International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171

Journal Review Article

The Kaiser effect in rocks: principles and stress
estimation techniques$
A. Lavrov
Physical and Engineering Department, Moscow State Mining University, Leninskij prospect 6, Moscow 119 991, Russia
Accepted 2 December 2002

Abstract

Irreversible deformation of rocks is accompanied by the Kaiser effect involving acoustic emission (AE). AE activity increases
dramatically as soon as the largest previously experienced stress level is exceeded, similar to strain hardening in ductile materials.
The Kaiser effect can be considered as a basis for stress measurements in rocks. This phenomenon is characterized by complexity
which is the reason for disputable data interpretation procedures. A review of experimentally established features of the Kaiser
effect, including those under a triaxial state of stress, is given. Mechanisms and theoretical models of the phenomenon are discussed.
Stress measurement techniques based on the Kaiser effect in core specimens and in rocks around a borehole are explained; their
strengths and weaknesses are analyzed. The necessity and the directions for future research are outlined. The analysis given should
facilitate future applications of the Kaiser effect and improve the correctness of data interpretation.
r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Kaiser effect; Acoustic emission; Rocks

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
2. Basic experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
2.1. Indicators of the Kaiser effect; processing of AE curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
2.2. Rock type and loading stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
2.3. What stress level is memorised by rock under cyclic uniaxial compression? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
2.4. Duration of load application; Kaiser effect after creep and stress relaxation . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
2.5. Influence of time delay, water saturation and heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
2.6. Influence of the loading rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
2.7. Stress memory formation under triaxial stress state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
2.8. The effect of rotation of principal axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
2.9. Influence of the coring process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
2.10. Kaiser effect at different scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
3. Theoretical models of the Kaiser effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
4. Practical application of the Kaiser effect for stress measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
4.1. Stress measurement using the Kaiser effect in core specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
4.2. Stress measurement using the Kaiser effect in rocks surrounding a borehole . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

$
This is the first of a series of Journal Review Articles commissioned by the Editor. The series will consist of articles explaining significant or
topical subjects, or subjects requiring expert explanation. This first article falls into all three categories: the estimation of rock stress is critical for
modelling input; the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) Commission on Testing Methods is currently producing new Suggested
Methods for stress estimation; and the Kaiser effect, although apparently simple, requires expert explanation.
E-mail address: avlavrov@mail.ru (A. Lavrov).

1365-1609/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(02)00138-7
152 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
5. Conclusions and future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
Design and operation of underground excavations
require accurate information about in situ stresses. At
present, different stress measurement methods in rocks
are known [1]. However, most of them are time- and
labor-consuming (e.g. the overcoring and hydrofractur-
ing methods), and/or do not provide the necessary
accuracy. This is the reason why new stress measure-
ment techniques are being explored. One of the
possibilities consists in using the so-called ‘stress
memory’ of rocks, i.e. the ability to accumulate, to
retain and, under certain conditions, to reproduce
information on the stresses experienced in the past. This
ability is essentially due to irreversible damage accumu-
lated in rock when it is subject to loads [2–4]. Particular
manifestations of the stress memory are referred to as
memory effects, amongst which the Kaiser effect and
strain-hardening are probably the most well-known and
most interesting from the practical point of view.
The Kaiser effect takes place in rocks and materials
subjected to cyclic loading/unloading. In the simplest
case of cyclic, uniaxial loading with the cycle’s peak
stress increasing from cycle to cycle, the acoustic
emission (AE) is zero or close to the background level
so long as the stress remains below the largest previously
reached stress value, sm : As this peak (‘memorised’)
stress value is attained, the AE activity increases
dramatically. As an example, a schematic plot of the
dependency of cumulative AE hits versus stress in two
cycles of uniaxial compression is given in Fig. 1. The
cumulative hits number is the total number of AE
signals received from the beginning of the test to a
NΣ
Second cycle
First cycle
σ dilatant; pre- and post-failure)?
Fig. 1. Cumulative AE hits, NS ; versus stress, s; in two successive
cycles of uniaxial compression.
167
168
168
certain moment. As seen in Fig. 1, an inflexion occurs as
the largest stress level of the first cycle is exceeded in the
second cycle. Hit rate, i.e. the number of AE signals
per second or per 1 MPa stress increment, increases
dramatically at that point.
When rock is cyclically loaded within a certain stress
range, e.g. between stress values of s0 and s00 ; there is a
gradual decrease in the number of AE signals received in
successive cycles [5]. The largest drop in the AE activity
takes place between the first and second cycle (the
Kaiser effect). As pointed out in Ref. [6], this is similar
to the behaviour of irreversible strain in similar tests.
The Kaiser effect was discovered by Joseph Kaiser
who performed his experiments on small specimens of
metals, wood and sandstone in the early 1950s [7]. A first
attempt to investigate the Kaiser effect in a particular
rock (sandstone) was made by Goodman [8]. In the later
work by Kurita and Fujii [2], the influence of water
saturation and time delay between loading cycles on the
Kaiser effect were studied. It turned out that the stress
memory of rocks is similar to the human’s one: it
disappears with time.
Since the early days, the Kaiser effect has been
considered as a possible basis for stress measurements in
rocks. One of the first attempts of such application was
that by Kanagawa and Nakasa [9]. Typical for those
early applications was that the influence of the triaxial in
situ stress state on the damage formation was not taken
into account. It was believed that the normal stress
component in each direction can be simply retrieved by
uniaxially reloading a specimen oriented in that direc-
tion. Experiments [10–16] showed that this is not
correct. As was pointed out by Holcomb [12], a full
understanding of the role of the triaxial state of stress in
the memory formation is the main prerequisite for a
correct application of the Kaiser effect for stress
measurements. This and other fundamental questions
that should be answered to make a practical application
of the Kaiser effect feasible are summarized below (in
the order that they are discussed in the paper):
(1) What are the most reliable indicators of the Kaiser
effect?
(2) How does the Kaiser effect differ in various rock
types (brittle/ductile; hard/soft; compact/damaged)
and at different loading stages (pre- and post-
(3) What stress level is memorised by rock under cyclic
uniaxial compression: the largest experienced in
 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171 153

recent history; the last; the longest with respect to less pronounced. In the best case, there are no AE
the exposure time; all stress levels? What is the signals so long as the stress stays below its largest
effect of palaeostresses? previously reached value, sm ; and AE suddenly emerges
(4) How does the duration of the load application at this stress level (Fig. 2a). However, sometimes AE
influence the Kaiser effect? Does the Kaiser effect activity may be present at stresses below the ‘memorised’
exist in ductile rocks subjected to creep or stress stress sm ; being probably due to the frictional movement
relaxation? along existing cracks; while at s > sm it is due to the
(5) How do factors such as time delay, heating, and crack growth [17]. In such a case, the Kaiser effect can
water saturation influence the Kaiser effect? be recognised as an inflexion (change of slope) in the
(6) How does the loading rate influence the Kaiser dependency ‘‘cumulative AE hits versus stress’’
effect? (Fig. 2b). To determine the value of sm more accurately,
(7) What stress (or stress combination) is memorised the curve may be approximated by two straight lines
by rock under a triaxial stress state, in particular (bilinear regression). The point of their intersection
under a true triaxial, i.e. polyaxial, stress state projected onto the stress axis indicates the Kaiser effect
(s1 > s2 > s3 )? stress. A pivot point method of choosing the sets of
(8) How does the rotation of principal axes in measurement points, on which regression is to be
successive loading cycles influence the Kaiser performed, was proposed in Ref. [18].
effect? An alternative to performing regression consists in
(9) How does the stress re-distribution during coring drawing tangents to the two parts of the curve (below
influence the capability of the Kaiser effect to and above the assumed sm value) and searching for their
reveal the in situ damage? intersection.
(10) Is the Kaiser effect scale-dependent? Instead of cumulative hits, the dependency of hit rate
’ means the number
versus stress can be used. Hit rate, N;
At present, answers to most of these questions are
known. These answers have shown that, at least in some
situations, stress measurements based on the Kaiser NΣ
effect are feasible, but that certain restrictions exist that
should always be taken account when performing such
measurements. The purpose of this Review Article is to
provide a concise and thorough overview of experi-
mental and theoretical results that are important for
practical applications of the Kaiser effect in rock
mechanics. The need for such a review is clear when
looking at the contradictory information on the easy
possibility or complete impossibility of such applica-
tions. The overview will hopefully contribute to a better
understanding of strengths, weaknesses and limitations σ
(a) σm
of stress measurement techniques based on the Kaiser
effect.
The paper is structured as follows. Basic experimental NΣ
results concerning the Kaiser effect under various
loading conditions are reviewed in Section 2. Theoretical
models are discussed in Section 3. In Section 4, stress
measurement techniques using the Kaiser effect in core
specimens or in rocks around a borehole are considered
followed by conclusions and discussion of further
research in Section 5.

2. Basic experimental results

2.1. Indicators of the Kaiser effect; processing of AE (b) σm σ

curves
Even in the simplest case of cyclic uniaxial compres-
sion, the Kaiser effect may be characterized as more or
Fig. 2. Cumulative AE hits, NS ; versus stress, s, in the second cycle of
uniaxial compression. The peak stress value attained in the first cycle
of uniaxial compression was equal to sm : AE activity may be zero
(a) or non-zero (b) at low stress values in the second cycle.
154 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171

of AE signals received per second or per 1 MPa stress N

·

increment. Bilinear regression or the method of two

tangents can be applied in this case in the same manner
as for the curves ‘‘cumulative hits versus stress’’ [19].
’ 2 may be used. The
Instead of the hit rate, its square ðNÞ
I
’ 2
dependency of cumulative ðNÞ values versus stress was
reported to show a sharper Kaiser inflexion than the II
dependency of cumulative hits versus stress [19].
Another technique of AE curve processing implies
calculating the curvature of the curve ‘‘cumulative AE
hits versus stress’’. The stress value corresponding to the
maximum curvature is assumed to be the Kaiser effect σ
0 σm
stress [20]. A method similar to the maximum curvature
method was recently proposed by Villaescusa et al. [21] Fig. 3. AE hit rate, N, versus stress s in the first (I) and second (II)
who plotted the normalised slope variation of the curve reloading cycles of uniaxial compression of a rock specimen which was
‘‘cumulative AE versus stress’’. A maximum in the preloaded in uniaxial compression to the peak stress value of sm (based
on results in Ref. [17,22]).
variation occurs at the ‘memorized’ stress value.
In the tests, in which high AE activity at lower stresses
is observed in each loading cycle, a technique developed FR
by Yoshikawa and Mogi can be employed [17,22].
According to this technique, two reloading cycles are
1.0
performed, with the same maximum stress, that must be
higher than the preloading maximum stress, sm :
Dependencies of AE hit rate versus stress are plotted
for each reloading cycle. The stress value at which these
two curves separate from each other, corresponds well
with the maximum preload stress sm : At stresses less
than sm ; these two curves virtually coincide; whereas,
from this point on, the curve for the second reloading
cycle runs below that for the first reloading, and the
difference between them increases with stress (Curves I
0 1.0 σm / σUCS
and II in Fig. 3). Plotting the difference between the Fig. 4. FR in the second cycle of uniaxial compression versus peak
dependencies ‘‘hit rate versus stress’’ in the first and stress of the first cycle of uniaxial compression normalized by the
second reloading cycles yields the value of sm quite rock’s uniaxial compressive strength (based on results in Ref. [13]).
accurately, even when considerable low-stress noise is
present in each cycle [22]. towards lower stresses. This move can be quantitatively
characterised by the so-called Felicity Ratio (FR) which
2.2. Rock type and loading stage is the ratio of the AE onset stress value to the previous
peak stress. The dependency of the FR on the preloading
By now, the Kaiser effect has been observed in stress for a brittle rock is schematically shown in Fig. 4
various types of rocks, e.g. granite, granodiorite, [13,17].
quartzite, andesite, basalt, marble, schist, gneiss, tuff, In order to obtain a well-pronounced Kaiser effect,
sandstone, limestone, dolomite, siltstone, shale, rock the preload stress should be in the range from about
salt, potash rocks, cohesive and granular soils, coal 30% to about 80% of the ultimate strength. This range
[1–5,7–44]. is certainly rock-dependent. The lower boundary of this
In brittle rocks, the effect is best-pronounced if the range (20–30% of the strength) is due to the fact that
preloading stress does not exceed the stress value at below this boundary, little AE is detected anyway, even
which dilatancy begins. If during preloading the without preloading, and this ‘silence’ can be misinter-
dilatancy threshold was exceeded, the Kaiser effect preted as the Kaiser effect.
during reloading becomes less clear, because AE activity In ductile rocks, e.g. rock salt, the Kaiser effect is well
at lower stresses appears which makes difficult or totally pronounced both before and after the dilatancy onset.
inhibits the Kaiser effect recognition [2]. The closer the Moreover, the effect is quite well-pronounced in the
preloading stress to the ultimate strength of a brittle post-failure region on the descending part of the stress–
rock, the less-pronounced the Kaiser effect is during strain curve [45]. The effect takes place when the current
reloading. It can be said that, while the preload moves strain of the specimen exceeds the largest previously
towards the strength of rock, the Kaiser effect moves reached strain value. It may be said that during
 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171 155

