See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330074094

Estimation of pore pressure, tectonic strain and stress magnitudes in the

Upper Assam basin: A tectonically active part of India

Article  in  Geophysical Journal International · January 2019

DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggy440

CITATIONS READS

17 1,710

3 authors:

Jenifer Alam Rima Chatterjee

Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad
7 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS    110 PUBLICATIONS   1,580 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sumangal Dasgupta
PETRONAS
9 PUBLICATIONS   106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Master Thesis View project

Preparation of Indian Stress Map for Analysis of Crustal Motion and Seismotectonics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jenifer Alam on 09 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geophys. J. Int. (2019) 216, 659–675 doi: 10.1093/gji/ggy440
Advance Access publication 2018 October 25
GJI Geodynamics and tectonics

Estimation of pore pressure, tectonic strain and stress magnitudes in

the Upper Assam basin: a tectonically active part of India

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
Jenifer Alam, Rima Chatterjee and Sumangal Dasgupta
Department of Applied Geophysics, IIT(ISM), Dhanbad 826004, India. E-mail: rima c 99@yahoo.com

Accepted 2018 October 24. Received 2018 September 11; in original form 2017 October 16

ABSTRACT
Conventional well logs serve as effective tools for estimation of pore pressure (PP), tectonic
strain and stress magnitudes in normal and thrust faulted parts of the Upper Assam basin.
Several models have been developed for prediction of PP and stress magnitudes over the years.
Acquiring tectonic strain in active area enhances the accuracy of in situ stress estimate in
the Upper Assam. This paper discusses Eaton’s sonic model for PP estimation and assesses
stress magnitudes incorporating tectonic strain in poroelastic models. Eaton’s exponent is
varied from 0 to 3 to get best-fit results for PP prediction validated with available modular
dynamic tester and mud weight data. PP is estimated for geological formations: Dhekiajuli,
Girujan, Tipam, Barail, Kopili, Sylhet, Langpur to the granitic basement in normal and thrust
faulted areas of the Upper Assam basin using Eaton’s exponent of 1.0. The predicted tectonic
strain using uniaxial model varies from −0.0044 to 0.0061. The computed tectonic strain using
biaxial poroelastic model ranges from 0.000099 to 0.00077 along NE–SW and from −0.001 to
−0.0019 along NW–SE directions for normal faulting regime, respectively. In thrust faulting
regime, the tectonic strains are obtained as 0.00092 and 0.00053 along NE–SW and NW–
SE directions, respectively. The vertical (SV ), maximum (SH ) and minimum (Sh ) horizontal
stress gradients range 21.7–23.8, 14.9–23.1 and 12.0–21.4 MPa km−1 , respectively. Moreover,
we have proposed a multiple linear regression model for evaluation of Sh from independent
parameters, namely, PP, Poisson’s ratio and SV from three wells and dependent parameter as
leak-off test (LOT) data. This is further tested with other three wells in the study area. The
predicted Sh is found to have satisfactory correlation with observed LOT for these wells.
Key words: Geomechanics; Downhole methods; Numerical Modelling.

The Upper Assam basin occurring in the Paleocene–Eocene con-

1 I N T RO D U C T I O N
The northeastern part of India developed complicated tectonics due
to northward convergence followed by rotation against Eurasia and
oblique convergence against the southeast Asia since the Cretaceous
(Fitch 1970; Seeber et al. 1981; Maung 1987; Khan 2005; Khan
et al. 2011). This part is one of the most tectonically active regions
in the world since Mesozoic time (Gowd et al. 1998). Knowledge of
contemporary stresses can provide important information regarding
intraplate deformation, geodynamic and neotectonic processes, as
well as localized processes, with implications for mining, petroleum
and geothermal industries (Bell 1996; Hillis & Reynolds 2003;
Rajabi et al. 2016; Bailey et al. 2017). Patterns of stress orientations
in the Indian subcontinent have been analysed previously (Gowd
et al. 1992; Srivastava & Bharali 2000; Chatterjee & Mukhopadhay
2001, 2002, 2003; Singha & Chatterjee 2014, 2015). However, stress
magnitude data for some locations in India including the Upper
Assam basin have not yet been analysed and/or incorporated so far.
tinental shelf of the Indian plate is overthrust by the Himalayas on
the north–northwest and by the Naga Thrust (NT) on the southeast
(Molnar & Qidong 1984; Banerjee et al. 2008; Vernant et al. 2014;
Fig. 1). The northeastern portion of the Indian plate is deformed
and is seismically active, with the remarkable exception of the As-
sam Gap (Khattri et al. 1983). There are only four earthquakes with
magnitudes between 4.5 and 5.9 and one with 8.6 that has occurred
in the Upper Assam basin in the past 200 years (Gowd et al. 1998;
Rajendran & Rajendran 2011). Previous researchers have already
discussed about the seismotectonic activity in the northeastern India
through earthquake focal mechanism and global positioning system
(GPS) survey (e.g. Datta Gupta et al. 2015; Gupta & Singh 1986;
Gupta et al. 1986). This paper aims at reliable stress magnitude
determination from well logs, measured pore pressure (PP) and
leak-off test (LOT) data for six wells distributed under the study
area. Being the first commericially producing basin of India, esti-
mation of tectonic strain and stress magnitudes of the Upper Assam


