difficulties, and are time-consuming. Therefore, the project
incapable of executing filed test measurement is attracted
towards the indirect estimation of the Em from the empiri-
cal equation. Em is estimated indirectly from classification
systems such as rock mass rating (RMR), rock mass qual-
ity (Q), and geological strength index (GSI) (Barton et al.
1974; Bieniawski 1989; Hoek & Brown 1997). Several

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1559 Page 2 of 12
researchers have developed multiple empirical equation
for the determination of Em values for each rock mass
classification system (RMR, Q, and GSI) (Ajalloeian and
Mohammadi 2013; Alemdag et al. 2015; Aydan et al.
1997; Barton 2002; Bieniawski 1978; Chun et al. 2006;
Gokceoglu et al. 2003; Hoek and Brown 1997; Isik et al.
2008; Kang et al. 2012; Kavur et al. 2015; Khabbazi et al.
2013; Palmstrom and Singh 2001). These equations are
commonly used but have some limitations due to the vol-
ume of data set and type of rock mass used while devel-
oping those parameters as the empirical equation. There-
fore, proper attention should be paid while using it. One
of the major difficulties in using the one or more exist-
ing empirical equations arises from the fact that different
results are obtained by different empirical equations. It is
often difficult or even impossible to decide which method
is most accurate for designer to use. In these situations,
the designer often prefers to use the average design values
obtained from several equations.
The rock mass of Himalayan Geology is very complex
in nature and it is influence by tectonic activities associ-
ated by its adjoining region (Panthee et al. 2016). Intact
rock mass having similar engineering property is very
often or rarely found in these region. Variation in the rock
types, lithology, characteristic, and properties is common
within the project that has constructed or is in construc-
tion phases. In these situations, to perform the in situ test
is more time-consuming, more expensive, and has various
operation difficulties. The concept of using average design
values obtained from several empirical equation despite of
in situ measurement will be more suitable and realistic in
the context of Himalayan rock mass. The main purpose of
this paper is to assess the performances of these empirical
equations and to derive a new expression which can be
used for rock masses of Himalayan region.
Study area
The Upper Chaku-A hydroelectric project is a run of river
scheme hydropower project located in Sindhupalchowk
District of Bagmati Province, Nepal, as shown in Fig. 1.
The project area lies along the middle reach of Chaku
Khola which is a main tributary of Bhotekoshi River hav-
ing a number of potential sites for hydropower projects
at downstream area. Geographically, the project area is
located in between the longitudes 85°58′06″E and lati-
tude 27°51′32″N (at headwork site) and 85°55′47″E and
27°52′31″N (at powerhouse site). The project area belongs
to the middle mountains and lies in between 1300 and
2200 m above mean sea level. The headwork and the pow-
erhouse sites are located at elevation of about 2175 m and
1360 m respectively.
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1559
Data and methods
Data
For the surface geology of the project area, tunnel routes were
divided into various segment and various traverses were made
to mark geological contacts that exist in the vicinity area. The
engineering geological map of the particular project area is
prepared by mapping the surface outcrops using geological
compass, geological hammer altimeter, GPS, and measuring
tape. During the field work, the major structural features such
as strike, dip and dip direction of bedding, foliation, and joint
condition were measured according to International Society for
Rock Mechanics in several places as well as field identification
of the fault and shear zones. For the underground geology,
the data were collected after each face blast along the head-
race tunnel. The physical parameters of discontinuities such
as orientation, spacing, persistence, aperture, roughness, joint
set number, infilling material, and ground water conditions
were measured.
Methodology
In situ test such as pressure meter tests is not available or
not affordable in all the project area in undeveloped coun-
tries. The size of project determines the kind of test that
the project can afford. In these prospects, the best method
to determine the deformation analysis is using existing
empirical equations derived from different classification
system. In this research work, the regression model was
developed based on existing empirical equations derived
from RMR, Q, and GSI.
Efforts are made here to evaluate the relationships between
the each RMR, Q, and GSI with Em. For these purposes, field
data obtained from Upper Chaku A hydroelectric project have
been utilized (Fig. 1). Simple regression analysis was per-
formed to obtain the relationship between the RMR and Em,
Q and Em, and GSI and Em using the data from the project site.
The strengths and weaknesses of the developed equation were
examined. The proposed regression analysis has been validated
from deformation modulus obtained from the field investigation
results of Arun III hydroelectric project, Nepal (Nepal 1999).
The strength and weakness of the developed equations have
been examined by comparing the estimated Em values with
the experimental Em values with respect to R2. The proposed
regression model is expected to be useful in future design appli-
cations in the same terrain and Nepal Himalayan.
Upper Chaku A hydroelectric project
The Upper Chaku-A hydroelectric project is a run of the
river scheme designed to diverts 3.25m3 flow from Chaku
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1559 Page 3 of 12 1559