post-failure cyclic deformation, plastic rock ‘recollects’
the maximum value of strain rather than stress [45,46].
Displacement controlled loading should be employed
in order to observe the Kaiser effect in the post-failure
stage.
Interesting results were obtained by Dunning et al.
[47] in their experiments on cylindrical specimens of
sandstone with a sawcut surface. The surface, inclined at
351 to the s1-axis, was intended to simulate a fault in the
Earth crust. Two cycles were performed on each
specimen. A very clear Kaiser effect was observed in
the second cycle if the maximum load of the first cycle
was 60% of the yield stress, i.e. macrofailure did not
occur in the first cycle. If macrofailure in the form of
stick-slip occurred in the first cycle, the quality of the
Kaiser effect in the second cycle was poor. However, if
in the first cycle macrofailure occurred in the form of
stable sliding, a very well pronounced Kaiser effect was
measured in the second cycle [47]. This corresponds to
some extent to the observation made on plastic rock that
the Kaiser effect in the second cycle exists if the
specimen did not loose integrity in the first cycle [45].
2.3. What stress level is memorised by rock under cyclic
uniaxial compression?
If a rock specimen is loaded in cyclic uniaxial
compression with the cycle’s peak stress increasing from
cycle to cycle, the Kaiser effect takes place in each cycle
at the stress value equal to the peak stress of the last
cycle [40,48,49]. In such a loading regime, this is also the
largest stress value reached in the recent loading history
of the rock.
If three loading cycles are performed with the
maximum stress in the second cycle ( sII 1 ) lower than
in the first cycle ( sI1 ), and with the maximum stress in
the third cycle ( sIII III
1 ) higher than in the first one ( s1 >
I II
s1 > s1 ; Fig. 5a), the situation is more complex.
Namely, if the second cycle is carried out immediately
or very soon after completing the first cycle and the
specimen is not held at the peak stress in the second
cycle, i.e. unloading immediately follows loading, the
Kaiser effect in the third cycle is observed at the stress
equal to the first-cycle peak stress [40,49] (Fig. 5b.)
In this case, the rock ‘recollects’ the largest stress
level reached in its recent stress history, as postulated
in Ref. [19].
If, however, there is a time delay between the first and
second cycle, sufficient for stress memory recovery
(Fig. 5c), the Kaiser effect in the third cycle may be
observed at the peak stress of the second cycle (Fig. 5d).
The influence of time delay on the Kaiser effect decay is
discussed in more detail in Section 2.5.
Michihiro et al. [50] carried out experiments on tuff,
mudstone, sandstone and crystal schist in which three
uniaxial load cycles were performed on each specimen.

σ σ

σm σm

III
I
III
I
II II

(a) (c) t
t

NΣ NΣ

III III

II II

I I

σm σ σm σ
(b) (d)
Fig. 5. Uniaxial compressive stress versus time (a, c) and cumulative AE hits versus stress (b, d) in three-cycle tests with the peak stress of the second
cycle less than the peak stress of the first cycle. The peak stress of the third cycle is larger than the peak stress of the first cycle. The time delay between
the first and second cycle is zero (a, b) or non-zero (c, d).
156 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
The relation between the largest stresses of the cycles
was as follows: sIII I II
1 > s1 > s1 : The tests have shown that
if the specimen was held at the maximum load of the
second cycle until strain recovery finished, the Kaiser
effect in the third cycle was observed at the peak stress
of the second cycle, although it was smaller than the
maximum stress of the first cycle.
Hence, in general, it is not possible to state that rock
‘memorizes’ the maximum stress reached during recent
stress history. The phenomenon is more complicated.
The answer is dependent on the duration of the time
interval between preloading and reloading as well as on
the duration of the load application during preloading.
This result is important for the application of the effect
for stress measurements.
Can palaeostresses that were acting millions of years
ago have formed damage that could be revealed by the
Kaiser effect in laboratory tests? Due to the long time
that has passed since the palaeostresses were applied, the
Kaiser effect seems likely to indicate the maximum
stresses applied in more recent history. Certainly the
duration of stress application and the stress level
(percentage of strength) play their parts as well.
2.4. Duration of load application; Kaiser effect after
creep and stress relaxation
Results of the experiments performed by Michihiro
et al. [50] on tuff, mudstone, sandstone and crystal schist
suggest that the larger the duration of stress application
during preloading, the clearer the Kaiser effect will be in
the succeeding reloading test. However, for a brittle
rock, andesite, no significant influence of the duration of
load application on the succeeding Kaiser effect could
be found ([17], where the load application duration
ranged from 1 to 1000 s). The influence of the load
application duration should be more pronounced in
ductile rocks.
In situ rocks may undergo complex loading regimes,
including creep and stress relaxation. In order to
investigate the Kaiser effect in these regimes, two-cycle
tests were performed in which the first cycle was a
uniaxial creep test, i.e. constant stress, or uniaxial
loading followed stress relaxation, i.e. constant strain,
followed by complete unloading of the specimen; the
second cycle was uniaxial reloading with stress increas-
ing from 0 to the ultimate strength. In ductile rocks like
clay and rock salt, a well-pronounced Kaiser effect was
observed in the second cycle in such loading regimes
[44,51,52]. In experiments by Michihiro et al. [50],
perfect Kaiser effect was observed in the second cycle, if
strain stabilization was reached during the first-cycle
creep. If rock deformation did not stop during creep, i.e.
strain did not stabilize, the Kaiser effect stress in the
following reloading is smaller than the stress at which
the rock was held during the creep (FR down to 0.3 for
mudstone) [50].
2.5. Influence of time delay, water saturation and heating
Increasing time delay between successive loading
cycles results in decreasing quality of the Kaiser effect.
If the second loading cycle follows, not immediately,
but with a certain time delay after completing the first
cycle, AE activity appears in the second cycle at stress
values lower than the peak stress of the first cycle [13].
The inflexion becomes not so clear as in the case of zero
time delay.
The extent of the Kaiser effect decay in the course of
time is rock dependent. Extremely short values of the
time delay (of the order of several hours) sufficient to
completely eliminate the Kaiser effect were reported by
Goodman for sandstone and quartz diorite [8]. The
results of Ref. [8] were disputed and explained in
different ways by Holcomb [10] and Yoshikawa and
Mogi [17]. For gneiss, schist, carbonate, mudstone,
limestone and sandstone, Koerner and Lord [53]
reported that the Kaiser effect was well-pronounced
when the time delay between the cycles was less than
10 h. When the delay was more than 1000 h, the effect
disappeared completely [53]. In rock salt, the Kaiser
effect could be unambiguously identified after time
delays of up to 14 days [40]. In a brittle rock, i.e. granite,
Kaiser effect was well-observed after a 300-day time
delay [54]. Another research team reported a much more
substantial decay of the Kaiser effect in granite: the FR
became 0.78 after a rest of 7.5 days. After a 20-day rest,
the value of FR became 0.44, i.e. the Kaiser effect was
lost [55]. A monotonic decrease of FR with time between
the cycles was observed in Ref. [55] and is schematically
shown in Fig. 6. The Kaiser effect degradation in the
course of time was linked by Michihiro et al. [55] to
anelastic strain recovery.
As pointed out by Yoshikawa and Mogi [17], the
dependency of the Kaiser effect on time is sensitive to
the value of the preloading stress: the closer the
FR
1.0
0 t
Fig. 6. FR in the second cycle versus time delay between the first and
second cycle of uniaxial compression (based on results in Ref. [55]).
 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
preloading stress to the ultimate strength, the faster the
Kaiser effect decay.
Kaiser effect degradation in the course of time can be
enhanced by water saturation or heating of the specimen
inbetween the load cycles. Water saturation can impose
a severe influence on the Kaiser effect, even in a low-
porosity rock like granite [2]. A comprehensive investi-
gation of the influence of water saturation and heating
on the Kaiser effect in a brittle rock, i.e. andesite, was
carried out in Ref. [22]. Different combinations of
moistening and heating were studied, whereby it was
possible to moisten the specimen either during the first
cycle, or in between, or during the second cycle. Tests
have shown that the worst conditions for the Kaiser
effect observations were if the specimen was heated
between the cycles, or if the second cycle was performed
on a wet specimen. A strong influence of heating on
stress memory in diorite and liporite was reported by
Panasiyan et al. [5]. In their experiments, temperature
increase up to only 80–1001C between two load cycles
was sufficient to completely eliminate the Kaiser effect.
Mechanisms of the Kaiser effect degradation in the
course of time as well as the influence of water
saturation are not completely understood yet. It is
tempting to ascribe these phenomena to microstructural
changes like crack healing. However, more detailed
research, including microscopic analyses, is needed to
clarify these points.
2.6. Influence of the loading rate
Loading and unloading processes in situ can proceed
with various loading rates—from very slow ones during
geological history to very fast, e.g. when blasting is
performed or when earthquakes occur. Laboratory
testing of the rock specimens retrieved from the rock
mass is usually carried out with the loading rates or
displacement rates accepted in rock mechanics labora-
tory practice. These may (and do) differ from the rate at
which stress-memory-forming loads were applied in situ.
Experiments by Yoshikawa and Mogi on Shinkomat-
su andesite revealed no or very little influence of the
loading rate on the Kaiser effect in that rock; loading
rates in the range from 0.005 to 0.3 MPa/s were studied
[17]. A recent study [42] performed on another brittle
rock (low-porosity limestone) has shown that if the first
cycle of uniaxial compression is carried out with a higher
strain rate (2.4  104 s1), then the second cycle is
performed with a more conventional strain rate of
1.2  105 s1, the Kaiser effect occurs at the stress
which is about 67% of the peak stress of the first cycle,
i.e. FR = 0.67. This result indicates that the use of the
Kaiser effect for estimating in situ dynamic loads may
be questionable. It should be noted also that the load
rate used in the first cycle in Ref. [42] is many orders
smaller than that encountered during blasting and
157
impact processes. The dependency of the Kaiser effect
on loading rate should be even more pronounced in
plastic and soft rocks.
If the ratio of the loading rates in the first and second
cycle is inverse (first—slow, second—fast), the Kaiser
effect in the second cycle is well-observed. It occurs at
the stress slightly higher than the first-cycle peak stress,
i.e. FR>1.0 [42]. This result obtained on a brittle
limestone should be additionally verified for plastic
rocks.
2.7. Stress memory formation under triaxial stress state
Practical applications of the Kaiser effect for stress mea-
surements require a full recognition of the stress tensor
and the triaxial nature of the in situ stress state.
In the Earth’s crust, rock is usually subject to a tri-
axial state of stress. This can be either axisymmetric
triaxial (s1 > s2 ¼ s3 ) or true triaxial, i.e. polyaxial
(s1 > s2 > s3 ). Laboratory testing of the core
specimens is usually carried out in uniaxial compres-
sion—in the direction which is assumed to be the
direction of the in situ s1 -stress. The question about
directional sensitivity of the Kaiser effect will be
discussed in Section 2.8. But even if we assume that
the direction of the in situ s1 coincides with that in the
laboratory test, the stress state has six independent
components (one way to express these being the
magnitude and orientations of the three principal
stresses). The question is: what does the Kaiser effect
stress indicate in uniaxial compression performed after
triaxial preloading?
This question is linked to the fundamental problem of
the formation of damage surface in stress space [56].
During triaxial preloading, the damage surface of rock
is expanded. When the specimen is reloaded, the Kaiser
effect occurs when the loading path in the stress space
arrives at the damage surface.
A simple experiment allows one to demonstrate the
complexity of stress memory formation under triaxial
stress state. Two loading cycles are performed. The first
cycle is axisymmetric triaxial compression with the
maximum values of the principal stresses sI1 > sI2 ¼ sI3 ;
the superscripts indicating the number of the loading
cycle. The second cycle is uniaxial reloading in the
direction of the first-cycle s1 -stress. The test is aimed at
simulating the real stress measurement procedure with
the first cycle being similar to the in situ loading, and the
second cycle mimicking the laboratory test of the core
specimen.
Experiments show that the Kaiser effect in the second
cycle in such tests occurs at a stress value sII1KE which, at
least in a certain stress range, is a linear combination of
the principal stresses of the first cycle [41,57]:
sII I I
1KE ¼ s1  ðk1 þ 1Þs3 ; ð1Þ
158 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
σ1 _ σ3
σ1I _ σ 3I
C
k1
σ 1KE
II 1
A
B
O σ 3I σ3
Fig. 7. Left-hand part of the damage surface formed by triaxial
axisymmetric loading in the first cycle with principal stresses sI1 ; sI3 :
Probing the damage surface in the second cycle is carried out in
uniaxial compression. The loading path in the first cycle is shown by
two straight lines, OB and BC: Uniaxial reloading in the second cycle
is represented by the straight line OA: The Kaiser effect in the second
cycle takes place when the damage surface is reached in point A; i.e. at
stress value sII
1KE :
where the dimensionless coefficient of k1 is rock
dependent, e.g. for rock salt studied in Ref. [41,57] k1 ¼
0:520:7: The coefficient of k1 characterizes the slope of
the damage surface projection onto the plane ‘‘stress
difference (s1  s3 ) versus stress s3 ’’ on the left from the
point corresponding to the end-point of the first cycle
(Fig. 7).
Eq. (1) shows that a threshold value of sI1 exists that
should be exceeded in the first cycle for stress memory to
be formed, and thus, for the Kaiser effect to manifest in
the second cycle. This threshold is equal to ðk1 þ 1ÞsI3 :
This indicates that, if the first cycle is executed in
hydrostatic compression (sI1 ¼ sI2 ¼ sI3 ), no Kaiser
effect is observed during uniaxial compression in the
second cycle. Direct experiments confirm this conclusion
(e.g. [5,58]). It should be noted, however, that if both
first and second cycles are conducted in hydrostatic
compression, the Kaiser effect is observed: AE activity
in the second cycle is remarkably lower than in the first
cycle, as long as the hydrostatic pressure remains less
than the maximum pressure reached in the first cycle
[11]. The mechanism behind the Kaiser effect in this case
might be the pore collapse rather than microcracking.
The result expressed by Eq. (1) shows that it is
impossible to determine the full in situ stress tensor
simply by uniaxially loading core specimens. At best, by
such method, it is possible to estimate the linear
combination of in situ stresses, when testing the speci-
men oriented precisely in the direction of the in situ
s1 -stress.
There is one more difficulty, apart from the fact that
the Kaiser effect during uniaxial reloading (second
cycle) after triaxial preloading (first cycle) occurs at a
stress which is a linear combination of the first-cycle
·
N
0 σ 1KE
II
σ 1II
Fig. 8. AE hit rate versus uniaxial compressive stress in the second
loading cycle of a rock specimen that was loaded in the first cycle in
axisymmetric triaxial compression. The Kaiser effect is recognized as a
maximum.
principal stresses given by (1). The dependency of AE hit
rate on stress during uniaxial reloading of triaxially
preloaded specimens is considerably different from that
after uniaxial preloading. The hit rate begins to increase
virtually from the beginning of the test. The Kaiser
effect can be recognised as a maximum in the curve ‘‘AE
hit rate versus stress’’ occurring at stress value sII 1KE
defined by Eq. (1) [19,41,57]. This is schematically
illustrated in Fig. 8. The presence of AE activity from
the beginning of the test represents a significant
difficulty with respect to using the Kaiser effect for
stress measurements. In Refs. [41,57] this was overcome
by using deformation curves simultaneously with AE
measurements. The stress memory effects were identified
by finding inflexions in the curves ‘‘axial strain versus
uniaxial stress’’, ‘‘lateral strain versus uniaxial stress’’
and ‘‘volumetric strain versus uniaxial stress’’ indicating
strain-hardening. Analysis of the differential coefficient
of the lateral strain (differential Poisson’s ratio) was also
used (see Ref. [41] for details). The inflexions in those
stress–strain curves corresponded exactly to the max-
imum in the hit rate versus stress curve. It should be
noted that the experiments in Ref. [41] were performed
on a plastic rock, where strain-hardening is very well
pronounced. For brittle rocks, where the deformation
curves may hardly be used, the identification of the
Kaiser effect during uniaxial compression after triaxial
preloading may represent a significant problem.
Another type of test which is often used in the Kaiser
effect studies includes two loading cycles, of which the
first one is uniaxial or triaxial axisymmetric, and the
second cycle is triaxial axisymmetric with the value of
s3 -stress, sII I
3 ; larger than that in the first cycle, s1 : The
loading sequence in this test is thus reversed in
comparison to the above-described test. Experiments
of such type were performed by Holcomb [10] as well as
 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171 159

