Advertisement

Comparative study of the deformation modulus of rock masses—a reply to the comments received from Gokceoglu (2018)

  • Suman Panthee
  • P. K. Singh
  • Ashutosh Kainthola
  • Ratan Das
  • T. N. Singh
Discussion
  • 130 Downloads

Abstract

Availability of information on the deformation modulus in the initial stages of civil engineering projects related to near-surface or underground excavation is very important for design purposes. However, direct determination of the deformation modulus is a challenging task and a potentially costly one; therefore, several researchers have frequently used indirect methods to assess the deformation modulus. Of the significant number of empirical equations that can be found in literature, most are non-linear, which makes the deformation modulus a parameter that is very sensitive to the quality and types of data used.

Keywords

Deformation modulus Rock mass classification Indirect determination Empirical equations Data sensitivity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Prof. C. Gokceoglu, Hacettepe Universitesi, Turkey for the information and critical examination of the research article which significantly helped in modifying the results.

References

  1. Bieniawski ZT (1978) Determining rock mass deformability— experience from case histories. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 15(5):237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gokceoglu C (2018) Comment on Comparative study of the deformation modulus of rock mass by Panthee et al (2018). Bull Eng Geol Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1260-3
  3. Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A (2003) Predicting the deformation moduli of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Palmstrom A (1996) RMi—a rock mass characterization system for rock engineering purposes. Ph.D. thesis, Oslo University, OsloGoogle Scholar
  5. Palmstrom A (2000) Recent developments in rock support estimates by the RMi. J Rock Mech Tunn Technol 6(1):1–19Google Scholar
  6. Palmstrom A, Singh R (2001) The deformation modulus of rock masses—comparisons between in situ tests and indirect estimates. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16:115–131Google Scholar
  7. Panthee S, Singh PK, Kainthola A, Das R, Singh TN (2018) Comparative study of the deformation modulus of rock mass. Bull Eng Geol Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0974-3
  8. Read SAL, Richards LR, Perrin ND (1999) Applicability of the Hoek–Brown failure criterion to New Zealand greywacke rocks. In: Vouille G, Berest P (eds) Proc Ninth Int Congress on Rock Mechanics. Paris. pp 655–660Google Scholar
  9. Serafim JL, Pereira JP (1983) Consideration of the geomechanical classification of Bieniawski. In: Proc Int Symp on Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, vol 1. Lisbon, pp 33–44Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suman Panthee
    • 1
  • P. K. Singh
    • 2
  • Ashutosh Kainthola
    • 3
  • Ratan Das
    • 4
  • T. N. Singh
    • 4
  1. 1.Central Department of GeologyTribhuvan UniversityKirtipurNepal
  2. 2.Department of Earth and Planetary SciencesUniversity of AllahabadAllahabadIndia
  3. 3.Department of GeologyBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia
  4. 4.Department of Earth SciencesIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations