n situ stress

In this chapter, we will be describing why a knowledge of in situ rock

stress is important for rock engineering, how the in situ stress data are
determined and presented, what we would expect the in situ stresses to
be, collating stress state data from around the world, and finally
commenting on rock stress variability.
4.1 Why determine in situ stress?
The basic motivations for in situ stress determination are two-fold.
1. To have a basic knowledge of the stress state for engineering, e.g. in
what direction and with what magnitude is the major principal stress
acting? What stress effects are we defending ourselves and our struc-
tures against? In what direction is the rock most likely to break? All
other things being equal, in what direction will the groundwater flow?
Even for such basic and direct engineering questions, a knowledge of
the stress state is essential.
2. To have a specific and 'formal' knowledge of the boundary
conditions for stress analyses conducted in the design phase of
rock engineering projects.
We have already emphasized that there are many cases in rock
engineering where the stresses are not applied as such; rather, the
stress state is altered by the engineering activities, e.g. in the case of
excavating a rock slope or tunnel.

4.2 Presentation of in situ stress state data

The stress state at a given point in a rock mass is generally presented
in terms of the magnitude and orientation of the principal stresses
(remem-ber that the stress state is completely described by six
parameters). In Fig. 4.1(a), we recall that the principal stresses have a
certain orientation, and in Fig. 4.1(b) that the principal stresses have
certain magnitudes. The orientations are often presented as in Fig.
4.1(c) via a stereographic projection.
 42 In situ stress

90°

(a) (b)
3 (c)
90 o0

igure 4.1 (a) Principal stresses acting on a small cube. (b) Principal stresses
expressed in matrix form. (c) Principal stress orientations shown on a hemispherical
projection.

4.3 Methods of stress determination

Clearly, any system utilized for estimating the in situ stress state must
involve a minimum of six independent measurements. There are methods of
'direct stress measurement and there are methods of estimating the stresses
via various 'indirect or "indicator methods. In this book, we will concentrate
on the four main methods recommended by the International Society for
Rock Mechanics (1SRM), while recognizing that there are a multitude of
direct and indicator approaches available.
The four direct methods recommended by the ISRM (Kim and
Franklin, 1987) are:
(a) the flatjack test;
(b) the hydraulic frachuring test;
(c)the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM) overcoring torpedo; and
(d) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) overcoring
gauge.
Use of the overcoring method is shown in Fig. 4.2.
Some of the indicator methods are:

(a) borehole breakouts-damage to a borehole indicating principal stress orientations;

(b) fault plane solutions-back analysis of principal stresses causing faults;
(c) acoustic emission--the rock emits low-intensity 'noise' when it is stressed;
(d) anelastic strain relaxation-core exhibits expansion/contraction on removal from the
borehole;
(e) differential strain analysis-pressurizing a piece of rock indicates its previous stress state
through differential strain effects;
core discing-geometry of stress-induced core fracturing
indicates stress componentsS
(g) observations of discontinuity states, eg. open discontinuities are not transmitting stress
across the gap.
The four direct ISRM recommended methods are described below; for
 Methods of stress determination 43

Figure 4.2 In situ stress determination in the Carmencllis granite.

a fuller description of the indirect methods, the reader is referred to Dyke (1988).
The key reference for the ISRM methods is Suggested Methods for Rock Stress
Determination, produced by Kim and Franklin (1987). Here, we now
go on to explain these methods in the context of their ability to
determine the components of the stress tensor.
In Fig. 4.3, we have shown four stress tensors and indicated the ability
of each method to determine the six components of the stress tensor in
one application. For the flatjack and with the x-axis aligned perpendicular
to the flatjack, one normal component-in this case o-can be determined. It
immediately follows that, to determine the complete state of stress, six

1 Flatjack 2. Hydraulie fracturing

Principul stresses
Tay One morul suress assued parallel to
compnent axes i.e. plane of tthe
yy y|determined, say fracture. two etr
Symm. C Pariullel to x-anis. mincd, say (r ancd
Symm. one
estimaed.

3. USBM overcoring torpedo

ay .
7Three componeits CSIRO avercoring gauge
'xin 2-1) deterrmined
Tyrnn three
measurements ot
brehole All six conponenNs
Symim. diameter
Jchanvc. Ty)determined from six
(1r
more) meusurements

Symm. surain ut vne time.

Figure 4.3 The four ISRM suggested methods for rock stress determination and
their ability to determine the components of the stress tensor with one application
of the particular method.
44 In situ stress
such flatjack measurements have to be conducted at six different
orienta-tions. Note that, in general, the reference axes will not be aligned
with the flatjack orientation and separate transformations will have to be
used for each flatjack measurement, because it is the normal stress
perperndicular to the plane of the flatjack that is being determined,
rather than a specific component of the stress tensor. In fac
is interesting to note that whilst
a normal stress can be determined directly, there is no equivalent method
of determining a shear stress: the shear components in the tensor must be
calculated from the measurements of normal stresses in different directions;
they cannot be measured directly. It should also be remembered that this
technique determines the stress tensor in an excavation wall and therefore
determines the induced stress rather than the field stress. (A glossary of terms
for in situ stress can be found in Section 4.10.)
With reference to the top right-hand diagram in Fig. 4.3, the basic
hydraulic fracturing method provides only two items of information-the
breakdown pressure and the shut-in pressure. Thus, only two
components of the stress tensor can be established by this technique:
the shut-in pressure is assumed to give the minor principal stress, Os
whilst the major principal stress, oj, is given via the breakdown pressure,
the value of oz and the magnitude of the tensile strength of the rock.
We have seen that, in the case of the flatjack, the six components can be
determined by using the method at six different orientations. In general, this is
not possible with hydraulic fracturing, because the tests are conducted deep
in a borehole. The major advantage of hydraulic fractur ing is that it is the only
method of determining part of the stress state nore than a few hundred metres
from man-access, and, indeed, may be used up to 5 or 6 km depth. However,
the major disadvantage is that assumptions have to be made in order to
complete the stress tensor. These assumptions are that the principal stresses
are parallel and perpendicular to the borehole axis, and that the vertical
principal stress can be estimated from the depth of overburden. As a result, in
the hydraulic fracturing stress tensor in Fig.
4.3, the two circled components are determined but the three zero
values for the shear stresses are an assumption, as is the value (of what
is taken here to be) O2.
In the case of the USBM overcoring torpedo, a two-dimensional state of
stress is determined, i.e. the three circled components in the diagram in
Fig. 4.3, giving three components of the three-dimensional stress tensor.
Thus, two, and preferably three, non-parallel boreholes must be used to
determine the complete state of stress. It should be noted that in the cases
of the flatjack and hydraulic fracturing, the material properties of the rock
have not been used except for the tensile strength which is required in
hydraulic fracturing. For the flatjack, only the transfornmation equations
are required; for hydraulic fracturing, only the stress concentration factors
for a circular hole are required and these are independent of material
properties (assuming ideal elasticity); but, for the USBM overcoring
torpedo, in order to convert the measured displacements to stresses, the
elastic properties of the rock are required. This introduces a whole new
series of assumptions.
Finally, in the case of the CSIRO overcoring gauge, as we have shown