Li and Nordlund [13]. Larger values of the confining

σ1 _ σ 3
pressure applied in second cycle (the confining pressure
is held constant in the second cycle while the stress
difference is increased) result in increasing stress
difference value at which the Kaiser effect takes place σ 1I _ σ 3I
in the second cycle. The Kaiser effect in the second cycle B
occurs at the moment when the damage surface formed
in the first cycle is reached. This happens when the
condition
sII II I I
1KE  ðk2 þ 1Þs3 ¼ s1  ðk2 þ 1Þs3 ð2Þ A

becomes valid during second-cycle loading. Here, k2 is a

O σ 3I σ3
rock-dependent dimensionless coefficient that charac- Fig. 10. Complete view of the damage surface formed by triaxial
terizes the slope of the damage surface projection onto axisymmetric loading with principal stresses sI1 ; sI3 : The damage-
the plane ‘‘stress difference (s1  s3 ) versus stress s3 ’’ on forming loading path is represented by two straight lines, OA and AB:
the right from the stress state of the first cycle (Fig. 9). The vertex point B corresponds to the peak stress state (based on
results in Ref. [14]).
The value of k2 was found to be equal to 2.6 for
Westerly granite [56] and to 2.8 for Kuru granite [13,16].
The slope of the damage surface projection with
the first cycle. This allowed them to test the damage
respect to the s3 -axis given by k2 ; is the bigger, the
surface on the right or on the left from the point
greater damage was introduced during the first cycle (cf.
corresponding to the first cycle. The existence of the
curves 1, 2 and 3 in Fig. 9) [13]. This corresponds well
vertex point is in agreement with the theoretical models
with the results of the theory developed in Ref. [59].
of damage surface formation developed in Refs. [59–62].
Figs. 7 and 9 are plotted on the basis of the results of
The existence of the vertex point in the damage
the tests in which the confining pressure, s3 ; in the
surface and the correspondence of this point to the stress
second cycle is smaller (Fig. 7) or larger (Fig. 9) than in
state at which the damage surface was formed allowed
the first cycle. Combining these two figures results in a
Pestman and Van Munster to propose a method for
damage surface shown in Fig. 10. The vertex point B in
determining both principal stresses based on the Kaiser
Fig. 10 corresponds to the end-point stress state of the
effect [14]. The method includes scanning the damage
first cycle. Direct experimental observation of such form
surface by performing several triaxial tests. The confin-
of the damage surface was achieved by Pestman and
ing pressure differs from test to test but remains
Van Munster [14] who preloaded sandstone specimens
constant during each test. As a result, the complete
in axisymmetric triaxial compression and then reloaded
damage surface can be plotted, with the vertex point
them, also in axisymmetric triaxial compression, with
yielding the stress state at which the stress memory was
the value of confining pressure bigger or smaller than in
formed.
The real stress environment in situ is usually
σ1 _ σ3 3 effectively true triaxial, i.e. with s1 > s2 > s3 : Experi-
mental verification of the Kaiser effect in rocks that
2 were preloaded in true triaxial compression is difficult
since it requires a special experimental equipment
1 (a polyaxial load cell). Theoretical predictions made on
σ1I _ σ 3I 1
k2 D the basis of a simple brittle fracture model using the
B Fairhurst-Cook approach (wing crack model) have
shown that the Kaiser effect after true triaxial preload-
ing should be less-pronounced than after axisymmetric
A C preloading. In particular, the amount of AE at lower
stresses during uniaxial reloading of rock should be
O σ3
I
σ 3II σ3 larger [57,63]. Experimental verification of the estima-
Fig. 9. Right-hand part of the damage surface formed by triaxial tions of Refs. [57,63] is required.
axisymmetric loading in the first cycle with principal stresses sI1 ; sI3 : An experimental study of the Kaiser effect in uniaxial
Probing the damage surface in the second cycle is carried out in triaxial tests of a brittle rock previously subjected to true triaxial
axisymmetric compression. The loading path in the first cycle is shown
stress state may be found in Ref. [64]. Disk specimens of
by two straight lines, OA and AB: Reloading in the second cycle is
represented by two straight lines, OC and CD: The Kaiser effect in the limestone were preloaded along a diameter (Brazilian
second cycle takes place when the damage surface is reached in point loading scheme) until a sufficient number of AE hits
D: was registered ensuring that sufficient damage was
160 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
introduced in the central zone of the disk. The stress
state in the central part of the disk was true triaxial, with
one of the principal stresses being tensile (perpendicular
to the loaded diameter, parallel to the disk surface), the
other one being approximately zero (normal to the disk
surface; thin disks were used, with the ratio thickness:
diameter o0:2), and the third one being compressive
(parallel to the loaded diameter). A prismatic specimen
was then cut from the central zone of each disk along the
loaded diameter, i.e. parallel to the compressive
principal stress. The prismatic specimens were tested in
uniaxial compression with AE measurement. In all
prismatic specimens tested, considerable AE activity
started from the beginning of loading. The inflexion in
the cumulative AE versus stress curve was present in two
of the five specimens tested, and even in those two the
inflexion was unclear.
All the two-cycle experiments described so far in this
section (first cycle triaxial, second cycle uniaxial or
triaxial), are still very far from what really happens
when stress measurements based on the Kaiser effect are
carried out. One of the few attempts to physically
simulate the real stress measurement process can be
found in Refs. [65,66]. When a core is extracted from a
vertical borehole, the vertical stress is first relieved. The
remaining horizontal stresses form a certain damage.
Then the horizontal stresses are decreased, and the core
is extracted. This sequence was modeled in the tests
described in Refs. [65,66]. Evidence was obtained that it
is possible to estimate horizontal in situ stresses using
the Kaiser effect.
2.8. The effect of rotation of principal axes
The consideration in the previous section concerns the
case when the directions of principal stresses are the
same in the first and second cycle, e.g. uniaxial reloading
is performed precisely in the direction in which s1 was
applied during triaxial preloading. In real stress
measurement situations, however, the precise orienta-
tion of the in situ s1-stress is not known a priori. Indeed,
it should be obtained as a result of the stress
measurements. In some situations, this direction can
be assumed based on common sense or geological data,
but the accuracy of such assumptions is usually quite
poor. The question is: is it critical if the specimen for the
laboratory test is orientated not exactly in the direction
of the in situ s1-stress, but at an angle of y to it?
Experimental verification is the easiest for the case of
y ¼ 901: Cubic specimens are manufactured, and several
cycles of uniaxial compression are performed, uniaxial
load being applied in each cycle in the direction
orthogonal to the previous cycle. The results of the
tests indicate that there is no Kaiser effect during
uniaxial reloading in the directions orthogonal to the
preloading direction [67]. Thus, a uniaxial stress applied
in a direction cannot be retrieved simply by uniaxially
reloading in a perpendicular direction.
It is interesting to draw a parallel between these
experiments and dynamic tests in a modified split
Hopkinson bar performed on zirconia ceramics in
Ref. [68]. Rectangular specimens were subjected to two
loading cycles each. The direction of load application in
the second cycle was either the same as in the first cycle
(this regime is further called ‘‘loading scheme A’’), or it
was orthogonal to the first-cycle loading direction
(further called ‘‘loading scheme B’’). Regular strain-
hardening was observed in the specimens of series A:
inelastic strains in the second cycle were considerably
lower than in the first one. In the specimens tested with a
901-rotation (scheme B), inelastic strains in the second
cycle were of the same order as in the first cycle. In each
cycle, cracks were formed in the direction sub-parallel to
the load applied.
Notwithstanding the difference in the mechanisms of
inelastic deformation of zirconia ceramics and AE in
rocks, both phenomena characterize irreversible struc-
tural changes. In this sense, the equality of inelastic
strains in the first and second cycles conducted in
mutually perpendicular directions in Ref. [68] is similar
to the absence of the Kaiser effect in rocks in case of
y ¼ 901:
If a specimen is uniaxially sequentially loaded in
several orthogonal directions, and then sequentially
reloaded in each of them, the Kaiser effect in
each direction is observed at the stress value which is
equal to the stress applied in that direction during
preloading [54,55,69]. As concluded in Ref. [69], ‘‘the
recollection of a pre-stress level in a particular direction
appears to be unaffected by the application of stresses
in orthogonal directions during the period before
re-stressing’’.
It should be noted that sequential loading in three
orthogonal directions is completely different from a
simultaneous application of stresses. The former loading
program results in that anisotropic damage is created
successively in each direction. The latter case is a true
triaxial loading. Neglecting the difference between the
two regimes is still sometimes encountered in Kaiser
effect studies.
The case of ya901 is more subtle. Holcomb and
Costin [56] performed an experiment in which a large
block of Westerly granite was subjected to uniaxial
compression. After the load was decreased to zero, sub-
cores were taken from the block in different directions.
Testing the sub-cores has shown that the Kaiser effect is
very sensitive to the deviation of the reloading direction
from the direction in which the load was applied to the
big block. The effect was observable for y less than 101.
When the direction of the s1-axis in the second cycle
deviated by more than 101 from that in the first cycle,
the Kaiser effect could not be observed, i.e. the rock
 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
behaved like a ‘fresh’ one, not having been preloaded in
the first cycle.
In Ref. [43], this extremely high sensitivity of the
Kaiser effect versus rotation of principal axes in
successive loading cycles was reconfirmed in experiments
using cyclic Brazilian tests with disk rotation between
loading cycles. This made it possible to avoid cutting
variously orientated specimens from a preloaded block,
which might introduce additional damage in the rock.
Disks were subjected to two loading cycles each, with or
without disk rotation between the cycles. The Kaiser
effect was observed if the rotation angle of the disk
between first and second cycle did not exceed 101. For
rotation angles larger than 101, the Kaiser effect was
absent: AE activity gradually increased from the
beginning of the second cycle, not showing any inflexion
or another anomaly. No Kaiser effect could be detected
also in the tests with disk rotation by y ¼ 901; the result
agreeing well with the above-described results for cubic
specimens. The results of Ref. [43] are in agreement with
those of Holcomb [12,56], although the stress state in
Brazilian tests is different from that in uniaxial
compression.
The results described so far in this section are crucial
for stress measurement applications. The results show
that specimens for uniaxial laboratory compression
should be retrieved as close as possible to the direction
of the in situ s1-stress. The deviation of the specimen
from the in situ s1-axis should not exceed 101. Only in
this case does it make sense to search for the Kaiser
effect in the specimens undergoing uniaxial laboratory
tests, and even in this case only if the threshold s1-value
was exceeded in situ (Section 2.7). If the specimen is
oriented in the direction of in situ s1-stress, the Kaiser
effect enables the estimation of the linear combination
according to Eq. (1). Should the deviation of the
specimen from the in situ s1-axis be more than 101, no
Kaiser effect will be observed in a uniaxial laboratory