Fig. 1  Project location map

13
1559 Page 4 of 12
Khola by approx. 20-m-long concrete gravity type Diversion
Weir with side intake and then to the Desanding Basin. The
discharge of the Thultokuna Khola dropping to the Chaku
Khola will also be diverted and connected just upstream
of the Desander. Then after, about 2470.3-m-long inverted
D shape 2.50 m diameter headrace tunnel will connect the
water way to the Surge Tank. To the downstream of the surge
tank, partly surface and partly underground penstock pipe
transport the water to the powerhouse located on right bank
of Chaku Khola. Finally, the water will be diverted to the
Chaku Khola again through a cut and cover type Tailrace
Conduit.
Geology of the project area
In regional geological framework, the area lies in the lesser
Himalayan midland zone covered by thick monotonous,
clastic sediments consisting of Quartzite, Phyllite, Schist,
and Gneiss. The rocks of the project area are divided into
three units, i.e., Benighat Slate, Robang formation, and Dhad
Khola gneiss. Structurally, it is bounded by Main Central
Thrust in the north and Baramchi Reverse Fault in the south.
Imbrications of these major discontinuities and lineaments
can be seen along the streams dropping in Chaku Khola. The
headwork area and the tunnel alignment up to the surge tank
are mainly covered by strong blocky augen gneiss, magmatic
gneiss, and mica schist. The geology of the tunnel alignment
is as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Within the two valley slopes,
the rock exposures show distinct structural control of dip
Fig. 2  Plan view showing geol-
ogy of the tunnel alignment
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1559
direction forming a counter dip slope condition along the
right bank valley and oblique dip and/or dip slope condition
in the left bank slope. Comparatively, the quality of rock
exposures is feeble in the left bank slope, and a number of
unstable slopes are formed around the lower part of Dinthan
area.
Characteristics of headrace tunnel
The headrace tunnel is inverted-D shaped tunnel having
length of 2470.3 m and diameter of 2.5 m. The tunnel align-
ment passes through the rocky mountain ridge with mini-
mum cover of 100 m horizontally and 130 m vertically. The
invert level at inlet portal of headrace tunnel is 2168 m and
the outlet portal at the elevation of 2165.67 m with horizon-
tal slope of 1:1000. The detail lithology of Upper Chaku-A
HEP along with RMR, Q, and GSI is as presented in Table 1.
The rock type encounter along the tunnel alignment is
augen gneiss, migmatic gneiss, and mica schist. The augen
gneiss is composed of quartz, feldspar, and mica with
medium to coarse grained, crystalline, and jointed mica-
ceous rock with minor degree of weathering. The rock is
dominated by hard minerals (feldspar and quartz) having
medium to high strength. The augen gneiss is exposed
around the headwork area and inlet portion of the tunnel
alignment. The migmatic gneiss is located downstream from
adit area up to the outlet portal area. It is gray to greenish
white in color, medium to coarse grained, and has a compo-
sitional banding structure with mafic and felsic layer which
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1559 Page 5 of 12 1559

Fig. 3  Longitudinal profile of tunnel alignment

Table 1  RMR, Q, and GSI Lithology Chainage RMR Q GSI

based on various lithology for
Upper Chaku-A HEP From To Max Min Average Max Min Average Max Min Average

