###### Abstract
\(W_{ET}>5\), \(2<W_{ET}\leq 5\), and \(0<W_{ET}\leq 2\) are the classification criteria corresponding to heavy, weak, and no bursting liabilities of coals, which is proved to be reasonable for bursting liability prediction of coals by many testing data [17; 18]. [PERSON] [19] put forward a new classification criterion of \(W_{ET}\) for hard rocks in Canada, i.e., heavy bursting liability with \(W_{ET}>15\), weak bursting liability with \(10<W_{ET}\leq 15\), and no bursting liability with \(0<W_{ET}\leq 10\). In 1990, [PERSON] et al. [20; 21] were the first to put forward the bursting energy index \(W_{cf}\) as another evaluation index of bursting liability, and defined that the values \(W_{cf}>3.5\), \(1.5<W_{cf}\leq 3.5\), and \(0<W_{cf}\leq 1.5\) are the classification criteria for heavy, weak, and no bursting liabilities, respectively. After the modified criterions of \(W_{cf}\) by [PERSON] et al. [22] and [PERSON] [23], it is confirmed to be useful to predict the bursting liability of coals using the values of heavy bursting liability with \(W_{cf}>5\), weak bursting liability with \(1.5<W_{cf}\leq 5\), and no bursting liability with \(0<W_{cf}\leq 1.5\). In the Classification and Laboratory Test Method on Bursting Liability of Coal (MT/T 174-2000) [23], the fracture duration time \(DT\) in uniaxial compression tests was put forward, and \(DT>500\) ms, \(50<DT\leq 500\) ms, \(0<DT\leq 50\) ms were defined as the classification intervals for no, weak and heavy bursting liabilities of coals, respectively. [PERSON] al [15] defined \(DT>2000\) ms, \(1000<DT\leq 2000\) ms, \(0<DT\leq 1000\) ms as the classification criterions for no, weak, heavy bursting liabilities of non-coal rocks, respectively. In the Methods for Testing, Monitoring and Prevention of Rock Burst, Part 2: Classification and Laboratory Test Method on Bursting Liability of Coal (GB/T 25217.2-2010) [24] a new standard was put forward to evaluate the bursting liability of coals, which is the  
Figure 1: Main bursting liability indices and their classification standards. uniaxial compressive strength \(\sigma_{c}\), and \(\sigma_{c}>14\) MPa, \(7<\sigma_{c}\leq 14\) MPa, and \(0<\sigma_{c}\leq 7\) MPa were the detailed classification criteria for no, weak and heavy bursting liabilities of coals. In 1996, [PERSON] et al. [25] proposed the brittleness index \(B\) based on [PERSON]'s strength theory to evaluate the bursting liabilities of non-coal rocks, and defined that the \(B>26.7\), \(14.5<B\leq 26.7\), and \(0<B\leq 14.5\) as the classification criterions for no, weak, and heavy bursting liabilities of non-coal rocks, respectively. In addition, the other two classification criterions were put forward by [PERSON] al [26] and [PERSON] et al. [27], which described \"heavy bursting liability with \(B\geq 18\), weak bursting liability with \(10\leq B<18\) and no bursting liability with \(0\leq B<10\)\", and \"heavy bursting liability with \(B>22\), weak bursting liability with \(15<B\leq 22\) and no bursting liability with \(0<B\leq 15\)\", respectively. Nevertheless, rock burst disasters also frequently occur in deep underground non-coal mines and tunnels in China. Therefore, it is extremely vital to predict the bursting liability degree of deep non-coal rocks. The classification criterions of the bursting liability indices, i.e., \(W_{ET}\), \(W_{Gf}\), \(DT\), \(\sigma_{c}\), have been proved to be reasonable for coals by many field data in China. Most bursting classification criteria used for hard rocks often refer to those of coals and were not put forward based on the special mechanical properties of non-coal rocks. The rationality of using the bursting liability criteria of coals to predict the bursting liability of non-coal rocks needs to be studied in depth. Hence, in this study, a large amount of data, including basic mechanical parameters and bursting liability indices of different coals and non-coal rocks have been collected in China, and reported in the previous literatures have been used.