test. This implies that, if the Kaiser effect in core
specimens has the same mechanism as that in laboratory
tests described in this and the preceding sections, then it
is not possible to retrieve the whole in situ stress tensor
by simply uniaxially loading specimens orientated in six
different directions [12]. In fact, there will be no Kaiser
effect in most of them, if not in all.
A different situation is of course when the rock during
its history was subject to several loading cycles with
different orientations of the principal axes. In this case,
anisotropic damage could be formed in each loading
cycle, e.g. in the laboratory tests on cubic specimens
with sequential uniaxial loading in orthogonal direc-
tions. If the threshold s1-value was exceeded in each of
those cycles, and if the time delay between the in situ
loading and the laboratory test was not sufficient for the
Kaiser effect to degrade completely, then the Kaiser
effect in laboratory tests on several (or even all)
161
differently orientated specimens may exist. This is
probably the reason for evidence of the Kaiser effect
in core specimens reported in the literature (Section 4.1).
Another consequence of the results described above is
that they suggest a methodology for a precise estimation
of the in situ s1-direction by testing specimens cored in
different orientations, provided that only memory of the
most recently experienced stress state is present in the
rock. The large number of specimens needed for such
procedure can be reduced if the in situ s1-direction is
known approximately from some other data, e.g. from
geological evidence, anelastic strain recovery (ASR) or
differential strain curve analysis techniques.
2.9. Influence of the coring process
The most popular stress measurement technique
based on the Kaiser effect involves retrieving core
specimens from the Earth’s crust and testing them in the
laboratory. An important question is to what extent the
damage introduced during the coring process influences
the in situ stress memory contained in rock.
Damage can be introduced in rock during coring in
several ways. When a vertical borehole approaches a
point in the rock mass, the vertical principal stress is
gradually reduced, while the horizontal stresses are
unaltered until the rock is inside the coring drill bit; then
the horizontal stresses are reduced [66,70]. At the
bottom of the core stub, a local stress concentration
should be expected. A comprehensive finite-element
analysis carried out by Li and Schmitt [71] has shown
that, dependent on the ratio of in situ stresses, increased
tensile or shear stresses can develop at the core bottom.
Tensile stresses develop if the horizontal far-field in situ
stress is larger than the in situ stress parallel to the
borehole. The tensile stress direction is approximately
parallel to the borehole axis. After the core is inside the
bit, the tensile stress decreases gradually and becomes
negligible at a distance of ca. 3R upwards from the drill
bit tip along the axis of the core (R is the core radius)
[72]. A schematic in Fig. 11 illustrates the dependency of
the tensile stress on the distance z along the core [71,72].
Even if the tensile stresses are not high enough to
produce core disking, they may be sufficient to generate
microcracks perpendicular to the core axis. This may be
the reason for numerous reported observations that
there is a Kaiser effect in sub-cores drilled perpendicular
to the direction of the in situ s1-stress. A rigorous
experimental and theoretical verification of this sugges-
tion is required.
If the largest compressive in situ far-field stress is
acting parallel to the borehole axis, shear stresses
develop in the core stub. These can produce damage,
although, as shown in Ref. [71], they do not cause core
disking.
162 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
σtensile
0 3R z
Fig. 11. Tensile stress versus distance z along the axis of the borehole.
The position of the drill bit tip is indicated by an arrow. Tensile stress
becomes negligible at a distance ca. 3R upwards from the drill bit tip; R
is the borehole radius (schematically; based on results of Ref. [72]).
The damage produced by tensile and shear stresses
caused by the near-drill-bit stress concentration will
have a complicated impact on the Kaiser effect
observation in the retrieved core specimens. A further
experimental study and fracture mechanics analysis
of this problem is needed. Poromechanical effects,
the drill string weight and the friction forces produced
by a rotating drill bit should be taken into account
as well.
The drill bit rotation should produce some additional
damage caused by the friction forces. The effect of the
damage due to the rotation of the bit was studied in
Refs. [55,73]. Large cubic specimens were preloaded in
uniaxial compression, then unloaded, and smaller
specimens were drilled out to be tested in uniaxial
compression. This procedure is certainly different from
a real coring procedure because the latter is performed
under in situ stresses. The experiments in Refs. [55,73]
have shown that a perfect Kaiser effect is observed in the
drilled-out specimens, i.e. the surface damage intro-
duced by the rotating bit is negligible for the Kaiser
effect observation.
A stress-free core specimen recently extracted from in
situ indicates an exponentially decaying AE [74]. This is
similar to the time-dependent anelastic strain recovery
(ASR) and is quite a well-known phenomenon which
was observed, e.g. in the specimens obtained from KTB
boreholes [75,76]. For example, in a gneiss core an
exponentially decaying AE activity was measured during
2 days after separating the core from the rock mass [76].
Indicating the development of a post-drilling damage,
the AE activity during ASR may to some extent obscure
the Kaiser effect in laboratory tests.
Additional damage to the core can be caused by a
temperature change in comparison to in situ, and, in
low-permeable rocks, by pore pressure of the locked-in
fluid [70].
2.10. Kaiser effect at different scales
Most of the Kaiser effect features described in the
preceding sections were established during laboratory
tests on relatively small rock specimens (dimensions of
the order of n  1 cm). However, stress memory and,
more particularly, the Kaiser effect can be observed in
rocks at different scales.
Sobolev et al. [23] observed the Kaiser effect in their
tests on a large (about 1 m) cubic rock specimen
subjected to cyclic uniaxial compresision.
Cyclic loading of borehole walls by means of a rock
jack or a pressuremeter resulted in the Kaiser effect [27].
This is an example of an in situ Kaiser effect, at borehole
scale.
Being loaded with a pressuremeter or a rock jack in
one cycle shortly after drilling, rocks around a borehole
indicate a memory effect on in situ stresses. This was
evidenced in Refs. [27,77,78] and suggests a basis for a
stress measurement technique which exploits the Kaiser
effect of rocks around a borehole (see Section 4.2 for
more detail). Fracture mechanics validation of this
technique using a two-dimensional wing crack model
was given in Refs. [79–82].
Being a characteristic feature of heterogeneous solids,
the Kaiser effect should be observed at large scales as
well. A literature review shows that, indeed, examples of
the Kaiser effect in the microseismic and seismic
activities can be found. For example, Simpson and
Negmatullaev reported that cyclic changes of the water
level in the Nurek reservoir resulted in seismic activity
when the water level approached the previous maximum
level [83]. Care should however be taken when drawing
parallels between reservoir-induced microseismic activ-
ity and the Kaiser effect because of the complexity of the
mechanisms involved in fault dynamics, as demon-
strated in Ref. [84].
Seismicity in the vicinity of a water reservoir at Koyna
(India) was explained by means of the Kaiser effect in
Refs. [85,86]. The existence of a large-scale Kaiser effect
in situ could limit the applicability of microseismic and
AE techniques for rockburst forecast in mines, as
pointed out by Young [87]. This is valid also for
precursory anomalies other than AE and foreshocks.
Parallels between stress memory effects and earthquake/
rockburst precursors were drawn in Ref. [88].
The existence of the Kaiser effect in the post-failure
regime (Section 2.2) means that this phenomenon could
be observed even in heavily deformed Earth crust areas,
although the Kaiser effect will be complicated in this
case because of the complex loading history of rocks.
Results of experiments by Dunning et al. [47]
performed on sawcut rock blocks and described in
Section 2.2 suggest that a kind of Kaiser effect may exist
in the Earth’s crust on faults and fault-like structures.
However, laboratory tests [89] on sawcut blocks
 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
undergoing cyclic stick-slip motion indicated no or very
poor Kaiser effect. In Ref. [89], 15 to 150 stick-clip
events were produced on each block subjected to biaxial
compression and instrumented with AE and strain
sensors. In 80% of these stick-slip events, precursory
AE was observed indicating no stress memory. More
experimental work is needed to clarify the applicability
of laboratory results to large-scale observations.
3. Theoretical models of the Kaiser effect
Application of the Kaiser effect for stress measure-
ments requires a firm understanding of the mechanism
behind the phenomenon.
Generally speaking, the Kaiser effect is a manifesta-
tion of the stress memory of heterogeneous solids. A
number of stress memory effects other than the Kaiser
effect are known in rocks: e.g. the deformation memory
effect, or strain hardening, on which the deformation
rate analysis (DRA) stress measurement technique is
based [54,90,91]; the ultrasonic memory effect [31,92];
the electric memory effect [24,92]; the memory effect in
electromagnetic emission [24]; the ion emission memory
effect [93]. Some curious parallels can be drawn between
stress memory effects in rocks and temperature memory
effects in spin glasses [94] and plexiglass [95].
The mechanism of the Kaiser effect should be sought
for in the formation of irreversible damage due to the
stresses applied to the rock. In brittle rocks, microcracks
are one of the most important mechanisms controlling
the irreversible damage and the Kaiser effect. One of the
first attempts of micromechanical analysis of the Kaiser
effect was undertaken in Refs. [96,97]. Stevens and
Holcomb [96] have shown that a sliding crack model (a
mass on an inclined plane) accounts for stress memory
only if the dynamic coefficient of friction between crack
faces md is equal to the static one ms : md ¼ ms : In this
case, the sliding process occurs in a stable way. If the
dynamic friction is less than the static, i.e. md oms ; the
motion on the sliding crack proceeds in stick-slip mode,
and stress memory is violated [96]. As an alternative to
the sliding crack model, a reversible Griffith crack
model was suggested in Ref. [97]. In this model, a crack
can be in one of the two states: ‘closed’ or ‘opened’. A
closed crack is assumed to be healed so that its strength
is restored, at least partially. The opening stress is higher
than the closing stress, which gives rise to a hysteresis.
The behaviour of a single reversible Griffith crack is
illustrated in Fig. 12. Considering a population of such
cracks (‘mesoscopic hysteretic elements’) allowed the
simulation of stress memory and other properties of
nonlinear dilatant rocks [98–101].
A micromechanical model developed by Costin [102]
allowed the simulation of the damage surface expansion
under a triaxial state of stress. In the model, the local
163
L
0 σc σo σ
Fig. 12. Crack length L versus stress s for a reversible Griffith crack
(based on Ref. [97]).
tensile stress is relieved as a penny-shaped tensile crack
propagates, so that a stable crack growth is possible.
Thus, the crack length, after completing loading,
corresponds to the peak stress reached. This gives rise
to the Kaiser effect. Based on this model, Holcomb [12]
simulated the Kaiser effect under various conditions,
including some types of true triaxial loading. In
particular, he found that if the first cycle is performed
in the so-called ‘extensional’ mode (principal stresses s1
and s2 are compressive and equal to each other; stress s3
is smaller than s1 ; s2 ) and the second cycle is uniaxial
compression in the direction of the first-cycle s1 ; then no