Augen Gneiss 0 + 000.0 1 + 030.0 80 25 52.4 15.0 0.17 5.4 68 49 59.0

Gneiss 1 + 030.0 1 + 175.0 72 34 56 15.0 0.83 6.2 68 49 60.7
Augen Gneiss 1 + 175.0 1 + 385.3 69 23 53.5 12.5 0.22 5.8 67 49 59.6
Gneiss 1 + 385.3 1 + 460.3 71 63 67 15.0 7.50 11.0 68 63 65.3
Augen Gneiss 1 + 460.3 1 + 640.0 70 28 62 15.0 0.22 8.4 68 49 62.9
Gneiss 1 + 640.0 1 + 705.0 81 66 69.6 15.0 6.88 9.8 68 63 64.8
Augen Gneiss 1 + 705.0 1 + 730.0 81 52 65.4 15.0 3.75 10.3 68 59 64.2
Gneiss 1 + 730.0 2 + 040.3 67 28 59.2 7.5 0.66 5.5 63 56 61.0
Mica Schist 2 + 040.3 2 + 087.3 27 23 24.5 0.2 0.17 0.2 49 49 49.0
Gneiss 2 + 087.3 2 + 165.3 55 48 50.6 3.8 0.22 2.8 59 56 56.8
Mica Schist 2 + 165.3 2 + 180.3 25 23 23.7 0.2 0.17 0.2 57 49 51.0
Gneiss 2 + 180.3 2 + 264.3 56 25 49.4 6.3 0.22 3.8 62 49 57.5
Mica Schist 2 + 264.3 2 + 286.3 35 23 26 0.8 0.22 0.4 49 49 49.0
Gneiss 2 + 286.3 2 + 470.3 58 27 51.6 6.3 0.20 3.6 62 49 57.7

grades into well-foliated coarse crystalline mica schist. The
rock is slightly weathered having medium strength. The mica
schist is exposed around the headrace tunnel outlet portal
area and penstock tunnel alignment. It is coarsely crystal-
line, well foliated, and essentially homogenous consisting of
quartz, feldspar, and mica. At many places, it contains small
feldspar crystals in the quartz mica matrix of the rock. The
rock mica schist is associated with the migmatic gneiss and
exposed around the headrace tunnel outlet portal area and
along the penstock tunnel alignment.
Estimation of deformation modulus of rock masses
by empirical equations
A large number of empirical equations are available for the
estimation of the deformation modulus. These equations
are popular and being used in large number of project in
worldwide. The main reasons for the choice of empirical
equation are cost effective and very simple to use. Although
some projects use in situ tests for deformation analysis, these
tests are not affordable by various project due its size, cost,
capacity, and other circumstances. To overcome this situ-
ation, most of the projects are found to be using empirical
equation for the derivation of deformation modulus. These
empirical equations are classified based on their input rock
mass classification system and are presented in Table 2.
The first empirical equation for Rock mass rating (RMR)
system was proposed by Bieniawski to estimate Em (Bie-
niawski 1978). The equation had some limitation and it
could only be used for rock masses with RMR > 50. To
overcome this limitation, Serafim and Pereira suggested a
new equation for rock masses with RMR < 50 (Serafim and
Pereira 1983). Several equations have been modified and
generated by various researchers for estimating Em from
RMR (Alemdag et al. 2015; Aydan et al. 1997; Chun et al.
2006; Gokceoglu et al. 2003; Isik et al. 2008; Kavur et al.
2015; Khabbazi et al. 2013; Mehrotra 1992; Mohammadi
and Rahmannejad 2010; Read et al. 1999). Furthermore, in
1993, Grimstad and Barton proposed an empirical equation
to estimate Em from Q system (Grimstad and Barton 1993).

13
 1559

13
Page 6 of 12

Table 2  Deformation modulus estimated from empirical equations using RMR, Q, and GSI for Upper Chaku A hydroelectric project
Classification Empirical equations Equations Deformation modulus (MPa) Remarks
system
Min Max Average

RMR Bieniawski (1978) Em = 2RMR − 100 2 62 24.69 The value of RMR from field
(RMR−10) observation ranged from 23–81
40
Serafim and Pereira (1983) Em = 10 2.11 59.67 16.56
(RMR−20)
38
Mehrotra (1992) Em = 10 1.19 40.3 10.58
Aydan et al. (1997) Em = 9.7 ∗ 10−6 RMR3.54 0.64 55.31 17.01
Read et al. (1999) 1.2 53.14 19.01
Em = 0.1 RMR
10
( )3