Kaiser effect is observed. This is in agreement with
experimental observations [103].
Holcomb concluded that uniaxial reloading ‘is not
able to detect general stress histories applied in the
laboratory’ [12]. As an alternative to uniaxial reloading,
he suggested the use of extensional reloading. Probing
the damage surface in extensional mode should allow
the activation of microcracks with the normals parallel
to a specified direction, thus being more selective than
conventional uniaxial probing. If the extensional reload-
ing is used, it is possible to extract some information
even after a true triaxial first cycle in which all principal
stresses are different and compressive. In particular, the
orientations of principal axes can be found [12].
The simulations in Ref. [12] confirmed high sensitivity
of the Kaiser effect against the non-coincidence of
principal axes in successive loading cycles. This was later
reconfirmed in Ref. [104] by using a Fairhurst-Cook
wing crack model (shear crack+two tensile cracks).
Using the wing crack model for simulating the Kaiser
effect in uniaxial compression (second cycle) after true
triaxial precompression (first cycle) has shown that the
intermediate principal stress (s2 ) significantly affects
the AE signature during the uniaxial second cycle
[57,63,105].
Using the wing crack model for the simulation of the
Kaiser effect during uniaxial reloading (second cycle)
after axisymmetric triaxial preloading (first cycle)
164 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
[13,16,104] confirmed the experimental finding that the
Kaiser effect is not so well-pronounced in this case as in
cyclic uniaxial tests. This is due to the cracks which did
not grow in the first cycle because of the higher overall
compression (confining stress). The model has shown
that the Kaiser effect during uniaxial reloading occurs at
a stress value which is a linear combination of the first-
cycle principal stresses [13,16,104,106]. In order to
obtain the values of both s1 and s3 principal stresses,
the second cycle should be carried out in proportional
triaxial compression [107]. The Kaiser effect should be
the best-pronounced when the ratio of principal stresses
in the second cycle is the same as in the first cycle.
Testing a series of specimens with different values of the
ratio s1 =s3 should thus allow one to obtain the values of
both principal stresses of the first cycle [107].
Generally speaking, the results of Ref. [107] suggest
that the Kaiser effect should be more pronounced, the
closer the reloading path is to the preceding stress
history. The effect should be perfect when the reloading
path follows the preloading path precisely, i.e. if the
stress history of the rock is fully restored. Thus, we are
trapped in a vicious circle which seems to undermine the
use of this phenomenon for stress measurements: to
obtain the in situ stresses, the in situ loading path should
be followed in the laboratory test. However, as shown
above, some useful information (directions of principal
axes, linear combination of the principal stresses et al.)
can be estimated by the Kaiser effect without knowing
the previous stress history. Moreover, experimental and
theoretical results obtained by Pestman and Van
Munster [14] suggest that it is possible to determine
both principal stresses by probing the damage surface at
various confining pressures in the hope to find the vertex
point. For the theoretical justification of their method,
Pestman and Van Munster developed an analytical
model of the Kaiser effect based on the wing cracks
concept. The model allowed them to explain the
existence of the vertex point in the damage surface
formed under an axisymmetric triaxial stress state [14].
All models presented in this section so far consider
microcrack growth. An alternative approach pointed
out in Ref. [12] implies that the Kaiser effect is due to
the void closure instead of crack growth. This approach
could provide an explanation for numerous observa-
tions of the Kaiser effect in rocks retrieved from rock
masses where the current stress conditions could not
create sufficient microcrack damage [12].
Instead of the micromechanical approach, a model of
the Kaiser effect can be developed using principles of
continuous damage mechanics (CDM). This was de-
monstrated by Tang et al. [108] who employed CDM to
simulate the Kaiser effect in cyclic uniaxial compression.
There is also another way to theoretically investigate the
Kaiser effect using numerical codes. A discrete particle
model implemented in PFC code [66,109] and a
boundary-element displacement discontinuity method
implemented in DIGS code [43,110] were used in the
Kaiser effect simulations. With PFC, the simulation of
the complete coring process was carried out in
Refs. [66,109]. It was shown that the Kaiser effect can be
used for measuring horizontal in situ stresses. With
DIGS, the Kaiser effect in cyclic Brazilian tests with
disk rotation in between the cycles was modeled [43].
Moreover, the Kaiser effect in uniaxial compression
after triaxial axisymmetric preloading was simulated in
Ref. [110], the results being in agreement with experi-
ments as well as with analytical models.
The use of numerical codes, especially of three-
dimensional ones, is an important tool in the Kaiser
effect studies allowing investigation of the phenomenon
in rocks with different constitutive behavior and under
various loading conditions.
4. Practical application of the Kaiser effect for stress
measurements
Two major stress measurement techniques based on
the Kaiser effect are known. One of them implies that
core specimens are retrieved from in situ and tested in
laboratory, in the hope of finding an inflexion in
the dependency ‘‘cumulative AE hits versus stress’’—
indicating that the stress applied in the laboratory
equals the stress experienced by the rock in situ. The
other technique implies that, instead of loading the
rock in laboratory, it is loaded in situ by means of a rock
jack or pressuremeter placed in a borehole, with simul-
taneous measurement of AE.
4.1. Stress measurement using the Kaiser effect in core
specimens
The majority of stress measurements using the Kaiser
effect in core specimens are carried out as follows. Cores
are retrieved from in situ. Sub-cores oriented in different
directions (at least six, because there are six independent
components of the stress tensor) are manufactured from
the cores. These six specimens are tested in uniaxial
compression, with simultaneous measurement of AE
activity. The curve ‘‘cumulative AE hits versus uniaxial
stress’’ is then analyzed in order to find an inflexion
(change of slope). It is often believed that this inflexion
occurs at the stress value equal to the normal stress
component that was acting in this direction in situ.
The incorrectness of such an approach becomes
evident after looking at the Kaiser effect features
discussed in Sections 2.7 and 2.8. First, no Kaiser effect
should be expected in uniaxial compressive tests if the
loading axis is inclined at more than 101 to the direction
of in situ s1 -stress. Thus, no Kaiser effect should be
observed in most of the six specimens, if not in all of
 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
them. Second, even in the specimen tested in the
direction of the in situ s1-axis, the Kaiser effect occurs
at the stress defined by Eq. (1) rather than at the in situ
s1-stress value.
If we assume that the normal stress component can be
retrieved by simply uniaxially testing the rock in various
directions, we inevitably come to conclusion that after a
hydrostatic preloading of type s1 ¼ s2 ¼ s3 there must
be a Kaiser effect in the subsequent uniaxial reloading in
any direction. Experiments show that this is not the
case. No Kaiser effect is observed in uniaxial tests after
hydrostatic pre-compression. This reasoning was first
given in Ref. [12].
The complexity of the manifestation of the Kaiser
effect in core specimens with different orientations was
evidenced in Ref. [111]. Watters and Roberts [111]
measured AE activity during uniaxial laboratory load-
ing of core specimens of granodiorite taken in directions
parallel or normal to the ground surface. Specimens
were taken from near the surface, hence one of the
principal stresses (normal to surface, s3 ) was close to
zero. In situ stresses parallel to the surface were to be
high, as evidenced by spalling of rock sheets. No Kaiser
effect was observed in the specimens oriented perpendi-
cular to the surface. The Kaiser effect in the specimens
parallel to the surface and, thus, parallel to the in situ s1
or s2 was by far not so well-pronounced as after uniaxial
preloading. In particular, some of the specimens tested
along the assumed s1-axis showed no evidence of the
Kaiser effect [111].
Still, there are numerous experimental observations of
the Kaiser effect in rock specimens oriented in various
directions. Often it exists in six or more directions. The
principal stress values inferred from such measurements
are often in good agreement with stress values obtained
by other techniques, e.g. overcoring. Recent examples of
such measurements can be found in Refs. [21,112]. These
results cannot be ignored, but they require an explanation
in order that a correct micromechanical interpretation of
experiments becomes possible. Microcrack models dis-
cussed in Section 3 provide no explanation. At least three
alternative explanations can be considered.
(1) The Kaiser effect in retrieved specimens may be due
to a mechanism different from microcrack growth.
For example, stress memory may be caused by
irreversible void closure, as pointed out by Hol-
comb [12]. Pore and crack closure may produce AE,
and, hence, the Kaiser effect should be expected
similar to that caused by crack growth. The
question is whether the AE signals produced by
closing voids have an amplitude sufficient for being
detected with AE apparatus settings usually used in
laboratory practice. Experimental verification as
well as theoretical investigation of the Kaiser effect
mechanism linked to the void closure are required.
165
(2) The coring process may introduce irreversible
anisotropic damage, e.g. microcracks (Section 2.9).
For example, the concentration of tensile stresses
parallel to the borehole axis, or horizontal stresses
acting after the vertical stress has been relieved, may
produce microcracks perpendicular to the core axis.
These cracks may give rise to the Kaiser effect in the
specimens cored perpendicular to the borehole axis
and tested in uniaxial compression. In this way,
observations of the Kaiser effect in core specimens
orthogonal to the borehole axes reported, e.g. in
Ref. [31], can be explained.
(3) During recent geological history, the rock could
have been sequentially subjected to stress states with
s1 oriented in various directions. Rotations of
principal axes of the stress tensor are likely to
occur, e.g. in the areas of the Earth’s crust with
enhanced tectonic activity or in the vicinity of
underground cavities [113,114]. The stress tensor
may rotate gradually, or the rock may be loaded/
unloaded sequentially with a different s1-axis
direction in each cycle. Each of these successively
applied and differently orientated in situ stress
states should form anisotropic damage responsible
for the Kaiser effect in the laboratory test on the
specimen oriented in the direction of the corre-
sponding in situ s1-stress.
These three explanations indicate that there is some
uncertainty and a lack of understanding about what is
actually measured by the Kaiser effect. It has been
clear for the last ten years at least (see Ref. [12]) that
uniaxial loading alone does not allow a determination
of in situ stress tensor provided that microcrack
growth is the only mechanism responsible for the
Kaiser effect observed in core specimens. If we admit
that microcracks are produced by in situ loading
and carry information about in situ stresses, then the
Kaiser effect can be applied for estimation of the
directions of principal axes as well as for estimation of
their values. Uniaxial testing is not sufficient in this
case because it allows only the determination of a
linear combination of principal stresses given by Eq. (1),
and this only in the case that the specimen is oriented
exactly in the direction of in situ s1-stress. All
the uniaxial probing can be used for is the precise
estimation of the in situ s1-direction since it is the only
direction in which the Kaiser effect should be well-
pronounced in uniaxial tests. This technique, mentioned
in Ref. [43], requires however a large number of
specimens.
More sophisticated techniques proposed in
Refs. [14,107] allow the determination of both
principal stresses s1 and s3 provided the in situ state
of stress is axisymmetric triaxial and the specimen is
oriented in the direction of in situ s1-stress.
166 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
The technique described in Ref. [14] implies that the
damage surface has a vertex point corresponding to the
in situ state of stress. This point is sought for by probing
the damage surface in triaxial compression tests with
different s3-stress values (being constant in each test). A
conventional triaxial load cell is needed for implement-
ing this technique.
The technique proposed in Ref. [107] is based on the
results of numerical simulations using wing crack model
carried out in Refs. [57,107]. The technique implies that
core specimens oriented in the direction of in situ s1-
stress are tested in proportional axisymmetric compres-
sion, the ratio s3 =s1 being constant during the test.
According to simulation results, the Kaiser effect should
be most pronounced in the test with the s3/s1 ratio equal
to that in situ. The values of s1 and s3 at which the effect
takes place should be equal to in situ stress values. A
testing machine allowing simultaneous proportional
increase of the axial stress and the confining pressure
is needed for implementing this technique.
The method of extensional loading proposed in
Ref. [12] allows the estimation of all principal stresses
even in the most general case of a true triaxial in situ
state of stress (s1 > s2 > s3 ). The extensional loading
means that two principal stresses are equal to each other
and higher than the third principal stress. By conduc-
ting extensional loading of specimens oriented in
different directions the whole damage surface formed
in situ can be scanned in detail. A polyaxial testing
machine is needed for these tests.
The techniques proposed in Refs. [12,14,107] are in no
way simple and have not been probed widely so far.
Comparison of their results with the results of indepen-
dent stress measurements by overcoring or hydrofrac are
needed to make conclusions about the applicability of
these Kaiser effect techniques.
If the predominant mechanism of the Kaiser effect is
void closure or something else, as it seems to be from the
stories of success mentioned above, these mechanisms
should be carefully investigated both experimentally and
theoretically. It is not improbable that several mechan-
isms, e.g. microcrack growth and irreversible void
closure, play simultaneous roles. The clarification of
the mechanism of what has been observed in the tests on
core specimens is a prerequisite for correct data
interpretation of stress measurements using the Kaiser
effect.
4.2. Stress measurement using the Kaiser effect in rocks
surrounding a borehole
This technique, referred to as ‘borehole technique’
further in this Section, is implemented as follows. A
borehole is drilled in the rock mass where in situ stresses
are to be determined. A loading device (pressuremeter
for soils and soft rocks, rock jack for hard rocks)
equipped with an AE transducer is placed in the
borehole at the point desired. The borehole walls are
loaded, isotropically or directionally, if a pressuremeter
or a rock jack, respectively, is employed. AE activity is
measured continuously during the loading process. The
dependency of AE cumulative hits versus pressure is
examined in the hope of finding an inflexion indicating
that the pressure on the hole walls reached the original
in situ stress, thus giving rise to the Kaiser effect.
The in situ loading may be considered as the first
loading cycle, after which the rock is unloaded by the
borehole. Then the rock is reloaded by pressuremeter/
rock jack.
Some of the difficulties/weaknesses inherent in the
borehole technique should be mentioned. Acoustic noise
coming from the friction processes between loading
device and the borehole wall as well as from technolo-
gical sources might obscure the AE from the rock to
some extent. The ‘acoustic jacks’ described, e.g. in
Refs. [77,78], are not available on the market and need
to be specially designed and manufactured. Costs of
their manufacturing and of conducting in situ tests are
relatively high, in comparison to those of laboratory
tests required by the core specimen technique considered
in Section 4.1. Some of the interpretation problems
typical for the core specimen technique remain valid also
for the borehole technique. Interpretation should take
the triaxial type of the in situ stress state into account.
Moreover, if the directions of the in situ principal axes
are not known a priori, the orientation of the borehole is
arbitrary with respect to them. This should introduce
uncertainty in the data interpretation.
Among the strengths of the borehole technique is the
fact that probing of rock is performed at a larger scale,
thus reducing the frequently discussed question of
representativeness of stress measurement results ob-
tained on core specimens. The borehole is drilled
without taking a core, which makes the drilling process
easier and cheaper in comparison to that required for
the core specimen technique. The rock around borehole
is loaded by pressuremeter/rock jack in conditions close
to the original in situ environment (temperature,
moisture content). The pore pressure, however, can
change after the borehole has been drilled, and the effect
of this change should be investigated. Other parameters
(e.g. temperature) can change as well in the course of
time, which may result in a partial recovery of the
Kaiser effect like that observed on rock specimens.
Experimental observations of stress memory recovery in
rocks around a borehole were described in Ref. [78] and
simulated numerically using a wing crack model in
Refs. [15,82,115].
One of the most serious weaknesses mentioned above
is that a full restoration of the stress state is impossible if
loading devices like a pressuremeter or a rock jack are
used. Even in the simplest case of a borehole drilled in
 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
the direction of an in situ principal stress, e.g. s2 ; it is
not completely clear how the Kaiser effect stress is
related to in situ stresses. This problem is similar to that
of the core specimen technique. In order to clarify this
question, two-dimensional numerical simulations using
a wing crack model were carried out in Refs. [15,79–82].
Their results show that if borehole walls are loaded by
means of a pressuremeter creating uniform pressure, the
Kaiser effect pressure linearly depends on one of the
principal stresses, s1 or s3 ; orthogonal to the hole axis,
provided that the other principal stress, s3 or s1 ; is
constant. For a constant ratio of in situ principal
stresses, s1 =s3 ; the Kaiser effect pressure is proportional
to one of them [15,79–82].
These modeling results need to be verified experimen-
tally. They show that a great deal of complexity is
involved in the borehole technique, probably as much as
in the core specimen technique.
Despite these difficulties, some encouraging results
have been obtained. In Ref. [78], a horizontal borehole
was drilled from an underground salt mine and tested
with a pressuremeter equipped with an AE transducer
and an electromagnetic emission receiver. Pressurization
was carried out at different distances from the mine wall
(i.e. from the borehole opening). Both AE and electro-
magnetic emission measurements indicated stress mem-
ory effects at the same pressure values. The dependency
of this pressure value on the distance along the borehole
axis resembled the expected dependency of the vertical
in situ stress in the excavation near-field zone, with a
maximum at a certain distance from the excavation.
In Ref. [116], pressurization tests were carried out in a
vertical borehole drilled in an open pit sand mine. AE
was measured during pressurization. An AE transducer
was attached to the end of a waveguide installed in the
soil parallel to the testing borehole. The analysis of the
AE cumulative curves showed that the Kaiser inflexion
corresponded well to the expected horizontal soil
pressure that should have been present in the soil before
excavation started.
Watters and Soltani [117] performed directional
loading of borehole walls with a rock jack. The hole
was drilled in a granite rock mass. AE activity showed a
well-pronounced anisotropy: the number of AE hits was
several times as high in one of the directions as in the
other one. The Kaiser effect pressure was anisotropic,
too.
Lord and Koerner [27] performed loading of borehole
walls with a rock jack as described in Ref. [77]. The
boreholes were drilled in a rock mass or in a large rock
block. Inflexions in the dependencies of cumulative AE
hits versus pressure indicated the presence of memory on
in situ stresses. Cyclic pressurization of borehole walls
delivered a very well-pronounced Kaiser effect, when the
pressure reached the maximum previously reached
pressure value. The Kaiser effect taking place in cyclic
167
loading tests in boreholes was simulated using the wing
crack model in Refs. [81,82].
The stress measurement technique using memory
effects in rocks around a borehole has considerable
potential. It could provide a way of obtaining the values
of in situ stresses by direct in situ measurements. For
successful application of the Kaiser effect in rocks
surrounding a borehole, the circumstamces should be
clarified, especially in the case when the direction of a
borehole is not parallel to any of the in situ principal
stresses.
5. Conclusions and future research
This review has shown that a great number of
questions important for stress measurement applications
of the Kaiser effect have been solved or partially solved
at present. However, the solution of these questions has
revealed some fundamental limitations on the stress
measurement applications. The mechanisms of the
Kaiser effect should be studied further, including those
which are not crack growth.
One of the questions which is still open concerns the
Kaiser effect manifestation in rocks previously subjected
to a true triaxial state of stress (i.e. most rock masses).
The few theoretical analysis efforts already undertaken
in this field are clearly not sufficient. The question is
formulated as follows: how does the damage surface
evolve under a true triaxial state of stress, especially if
rocks undergo loading paths with ‘kinks’ in the stress
space and with occasional continuous or discrete
rotation of principal axes?
The importance of answering this question was
postulated by Rudnicki [118] who emphasized the need
to conduct multi-axial experiments and develop con-
stitutive and micromechanical models of rock behaviour
under true triaxial stress conditions. The use of the AE
technique and the Kaiser effect in the experiments
should enable a deeper insight into the damage surface
formation in rocks under a true triaxial stress state.
The investigation into the Kaiser effect in rocks
subjected to a triaxial stress state has shown the
incapability of uniaxial testing procedures to estimate
in situ stresses, even in the simplest case of the
axisymmetric triaxial in situ state of stress. Another
difficulty results from the extremely high sensitivity of
the Kaiser effect with respect to non-coincidence of the
principal axes in situ and in laboratory tests.
The stress measurement technique based on the
Kaiser effect in rocks around a borehole seems to be a
promising one. This attractiveness may, however, result
from our underestimation of the fundamental limita-
tions, as was the case for the core specimen technique a
few decades ago.
168 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
Even if the Kaiser effect works well, it should be
recommended for use in combination with other stress
memory effects. For example, for ductile rocks such as
rock salt, strain measurements can be used efficiently
[41]. The Kaiser effect was experimentally observed,
together with anomalies (e.g. inflexions) in other
physical parameters like inelastic strain [25,26,41,53,
54,116,119,120], velocity of ultrasonic waves [31,54,69],
electromagnetic emission activity [24,73]. Measuring
these parameters, as well as some others, e.g. perme-
ability and electric resistivity, simultaneously with AE
should provide more reliable indicators of stress
memory in rocks.
It should be noted that stress measurement is not the