Gokceoglu et al. (2003) Em = 0.0736exp(0.0755RMR) 0.42 33.32 6.7

Chun et al. (2006) Em = 0.3228exp(0.0485RMR) 0.01 0.18 0.06
Isik et al. (2008) Em = (6.7RMR − 103.06) ∗ 10−3 0.05 0.44 0.27
Mohammadi and Rahmannejad (2010) Em = 0.0003RMR3 − 0.0193RMR2 + 0.3157RMR + 3.4064 3.55 61.73 16.51
−7 3.868
Khabbazi et al. (2013) Em = 9 ∗ 10 RMR 0.17 21.69 6.11
(RMR−20)
20
Kavur et al. (2015) Em = 4 1.23 68.59 15.37
Alemdag et al. (2015) Em = 0.058exp(0.0785RMR) 1.44 5.08 3.44
Q Grimstad and Barton (1993) Em = 25logQ 1.98 29.4 18.27 The value of Q from field observa-
0.4 tion ranged from 0.167–15
Palmstrom and Singh (2001) Em = 8(Q) 3.91 23.63 14.83
Barton (2002) Em = 10(Q𝜎c ∕100)1∕3 0.42 37.5 14.2
Kang et al. (2012) Em = 10(0.32logQ+0.585) 2.17 9.15 6.24
2
Ajalloeian and Mohammadi (2013) Em = −0.016Q + 1.581Q + 0.961 1.22 21.08 9.16
GSI Hoek and Brown (1997) Em = (𝜎c ∕100)0.5 ∗ 10(GSI−10)∕40 8.18 24.41 15.85 The value of GSI from field obser-
Gokceoglu et al. (2003) Em = 0.1451exp(0.0654GSI) 3.58 12.39 7.63 vation ranged from 49–68
Isik et al. (2008) Em = 5.47 × 10−3 GSI 0.27 0.37 0.33
Arab J Geosci

Ghamgosar et al. (2010) Em = 0.0912e0.0866GSI 4.87 6.76 5.94

Sanei et al. (2013) Em = 0.0222GSI 2 − 2.1172GSI + 54.24 3.8 12.92 7.61
(2022) 15:1559
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1559
After that, several researcher generated an empirical equa-
tion based on Q system (Ajalloeian and Mohammadi 2013;
Barton 2002; Kang et al. 2012; Palmstrom and Singh 2001).
Similarly, GSI system has also been used to derive empirical
equation for deformation modulus (Ghamgosar et al. 2010;
Gokceoglu et al. 2003; Hoek and Brown 1997; Isik et al.
2008; Sanei et al. 2013).
Data analysis
For the characterization of rock mass condition of headrace
tunnel, the RMR, Q, and GSI values were evaluated at each
chainage and were compared with each other. The compari-
son of RMR, Q, and GSI in headrace tunnel is presented in
Table 1. For deformation analysis, statistical analysis, such
as simple regression, was performed. Linear, power, expo-
nential, and logarithmic functions were examined separately
during this process. The data analysis was performed in two
stages. In the first stage, the values of Em estimated from
empirical equations were evaluated statistically and the geo-
metric average values of Em were determined as shown in
Table 2. In second stage, a simple regression analysis was
performed to develop relationships between the values of
geometric average Em and RMR, Em and Q, and Em and
GSI. The obtained relationship is summarized in Table 2.
Results and discussions
The present study focuses on rock mass assessment and
deformation module analysis of headrace tunnel of upper
Chaku A hydroelectric project. For the characterization of
rock mass condition of headrace tunnel, three rock mass
Deformation Modulus of Rock Mass, GPa
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10
Linear (Bieniawski (1978))
Power (Aydan et al. (1997))
Linear (Chun et al. (2006))
Power (Khabbazi et al. (2013))
Fig. 4  Estimated deformation modulus values from RMR
Page 7 of 12 1559
classification systems have been examined in detail. After
each face blast, the data for each classification has been
generated and analyzed. Each component of these clas-
sification systems has been determined in detailed for rat-
ing the values. The RMR values vary from 23 (poor) to
81 (very good) with a mean of 54.860 (Table 2). Q values
of rock mass ranged between 0.167 (very poor) and 15
(good) with an average of 5.681 and GSI values of rock
mass ranged from between 49 (fair) and 68 (good) with an
average of 59.748. The detail values for each cases are as
shown in Figs. 7, 8, and 9 respectively.
For the deformation modulus, Em values were calculated
from the total of 366 segments along tunnel alignments
by widely accepted empirical equations and presented in
Table 2. The deformation modulus has been estimated
using RMR, Q, and GSI from various empirical equations.
The detailed estimated deformation modulus Em values
from RMR are presented in Fig. 4. The values of defor-
mation obtained from Chun et al. (2006) ranged between
0.1779 and 0.010 GPa (Avg. 0.0578 GPa) are on the lower
side and from Kavur et al. (2015) ranged between 68.593
and 1.231 GPa (Avg. 15.369 GPa) are on higher side.
The result of deformation modulus obtained from RMR
values from Alemdag et al. (2015), Chun et al. (2006), and
Isik et al. (2008) showed only slight increase in defor-
mation modulus with the increase in RMR values. Other
equations proposed show the rise in deformation modulus
with increase in RMR values. The higher the RMR values,
the values of modulus of deformation were high.
The average value of deformation obtained from Bie-
niawski (1978) was 24.689GPa and was greater than the
maximum values of deformation obtained from Chun et al.
(2006) 0.1779 GPa, Isik et al. (2008) 0.439GPa, Khabbazi
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Rock Mass Rating,RMR
Expon. (Serafim and Pereira (1983)) Expon. (Mehrotra (1992))
Power (Read et al. (1999)) Expon. (Gokceoglu et al. (2003))
Expon. (Isik et al. (2008)) Expon. (Mohammadi and Rahmannejad (2010))
Expon. (Kavur et al. (2015)) Linear (Alemdag et al. (2015))
13
1559 Page 8 of 12 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1559