only possible application of the Kaiser effect. Other
applications, although not well-studied so far, include
the investigation of physico-chemical structural changes
in rocks, and seismicity analysis. The decay of the Kaiser
effect in the course of time or induced by moistening is
believed to be due to crack healing or other physico-
chemical processes. The Kaiser effect and FR provide
indirect means of quantifying these phenomena
[13,15,115].
Large scale loading of rocks may be (and sometimes
is) accompanied by the Kaiser effect (Section 2.10).
Further investigation of the large scale manifestation of
stress memory should provide a better understanding of
natural and human-induced seismicity patterns.
The following future research directions may be
outlined:
(1) investigation of the damage formation and the
Kaiser effect in rocks subjected to a true triaxial
(polyaxial) state of stress;
(2) further investigation into the influence of damage
introduced during coring on the Kaiser effect in
subsequent laboratory tests;
(3) further investigation of the in situ Kaiser effect and
its potential for stress measurements, the borehole
technique described in Section 4.2, as well as other
techniques, e.g. using flatjacks, should be verified;
(4) investigation of the Kaiser effect mechanisms other
than microcracking.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Prof. J.A. Hudson for his
encouragement to write this review article and for
raising some of the questions discussed herein. Numer-
ous discussions with Prof. V.L. Shkuratnik during many
years of the author’s work at the Moscow State Mining
University are highly appreciated. The support of the
Russian Foundation for Basic Research for this work is
gratefully acknowledged (Projects No. 01-05-64105 and
No. 00-15-98590).
References
[1] Sugawara K, Obara Y, editors. Rock Stress. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Rock Stress, Kumamoto, Japan,
October 7–10, 1997. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1997.
[2] Kurita K, Fujii N. Stress memory of crystalline rocks in acoustic
emission. Geophys Res Lett 1979;6:9–12.
[3] Yamshchikov VS, Shkuratnik VL, Lavrov AV. Memory effects
in rocks (review). J Min Sci 1994;30:463–73.
[4] Yu XF, Ge SG, Yu J, Shang YJ. Rock memory and intelligent
computing of the excavation process in rock. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 2000;37:549–54.
[5] Panasiyan LL, Kolegov SA, Morgunov AN. Stress memory
studies in rocks by means of acoustic emission. In: Proceedings
of the Interenational Conference Mechanics of Jointed and
Faulted Rock (MJFR). Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 1990.
p. 435–9.
[6] Gatelier N, Pellet F, Loret B. Mechanical damage of an
anisotropic porous rock in cyclic triaxial tests. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 2002;39:335–54.
[7] Kaiser J. Erkenntnisse und Folgerungen aus der Messung von
Ger.auschen bei Zugbeanspruchung von metallischen Werkstof-
.
fen. Archiv Eisenhuttenwesen 1953;24:43–5.
[8] Goodman RE. Subaudible noise during compression of rocks.
Bull Geol Soc Am 1963;74:487–90.
[9] Kanagawa T, Nakasa H. Method of estimating ground pressure.
USPatent No. 4107981, 1978.
[10] Holcomb DJ. Using acoustic emission to determine in situ stress:
problems and promise. In: Geomechanics, vol. 57, ASME,
AMD, 1983. p. 11–21.
[11] Holcomb DJ, Martin RJ III. Determining peak stress history
using acoustic emissions. In: Proceedings of the 26th US
Symposium on Rock Mech. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 1985.
p. 715–22.
[12] Holcomb DJ. General theory of the Kaiser effect. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1993;30:929–35.
[13] Li C, Nordlund E. Experimental verification of the Kaiser effect
in rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1993;26:333–51.
[14] Pestman BJ, Van Munster JG. An acoustic emission study of
damage development and stress-memory effects in sandstone. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1996;33:585–93.
[15] Shkuratnik VL, Lavrov AV. Memory effects in rocks. Physical
regularities and theoretical models. Moscow: Academy of
Mining Sciences Press, 1997.
[16] Li C. Theory for the Kaiser effect and its potential applications.
In: Proceedings of the Sixth Conference. AE/MA in Geologic
Structures and Materials. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Trans Tech
Publications, 1998. p. 171–85.
[17] Yoshikawa S, Mogi K. Experimental studies on the effect
of stress history on acoustic emission activity—a possibility
for estimation of rock stress. J Acoust Emission 1989;8(4):
113–23.
[18] Shen HW. Objective Kaiser stress evaluation in rock. In:
Proceedings of the Fifth Conference. AE/MA in Geologic
Structures and Materials. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Trans Tech
Publications, 1995. p. 177–96.
[19] Hardy Jr. HR, Zhang D, Zelanko JC. Recent studies
of the Kaiser effect in geologic materials. In: Proceedings of
the Fourth Conference. AE/MA in Geologic Structures and
Materials. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Trans Tech Publications, 1989.
p. 27–55.
[20] Momayez M, Hassani FP, Hardy Jr. HR. Maximum curvature
method: a technique to estimate kaiser-effect load from acoustic
emission data. J Acoust Emission 1991/1992;10(3–4):61–5.
[21] Villaescusa E, Seto M, Baird G. Stress measurement from
oriented core. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:603–15.
 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
[22] Yoshikawa S, Mogi K. A new method for estimation of the
crustal stress from rock samples: laboratory study in the case of
uniaxial compression. Tectonophysics 1981;74:323–39.
[23] Sobolev GA, Semerchan AA, Salov BG, Spetzler HA, Sonder-
geld KH, Badanov AV, Koltsov AV, Los VF, Nasimov RM,
Ponomarev AV, Stakhovsky IR, Terentyev VA, Turetsky IM.
Precursors of destruction in a large rock sample. Izv Akad Nauk
SSSR Fiz Zemli (Phys Solid Earth) 1982;8:29–43 [in Russian].
[24] Rzhevskii VV, Iamshchikov VS, Shkuratnik VL, Lykov KG,
Farafonov VM. Emission effects of memory in rocks. Dokl
Akad Nauk SSSR 1983;273:1094–7 [in Russian].
[25] Koerner RM, Lord AE, Deutsch WL. Determination of
prestress in granular soils using AE. J Geotech Eng ASCE
1984;110:346–58.
[26] Koerner RM, Lord AE, Deutsch WL. Determination of
prestress in cohesive soils using AE. J Geotech Eng ASCE
1984;110:1537–48.
[27] Lord AE, Koerner RM. Field determination of prestress
(existing stress) in soil and rock masses using acoustic emission.
J Acoust Emission 1985;4(2–3):S22–5.
[28] Leaird JD, Dunning JD, Miller ME. Kaiser experiment in
sawcut rock. J Acoust Emission 1985;4(2–3):S11–6.
[29] Reymond M. Acoustic emission following hydraulic fracturing
in calcareous and sandstone rock. Acoust Lett 1989;13:95–8.
[30] Mottahead P, Vance JB. A/E determination of salt behavior
under stress. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference. AE/MA
in Geologic Structures and Materials. Clausthal-Zellerfeld:
Trans Tech Publications, 1989. p. 465–74.
[31] Kuwahara Y, Yamamoto K, Hirasawa T. An experimental and
theoretical study of inelastic deformation of brittle rocks under
cyclic uniaxial loading. Tohoku Geophys J (Sci Rep Tohoku
Univ; Ser 5; Geophys) 1990;33:1–21.
[32] Nordlund E, Li C. Acoustic emission and the Kaiser effect in
rock materials. In: Rock Mechanics Contributions and Chal-
lenges. Proceedings of the 3first US Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 1990. p. 1043–50.
[33] Friedel MJ, Thill RE. Stress determination in rock using the
Kaiser effect. US Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations
No. 9286, 1990. 20pp.
[34] Yamshchikov VS, Shkuratnik VL, Lykov KG. Stress measure-
ment in a rock bed based on emission memory effects. Sov Min
Sci USSR 1990;26(2):122–7.
[35] Friedel MJ, Thill RE. US Bureau of Mines research on the
Kaiser effect for determining stress in rock. J Acoust Emission
1991/1992;10(1–2):S77–89.
[36] Hardy Jr. HR. Evaluation of in situ stresses in salt using acoustic
emission techniques. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium
on Salt, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1993. p. 49–58.
[37] Seto M, Nag DK, Vutukuri VS. Application of acoustic emission
technique to evaluation of rock mass damage. In: Trends in
NDE science and technology. Proceedings of the 14th World
Conference on Non-Destructive Testing, vol. 4, New Delhi:
Ashgate Publishing Company, 1996. p. 2451–4.
[38] Hardy Jr. HR, Shen HW. Acoustic emission in salt during elastic
and inelastic deformation. In: Proceedings of the Sixth
Conference on AE/MA in Geologic Structures and Materials.
Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Trans Tech Publications, 1998. p. 15–28.
[39] Barr SP, Hunt DP. Anelastic strain recovery and the Kaiser
effect retention span in the Carnmenellis granite. UK Rock
Mech Rock Eng 1999;32:169–93.
[40] Filimonov YL, Lavrov AV, Shkuratnik VL. Prospects of
memory effects for stress measurement applications in rock salt.
In: Proceedings of EUROCK’2001 Symposium. Rotterdam:
A.A.Balkema, 2001. p. 59–63.
[41] Filimonov YL, Lavrov AV, Shafarenko YM, Shkuratnik VL.
Memory effects in rock salt under triaxial stress state and their
169
use for stress measurement in a rock mass. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 2001;34:275–91.
[42] Lavrov A. Kaiser effect observation in brittle rock cyclically
loaded with different loading rates. Mech Mater 2001;33:669–77.
[43] Lavrov A, Vervoort A, Wevers M, Napier JAL. Experimental
and numerical study of the Kaiser effect in cyclic Brazilian tests
with disk rotation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:287–302.
[44] Lavrov A, Vervoort A, Filimonov Y, Wevers M, Mertens J.
Acoustic emission in host rock material for radioactive waste
disposal: comparison between clay and rock salt. Bull Eng Geol
Environ, in print.
[45] Filimonov Y, Lavrov A, Shafarenko Y, Shkuratnik V.
Observation of post-failure Kaiser effect in a plastic rock. Pure
Appl Geophys (PAGEOPH) 2002;159:1321–31.
[46] Qin S, Wang S, Long H, Liu J. A new approach to estimating
geo-stresses from laboratory Kaiser effect measurements. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:1073–7.
[47] Dunning JD, Leaird JD, Miller ME. The Kaiser effect and
frictional deformation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference
on AE/MA in Geologic Structures and Materials. Clausthal-
Zellerfeld: Trans Tech Publications, 1989. p. 3–13.
[48] Konecny P. Acoustic emission during cyclic loading of
carboniferous rocks and the manifestation of Kaiser effect. In:
Proceedings of the EUROCK 2000 Symposium. Essen: Verlag
Gluckauf, p. 649–52.
[49] Lavrov AV, Filimonov YL, Shafarenko YM, Shkuratnik VL.
Experimental investigation of memory effects in rock salt at
different regimes of cyclic loading. In: Physics and Mechanics
of Geomaterials. Moscow: Vuzovskaya Kniga, 2002. p. 73–93
[in Russian with abstract in English].
[50] Michihiro K, Yoshioka H, Hata K, Fujiwara T. Strain
dependence of the Kaiser effect for various rocks. In: Proceed-
ings of the Fourth Conference on AE/MA in Geologic
Structures and Materials. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Trans Tech
Publications, 1989. p. 87–95.
[51] Filimonov YL. Patterns of acoustic emission during deformation
of salt rocks. PhD thesis, Moscow State Mining University,
Moscow, 2002. 203pp.
[52] Lavrov AV, Filimonov YL, Shkuratnik VL. Features of acoustic
emission in plastic rocks. In: Proceedings of the 11th Session
of the Russian Acoustical Society, vol. 2. Moscow: GEOS, 2001.
p. 150–4 [in Russian].
[53] Koerner RM, Lord AE. AE detection of prestress in soil and
rock. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on AE/MA in
Geologic Structures and Materials. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Trans
Tech Publications, 1989. p. 73–86.
[54] Shin K, Kanagawa T. Kaiser effect of rock in acousto-elasticity,
AE and DR. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on AE/MA
in Geologic Structures and Materials. Clausthal-Zellerfeld:
Trans Tech Publications, 1995. p. 197–204.
[55] Michihiro K, Hata K, Yoshioka H, Fujiwara T. Determination
of the initial stresses on rock mass using acoustic emission
method. J Acoust Emission 1991/1992;10(1–2):S63–76.
[56] Holcomb DJ, Costin LS. Detecting damage surfaces in
brittle materials using acoustic emissions. J Appl Mech 1986;
53:536–44.
[57] Lavrov AV. Formation and manifestation of memory effects in
rocks. D.Sc. (Dr. Eng. Habil.) thesis, Moscow, Moscow State
Mining University, 2001. 582pp [in Russian].
[58] Filimonov YL, Lavrov AV, Shafarenko YM, Shkuratnik VL.
Experimentelle Untersuchung des Steinsalzes mittels einaxialem
Drucktest nach hydrostatischer Vorbelastung. Gluckauf- .
Forschungshefte 2000;61:80–83 [in German].
[59] Holcomb DJ, Rudnicki JW. Inelastic constitutive properties and
shear localization in Tennessee marble. Int J Numer Anal Meth
Geomech 2001;25:109–29.
170 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
[60] Rudnicki JW, Rice JR. Conditions for the localization of
deformation in pressure-sensitive dilatant materials. J Mech
Phys Solids 1975;23:371–94.
[61] Kachanov ML. A microcrack model of rock inelasticity. Part I:
frictional sliding on microcracks. Mech Mater 1982;1:19–27.
[62] Kachanov M. Effective elastic properties of cracked solids:
critical review of some basic concepts. Appl Mech Rev
1992;45:304–35.
[63] Lavrov A. Theoretical investigation of the Kaiser effect
manifestation in rocks after true triaxial pre-loading. Arch Min
Sci 2001;46:47–65.
[64] Lavrov A, Vervoort A, Wevers M. Anisotropic damage
formation in brittle rock: experimental study by means of
acoustic emission and Kaiser effect. In: Proceedings of the Sixth
Euromech-Mecamat Conference on Non-Linear Mechanics of
Anisotropic Materials. University of Li!ege, 2002. p. 385–92.
[65] Pestman BJ, Kenter CJ, Van Munster JG. Core-based determi-
nation of in situ stress magnitudes. In: Proceedings of the DC
Rocks 2001, US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, July 7–10
2001, Washington, DC. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema.
[66] Holt RM, Pestman BJ, Kenter CJ. Use of discrete particle model
to assess feasibility of core based stress determination. In:
Proceedings of the DC Rocks 2001, US Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, July 7–10 2001, Washington, DC. Rotterdam:
A.A.Balkema.
[67] Stuart CE, Meredith PG, Murrell SAF, Van Munster JG.
Anisotropic crack damage and stress-memory effects in rocks
under triaxial loading. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1993;30:937–41.
[68] Subhash G, Nemat-Nasser S. Dynamic stress-induced transfor-
mation and texture formation in uniaxial compression of
zirconia ceramics. J Am Ceram Soc 1993;76:153–65.
[69] Stuart CE, Meredith PG, Murrell SAF, Van Munster H.
Influence of anisotropic crack damage development on the
Kaiser effect under true triaxial stress conditions. In: Proceed-
ings of the Fifth Conference on AE/MA in Geologic Structures
and Materials. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Trans Tech Publications,
1995. p. 205–19.
[70] Holt RM, Brignoli M, Kenter CJ. Core quality: quantification of
coring-induced rock alteration. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2000;37:889–907.
[71] Li Y, Schmitt DR. Effects of Poisson’s ratio and core stub length
on bottomhole stress concentrations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1997;34:761–73.
[72] Sakaguchi K, Iino W, Matsuki K. Damage in rock core caused
by induced tensile stress and its relation to differential strain
curve analysis. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:367–80.
[73] Yamshchikov VS, Shkuratnik VL, Lykov KG. Stress measure-
ment in a rock bed based on emission memory effects. Sov Min
Sci USSR 1990;26:122–7.
[74] Teufel LW. Acoustic emissions during anelastic strain recovery
of cores from deep boreholes. In: Proceedings of the 30th US
Symposium on Rock Mech. Assoc Eng Geol, p. 269–76.
[75] Zinke JC. The relationship between open, dry microcracks and P
wave velocity of crystalline rocks: application to in situ stress
estimates on KTB drill cores after stress relaxation. J Geoph Res
B 1999;104:10863–81.
[76] Berckhemer H, Rauen A, Winter H, Kern H, Kontny A, Lienert
M, Nover G, Pohl J, Popp T, Schult A, Zinke J, Soffel HC.
Petrophysical properties of the 9-km-deep crustal section at
KTB. J Geoph Res B 1997;102:18337–61. [A rich collection of
data on acoustic emission during anelastic strain recovery and
other data measured on KTB core specimens can be found
at the web site of GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam: http://
icdp.gfz-potsdam.de/html/ktb/ektbdata.htm or http://icdp.gfz-
potsdam.de/html/ktb/ktb.htm].
[77] McElroy JJ, Koerner RM, Lord AE. An acoustic jack to
assess in situ rock behavior. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1985;
22:21–9.
[78] Yamshchikov VS, Shkuratnik VL, Lykov KG, Farafonov VM.
Evaluation of the stressed-state of a bed based on emission
memory effects of rocks in near-well space. Sov Min Sci USSR
1991;27:100–3.
[79] Yamshchikov VS, Shkuratnik VL, Lavrov AV. Monitoring the
stress in a rock column on the basis of memory effects around a
borehole. J Min Sci 1995;31:104–8.
[80] Shkuratnik VL, Lavrov AV. Simulation modeling for monitor-
ing the plane stressed state of a rock mass based on the acoustic
emission memory effect around a borehole. J Min Sci
1995;31:355–9.
[81] Chkouratnik VL, Lavrov AV. Numerical 2D-simulation of
memory effects in rocks around a borehole. In: Rock stress.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Stress.
Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 1997. p. 193–6.
[82] Lavrov AV. Development of theoretical models of emission
memory effects in rocks. PhD thesis, Moscow, Moscow State
Mining University, 1998. 202pp.
[83] Simpson DW, Negmatullaev SK. Induced seismicity at Nurek
reservoir, Tadjikistan, USSR. Bull Seismol Soc Am
1976;71:1561–86.
[84] Roeloffs EA. Fault stability changes induced beneath a reservoir
with cyclic variations in water level. J Geoph Res B 1988;
93:2107–24.
[85] Gupta HK, Mandal P, Rastogi BK. How long will triggered
earthquakes at Koyna, India continue? Curr Sci 2002;82:202–10.
[86] Mandal P, Rastogi BK, Gupta HK. Recent Indian earthquakes.
Curr Sci 2000;79:1334–46.
[87] Young RP. Seismic propagation in rock masses: implications for
AE/MA. In: Procedings of the Fourth Conference on AE/MA in
Geologic Structures and Materials. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Trans
Tech Publications, 1989. p. 531–50.
[88] Shkuratnik VL, Lavrov AV. Memory effects and variations
of the physical fields and properties of rocks with the
origination of dynamic phenomena in a rock mass. J Min Sci
1999;35:471–5.
[89] Mostryukov AO, Lykov VI, Patonin AV, Petrov VA, Sasorova
EV. Acoustic emission in experiments ‘‘stick-slip’’ as clone of
low-frequency predictors of earthquakes. In: Physics and
Mechanics of Geomaterials. Moscow: Vuzovskaya Kniga,
2002. p. 94–104 [in Russian with abstract in English].
[90] Yamamoto K, Kuwahara Y, Kato N, Hirasawa T. Deformation
rate analysis: a new method for in situ stress estimation from
inelastic deformation of rock samples under uni-axial compres-
sion. Tohoku Geophy J (Sci Rep Tohoku Univ; Ser 5; Geophys)
1990;33:127–47.
[91] Yamamoto K, Yamamoto H, Kato N, Hirasawa T. Deforma-
tion rate analysis for in situ stress estimation. In: Proceedings of
the Fifth Conference on AE/MA in Geologic Structures and
Materials. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Trans Tech Publications, 1995.
p. 243–55.
[92] Fujii N, Hamano Y. Anisotropic changes in resistivity and
velocity during rock deformation. In: High-pressure research:
applications in geophysics. London: Academic Press, 1977.
p. 53–64.
[93] Reed LD, McDowell GM. A fracto-emission memory effect and
subharmonic vibrations in rock samples stressed at sonic
frequences. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1994;27:253–61.
[94] Jonason K, Nordblad P, Vincent E, Hammann J, Bouchaud J-P.
Memory interference effects in spin glasses. Eur Phys J
2000;13:99–105.
[95] Bellon L, Ciliberto S, Laroche C. Advanced memory effects in
the aging of a polymer glass. Eur Phys J 2002;25:223–31.
 A. Lavrov / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 151–171
[96] Stevens JL, Holcomb DJ. A theoretical investigation of
the sliding crack model of dilatancy. J Geoph Res B 1980;85:
7091–100.
[97] Holcomb DJ, Stevens JL. The reversible Griffith crack—a viable
model of dilatancy. J Geoph Res B 1980;85:7101–7.
[98] Holcomb DJ. Memory, relaxation, and microfracturing in
dilatant rock. J Geoph Res B 1981;86:6235–48.
[99] Guyer RA, McCall KR, Boitnott GN. Hysteresis, discrete
memory, and nonlinear-wave propagation in rock—a new
paradigm. Phys Rev Lett 1995;74:3491–4.
[100] Guyer RA, McCall KR, Boitnott GN, Hilbert LB,Plona.
Quantitative implementation of Preisach-Mayergoyz space to
find static and dynamic elastic moduli in rock. J Geophys Res B
1997;102:5281–93.
[101] Guyer RA, Johnson PA. Nonlinear mesoscopic elasticity:
evidence for a new class of materials. Physics Today
1999;52(4):30–6.
[102] Costin LS. A microcrack model for the deformation and failure
of brittle rock. J Geophys Res B 1983;88:9485–92.
[103] Holcomb DJ. Observations of the Kaiser effect under multiaxial
stress states: implications for use in determining in situ stress.
Geophys Res Lett 1993;20:2119–22.
[104] Lavrov AV. Three-dimensional simulation of memory effects in
rock samples. In: Rock Stress. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Rock Stress. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 1997.
p. 197–202.
[105] Lavrov AV, Yasinski MV. On the influence of intermediate
principal stress upon acoustic emission in cyclically loaded rocks.
In Proceedings of the 10th Session of the Russian Acoustical
Society. Moscow: GEOS 2000, p. 211–4 [in Russian; extended
abstract in English at URL: http://www.akin.ru/e main.htm].
[106] Shkuratnik VL, Lavrov AV. Memory effects in rock. J Min Sci
1995;31:20–8.
[107] Shkuratnik VL, Lavrov AV. Numerical simulation of the Kaiser
effect under triaxial stress state. Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Mechanics of Jointed and Faulted
Rock (MJFR-3). Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 1998. p. 381–5.
[108] Tang CA, Chen ZH, Xu XH, Li C. A theoretical model for
Kaiser effect in rock. Pure Appl Geophys (PAGEOPH)
1997;150:203–15.
[109] Holt RM, Brandshaug T, Cundall PA. Discrete particle and
laboratory modelling of core mechanics. In: Pacific Rocks 2000.
171
Proceedings of the Fourth North American Rock Mechanics
Symp., July 31–August 3 2000. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 2000.
p. 1217–24.
[110] Lavrov A, Vervoort A, Napier JAL. Damage development in
rock subjected to cyclic loading. In: Proceedings of the Second
Biot Conference on Poromechanics. Lisse, Swets & Zeitlinger,
2002. p. 911–6.
[111] Watters RJ, Roberts K. The Kaiser effect and its application to
slope instability. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on AE/
MA in Geologic Structures and Materials. Clausthal-Zellerfeld:
Trans Tech Publications, 1995. p. 233–42.
[112] Wang HT, Xian XF, Yin GZ, Xu J. A new method of
determining geostresses by the acoustic emission Kaiser effect.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:543–7.
[113] Kaiser PK, Yazici S, Maloney S. Mining-induced stress change
and consequences of stress path on excavation stability—a case
study. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2001;38:167–80.
[114] Eberhardt E. Numerical modelling of three-dimension stress
rotation ahead of an advancing tunnel face. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 2001;38:499–518.
[115] Lavrov AV. Computer simulation of memory relaxaion in rocks
around a borehole. Arch Min Sci 1997;42:353–65.
[116] Chodyn L, Zuberek WH. Effect of the discrete stress memory in
acoustic emission in soils. Acta Geophys Pol 1992;40:139–58.
[117] Watters RJ, Soltani AM. Directional acoustic emission activity
in response to borehole deformation in rock masses. In:
Proceedings of the 26th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics
(Research and Engineering Applications in Rock Masses), vol. 2.
Rotterdam: A A Balkema, 1985, p. 723–30.
[118] Rudnicki JW. Geomechanics. Int J Solids Struct 2000;37:349–58.
[119] Kudo R, Yokoyama T, Ito H, Kuwahara Y, Nishizawa
O,Yamamoto K. Stress measurements with core samples by
AE-DRA methods in the 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu earthquake
source region. In: Rock Stress. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Rock Stress. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 1997.
p. 359–62.
[120] Utagawa M, Seto M, Katsuyama K. Determination of in situ
stress using DRA and AE techniques. In: Rock Stress.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Stress.
Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 1997. p. 187–92.