Fig. 5  Estimated deformation

Deformation Modulus of Rock

40.000
modulus values from Q 35.000
30.000

mass, GPa
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000
Tunneling Quality Index ,Q
Log. (Grimstad and Barton (1993)) Power (Palmstrom and Singh (2001))
Linear (Barton (2002)) Log. (Kang et al. (2012))
Linear (Ajalloeian and Mohammadi (2013))

Fig. 6  Estimated deformation

Deformation Modulus of Rock

30.000
modulus values from GSI
25.000
mass, GPa

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0.000
45.000 50.000 55.000 60.000 65.000 70.000
Geological Strength Index,GSI
Power (Hoek and Brown (1997)) Expon. (Gokceoglu et al. (2003)) Linear (Isik et al. (2008))
Linear (Ghamgosar et al. (2010) ) Expon. (Sanei et al. (2013))
Deformation Modolus of Rock Mass

100
90
80

RMR- Value
70
60 20
50
40
MPa

30
20
10
0 -80
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0

Chainage
Bieniawski (1978) Serafim and Pereira (1983) Mehrotra (1992)
Aydan et al. (1997) Read et al. (1999) Gokceoglu et al. (2003)
Chun et al. (2006) Isik et al. (2008) Mohammadi and Rahmannejad (2010)
Khabbazi et al. (2013) Kavur et al. (2015) Alemdag et al. (2015)
RMR

Fig. 7  Comparison of RMR Values with Estimated Em along the headrace tunnel

et al. (2013) 21.690 GPa, and Alemdag et al. (2015) 5.081 average values of deformation obtained from Aydan et al.
GPa. The average values of deformation obtained from (1997) 17.01GPa and Kavur et al. (2015) 15.37 GPa were
Serafim and Pereira (1983), i.e., 16.56 GPa, was nearly slightly higher and lesser respectively than Serafim and
similar to Khabbazi et al. (2013), i.e., 16.51GPa. The Pereira (1983), i.e., 16.56 GPa.

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1559 Page 9 of 12 1559

Fig. 8  Comparison of Q Values

Deformation Modulus of Rock

60
with Estimated Em along the
headrace tunnel 50 10
40
0

Mass,GPa

Q-Value
30
-10
20

10
-20

0 -30

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
Chainage

Grimstad and Barton (1993) Palmstrom and Singh (2001)

Barton (2002) Kang et al. (2012)
Ajalloeian and Mohammadi (2013) Q

Fig. 9  Comparison of GSI Val-

Deformation Modulus of Rock

80
ues with Estimated Em along
the headrace tunnel
70
60
Mass, GPa

GSI-Value
50
40
30
20
10
0

2100
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000

2200
2300
2400
700
100
200
300
400
500
600

800
900
0

Chainage

Hoek and Brown (1997) Gokceoglu et al. (2003) Isik et al. (2008)
Ghamgosar et al. (2010) Sanei et al. (2013) GSI

The result of deformation modulus obtained from Q shows 7.63GPA is nearly similar to Sanei et al. (2013) 7.61GPa.
change in deformation modulus with increase in Q value. The average value of deformation obtained from Hoek and
The values of deformation obtained from Kang et al. (2012) Brown (1997) 15.849 GPa was greater than the maximum
9.148–2.168 GPa were on the lower side and Barton (2002) values of deformation obtained from Isik et al. (2008) 0.372
37.500–0.417 GPa were on higher side. The detailed estimated GPa, Gokceoglu et al. (2003) 7.63GPA, Sanei et al. (2013)
deformation modulus Em values from Q are presented in Fig. 5. 7.61GPa, and Ghamgosar et al. (2010) 5.94GPa.
The average values of deformation obtained from Palmstrom Em values calculated from different empirical equations
and Singh (2001) 14.83GPa is nearly similar to Barton (2002) were compared with rock mass quality (Figs. 4, 5, and 6) to
14.2 GPa. The average value of deformation obtained from understand the similarity or inconsistency. Em values calcu-
Ajalloeian and Mohammadi (2013) 9.16 GPa was lower than lated by different equations provide both high as well as low
Palmstrom and Singh (2001) and Barton (2002). values. The analysis from Kayabasi et al. (2003) and Panthee
The values of deformation obtained from GSI from Isik et al. (2016) found out that the significant results between
et al. (2008), i.e., 0.372–0.268 GPa, were on the lower side Em calculated by using empirical equations and rock mass
and Hoek and Brown (1997) (24.408–8.176 GPa, Avg. class were not observed while Hoek and Diederichs (2006)
15.849 GPa) are on higher side. The detailed estimated found that Em values increase with an increase in rock mass
deformation modulus Em values from GSI are presented class by using exponentially or power function. The present
in Fig. 6. The result of deformation modulus obtained from study shows that the pattern of Em with rock mass quality
Alemdag et al. (2015), Chun et al. (2006), and Isik et al. was observed significantly for all most all equations ignoring
(2008) showed only slight change in the value of deforma- one–two equations. The calculated Em values for headrace
tion modulus with the increase in GSI value. The rest of the tunnel alignment show a positive correlation with Q, RMR,
equation (Gokceoglu et al. 2003; Hoek and Brown 1997; and GSI values as shown in Figs. 7, 8, and 9 respectively.
Sanei et al. 2013) shows increase in the deformation modu- Em values calculated from total 366 segments along tun-
lus Em values with increase in GSI values. The average val- nel alignments show that the RMR value gives higher value
ues of deformation obtained from Gokceoglu et al. (2003) of deformation modulus while GSI value gives lower value

13
1559 Page 10 of 12 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1559

Table 3  Relationships between Relationship Type of equation Equation Coefficient of

RMR, Q, and GSI with Em determination,R2

Em Vs RMR Exponential 𝐄𝐦 = 0.146e0.0604𝐑𝐌𝐑 R2 = 0.9946

Linear Em = 0.2283RMR − 7.438 R2 = 0.8298
logarithmic Em = 9.5292In(RMR) − 32.753 R2 = 0.6875
Power Em = 8E − 05RMR 2.7361 R2 = 0.9715
Em Vs Q Exponential Em = 4.2653e 0.1396Q R2 = 0.7112
Linear Em = 1.3298Q + 3.6901 R2 = 0.9588
logarithmic Em = 4.7965In(Q) + 4.7613 R2 = 0.8552
Power 𝐄𝐦 = 4.0176𝐐 0.6309
R2 = 0.9962
Em Vs GSI Exponential 𝐄𝐦 = 0.2988e0.0447𝐆𝐒𝐈 R2 = 0.9993
Linear Em = 0.1854GSI − 6.6375 R2 = 0.9753
logarithmic Em = 10.592In(GSI) − 38.836 R2 = 0.9561
Power Em = 0.0001GSI2.5733 R2 = 0.994
Deformation Modulus of Rock

Deformation Modulus of Rock

20 25
y = 4.0176x0.6309
Deformation Modulus of Rock Mass

R² = 0.9962 6
16 20
5

mass, GPa
mass,GPa

12 15 4
GPa

3
8 10 y = 0.2988e0.0447x
2 R² = 0.9993
4 y= 0.146e0.0604x 5 1
R² = 0.9946
0 0
0
20 70 120 45 65 85
0 5 10 15 20 Geological Strength
Rock Mass Rating, RMR Tunneling Quality Index,Q Index,GSI

Fig. 10  Relation between Em and RMR and Q and GSI

of deformation modulus from various empirical equations is represented by the power function (R 2 = 0.996). The
(Figs. 4, 5, and 6). It has therefore been found that there highest coefficient of determination (R2) between the GSI
are a lot of discrepancies in the result obtained from exist- and the Em is represented by the exponential function
ing empirical equations. To overcome this issue, the neces- (R 2 = 0.999). In the light of above discussion, relations
sity of new empirical equation is prerequisite in Himalaya provided in Table 3 can be used to predict Em by Q, GSI,
region. Considering it, relationships were generated in this and RMR values with an accuracy of R2 = 0.994–0.999
study between geometric averages Em and RMR, Em and for similar properties of the rock mass and rock type in
Q, and Em and GSI which indicated significant correlations Nepal Himalaya.
as shown in Table 3 below: Furthermore, for the validation of above equations, the
The relationships were evaluated by a simple regression experimental values of augen gneiss rock unit were used to
analysis and presented in Fig. 10. Linear, power, exponen- estimate the performance of the relationship developed from
tial, and logarithmic functions were examined separately regression analysis. Since the in situ test was not conducted
during this process. The highest coefficient of determina- at Upper Chaku A HEP, test result from Arun III hydroelec-
tion (R2) between the RMR and the Em is represented by tric project was used for the evaluation and validation of
the exponential function (R2 = 0.994). The highest coef- proposed regression analysis because both sites consisted of
ficient of determination (R2) between the Q and the Em augen gneiss rock unit. The value of deformation modulus

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1559 Page 11 of 12 1559

Measured Deformation modulus of rock mass,

14.0 14.0
R² = 0.8476 R² = 0.8958

Deformation modulus of rock mass,

12.0 12.0

10.0 10.0

Measured (GPa)
8.0
(GPa)

8.0

6.0 6.0

4.0 4.0

2.0 2.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0

Estimated Deformation modulus of rock mass from Deformation modulus of rock mass
RMR (GPa) Estimated (GPa)

Fig. 11  Comparison of measured and estimated deformation modulus from Q and RMR values

was measured at seven locations and has been compared
with Q and RMR obtained from those respective locations.
The details of measured and estimated data from Q and
RMR are as shown in Fig. 11. The R2 obtained from the
comparison of Q and RMR values was found out to be 0.89
and 0.85 respectively. Therefore, it can be stated that the
estimating performance of the proposed equation is good
with R2 = 0.85–0.89.
Conclusions
The assessment of rock mass quality and estimation of
the deformation modulus were conducted using empirical
method in this study. It was evaluated in 372 segment of
headrace tunnel alignment of Upper Chaku A hydroelectric
project based on rock mass classification systems, i.e., RMR,
Q, and GSI. The rock masses were evaluated as poor–very
good for RMR, very poor–good for Q, and fair–good for
GSI. The estimated values of Em by various equations have
the more or less similar trend of variation with respect to
rock quality of study area, respectively.
The comparison of deformation modulus of rock mass
from various classification systems provides contrasting
result. The comparison suggests that Em values obtained
from some relations with in the classification are very close
to each other, whereas some equations yield the highest Em
values while some equations yield the lowest Em values with
different curves. Among three classifications system, RMR
value gives higher value of deformation modulus, while GSI
value gives lower value of deformation modulus from vari-
ous empirical equations.
The existing scenario therefore creates a puzzle for the
designers for appropriate selection of best relationship.
Although it is reliable to determine modulus of deformation
from in situ test but considering variation in the rock types,
lithology, characteristic, and properties within the project in
Nepal Himalaya, the geology does not favor in situ measure-
ments. The tests are therefore time-consuming, considerably
expensive, and has difficult operational process; it is there-
fore practical for geotechnical engineers and engineering
geologist to use the empirical equations for estimation of
modulus of deformation. To overcome this issue, the neces-
sity of new empirical equation is prerequisite in Himalaya
region. The relationships generated in this study between
geometric averages Em and RMR, Em and Q, and Em and
GSI indicated significant correlations as shown in the table
below:
Relationship Equation Coefficient
of determina-
tion,R2
Em Vs RMR Em = 0.146e0.0604RMR R2 = 0.9946
Em Vs Q Em = 4.0176Q0.6309 R2 = 0.9962
Em Vs GSI Em = 0.2988e 0.0447GSI
R2 = 0.9993
The performance of proposed function was evaluated
using the in situ Em values of augen gneiss rock unit and
the value of R2 ranged from 0.85 to 0.89. The R2 value
obtained shows that the correlation can be effectively used

13
1559 Page 12 of 12
for estimating the value of deformation modulus. The pro-
posed equation may provide practical solution and rapid
evaluation for the rock masses at the preliminary and final
stages studies and site selection process in Nepal Himalayan
terrain.
Acknowledgements We would like to express our sincere thanks and
appreciation to the Chairman of Upper Chaku A hydroelectric project
for giving the permission to publish this work.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Ajalloeian R, Mohammadi M (2013) Estimation of limestone rock mass
deformation modulus using empirical equations. Bull Eng Geol
Env 73(2):541–550. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​013-​0530-3
Alemdag S, Gurocak Z, Gokceoglu C (2015) A simple regression based
approach to estimate deformation modulus of rock masses. J Afr
Earth Sc 110:75–80. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jafre​arsci.​2015.​06.​
011
Aydan Ö, Ulusay R, Kawamoto T (1997) Assessment of rock mass
strength for underground excavations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
34(3–4):18.e1-18.e17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1365-​1609(97)​
00273-6
Bahaaddini M, HosseinpourMoghadam E (2018) Evaluation of empiri-
cal approaches in estimating the deformation modulus of rock
masses. Bull Eng Geol Env 78(5):3493–3507. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10064-​018-​1347-x
Barton N (2002) Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site charac-
terization and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:185–216
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6:189–236
Bieniawski ZT (1978) Determining rockmass deformability: experience
from case histories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 15:237–247
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. John
Wiley & Sons, New York
Chun B-S, Lee Y-J, Seo D-D, Lim B-S (2006) Correlation deforma-
tion modulus by PMT with RMR and rock mass condition. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 21(3–4):231–232. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​tust.​2005.​12.​011
Ghamgosar M, Fahimifar A, Rasouli V (2010) Estimation of rock
mass deformation modulus from laboratory experiments in Karun
Dam. In: Paper presented at the ISRM International Symposium.
EUROCK 2010, Lausanne, Switzerland
Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A (2003) Predicting the deforma-
tion moduli of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40(5):701–
710. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s1365-​1609(03)​00062-5
Grimstad E and Barton N (1993) Updating of the Q-System for NMT.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Sympo-
sium on Sprayed Concrete, Fagernes, 22–26 October
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1559
Hoek E, Brown E (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):1165-I1186
Hoek E, Diederichs MS (2006) Empirical estimation of rock mass
modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(2):203–215. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​ijrmms.​2005.​06.​005
Isik NS, Ulusay R, Doyuran V (2008) Deformation modulus of heavily
jointed–sheared and blocky greywackes by pressuremeter tests:
Numerical, experimental and empirical assessments. Eng Geol
101(3–4):269–282. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enggeo.​2008.​06.​004
Kang S-S, Kim H-Y, Jang B-A (2012) Correlation of in situ modu-
lus of deformation with degree of weathering. RMR Q-Syst
Environ Earth Sci 69(8):2671–2678. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12665-​012-​2088-y
Kavur B, Štambuk Cvitanović N, Hrženjak P (2015) Comparison
between plate jacking and large flat jack test results of rock mass
deformation modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 73:102–114.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijrmms.​2014.​09.​022
Kayabasi A, Gokceoglu C, Ercanoglu M (2003) Estimating the defor-
mation modulus of rock masses: a comparative study. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 40:55–63. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/S
​ 1365-1​ 609(02)​
00112-0
Khabbazi A, Ghafoori M, Lashkaripour GR, Cheshomi A (2013) Esti-
mation of the rock mass deformation modulus using a rock clas-
sification system. Geomech Geoeng 8(1):46–52. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​17486​025.​2012.​695089
Mehrotra S (1992) On the implementation of a primal-dual interior
point method. SIAM J Optim 2:575–601. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1137/​
08020​28
Mohammadi H, Rahmannejad R (2010) The estimation of rock mass
deformation modulus using regression and artificial neural net-
works analysis. Arab J Sci Eng 35(1):205–217
Nepal KM (1999) A review of in-sity testing of rock mechanical param-
eters in hydropower projecs of Nepal. J Nepal Geol Soc 19:1–8
Palmstrom A, Singh R (2001) The deformation modulus of rock mass-
escomparisons between in situ tests and indirect estimates. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 16:115–131
Panthee S, Singh PK, Kainthola A, Das R, Singh TN (2016) Compara-
tive study of the deformation modulus of rock mass. Bull Eng Geol
Env 77(2):751–760. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10064-​016-​0974-3
Read SAL, Perrin ND, Richards LR (1999) Applicability of the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion to New Zealand Greywacke Rocks. In:
Paper presented at the 9th ISRM Congress. Paris, France
Sanei M, Rahmati A, Faramarzi L, Goli S, Mehinrad A (2013) Estima-
tion of Rock Mass Deformation Modulus in Bakhtiary Dam Pro-
ject in Iran. In: Paper presented at the ISRM SINOROCK 2013.
Shanghai, China
Serafim JL, Pereira JP (1983) Considerations on the geomechanical
classification of Bieniawski. In: Proceedings of international
symposium on engineering geology and underground openings.
Lisbon, Portugal, pp 1133–1144
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s);
author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.