C The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. 659
660 J. Alam, R. Chatterjee and S. Dasgupta
Figure 1. (a) Study area with respect to India, (b) brief tectonic setting of northeastern India (after Nandy 2001; Raoof et al. 2017) and (c) location of six wells
under the study area. NT, Naga Thrust; DT, Disang Thrust.
basin has vast application in geodynamics as well as conventional
and unconventional hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation. Main
objectives of our study is to estimate PP, tectonic strain and in situ
stress magnitudes using poroelasic models. An alternative method is
proposed to estimate minimum horizontal compressive stress using
multiple linear regression model.
2 B R I E F T E C T O N I C S O F S T U DY A R E A
The study area (between 27◦ N–28◦ N and 95◦ E–96◦ E) falls in
the Eastern Himalayan zone that comprises of Sikkim Himalaya,
Bhutan Himalaya, Arunachal Himalaya and the Eastern Himalayan
Syntaxis (EHS) (e.g. Molnar 1984; Molnar & England 1990; Yin &
Harrison 2000; Yin 2006; Raoof et al. 2017). EHS is composed of
thrusted older crystalline complex along the main boundary thrust
and main central thrust (MCT; GSI 2000). EHS is the meeting place
of the great Himalayan arc and the Indo–Burmese Arc. The main
features of this syntaxis zone are Mishmi Thrust, Tidding Suture,
Lohit Thrust and a part of Disang Thrust (DT) and NT. The NE–SW
trending ‘Belt of Schuppen’ is bounded by the NT in the northwest
and the DT in the southeast, extending from Lower Assam in the
south to the Mishmi Hills in the north, running parallel to MCT
belt (Angelier & Baruah 2009). The Upper Assam basin forms
a southeast-dipping shelf in the foreland part of Assam–Arakan
Basin. This is bordered by the shield of Mikir hills towards its west
and Mishmi hills along its northeastern boundary. About 4–6 km
thick sediments are deposited belonging to Tertiary and Quaternary
age overlying basement (Sawai & Sar 2006; Saha 2011). Major
amount of conventional oil reserves are found in this foreland basin
producing for more than a century.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
Three wells, namely, M1, M2 and M3 are located in the Assam
Gap below a tributary of the Bramhaputra river while the rest three
N1, N2 and J1 are located in the Belt of Schuppen below the NT
(Fig. 1). Major geological horizons through M1–M3 and N1–N2
are displayed through the seismic sections for normal faulted and
thrust faulted region (Figs 2a and b). The wells, M1, M2 and M3
penetrate geological formations from top Alluvial through Dhekia-
juli, Girujan, Tipam, Barail, Kopili, Sylhet, Langpur to the granitic
basement (Fig. 2a), while the wells, N1 and J1 in thrusted zone
cross through Girujan Suprathrust, Tipam Suprathrust, Argillaceous
Barail Suprathrust, Barail Subthrust and then reach the NT. The well
N2 reaches Tipam top near Margherita Thrust (Fig. 2b). A series of
N–S striking normal faults has been found to exist in the seismic gap
between 92◦ E–94◦ E and 26◦ N–28◦ N (Armijo et al. 1986; Bendick
& Bilham 2001; Mullick et al. 2009).
3 E S T I M AT I O N O F S T R E S S
M A G N I T U D E S A N D O R I E N TAT I O N
Lithospheric stresses have been defined in terms of the orientation
and magnitude of three orthogonal principal stresses, namely: max-
imum, minimum and intermediate. The vertical stress (SV ) caused
due to the mass of overburden is assumed to be one of the three
principal stresses. The two remaining principal stresses are referred
as the maximum (SH ) and minimum (Sh ) horizontal stresses acting
in the horizontal plane. Tectonic regimes such as: extensile, com-
pressive and strike-slip are determined by the relative magnitudes
of these three principal stresses (Zoback et al. 1989). The aim of
this study is to characterize the local stress regime under the study
area using poroelastic model.

Figure 2. Seismic section (a) passing through wells M1 and M3 in normal faulted sediments and (b) traversing through wells N1 and N2 in thrust faulted
sediments. Major geological horizons have been delineated in these sections along with thrusts that are acting in their vicinity. Normal faulted and thrusted
sediments are shown in panels (a) and (b). Naga Thrust and Margherita Thrust have been annotated in panel (b) (after Dakua et al. 2008).
3.1 Estimation of vertical stress
Stress magnitudes are constrained using wellbore geophysical logs
and well test data. For estimation of stress magnitudes and PP study,
well logs such as: gamma ray (GR), density (ρ), compressional
sonic traveltime (t), ratio of compressional and shear sonic veloc-
ity (Vp /Vs ), formation microimager (FMI) logs and well test data:
modular dynamic tester (MDT), mud weight (MW), LOT have been
used for six wells under the study area. Vertical stress magnitudes
from six wells: M1, M2, M3, N1, N2 and J1 are derived from density
logs using the following eq. (1) (Plumb et al. 1991):
 z
SV = ρ (z) gdz, (1)
0
where z = depth at point of measurement,
ρ (z) = bulk density of the rock, which is function of the depth
and
g = acceleration due to gravity
3.2 Estimation of pore pressure
The fluid pressure within pore space of a rock is referred to as PP. It is
necessary to determine the PP correctly as PP and horizontal stress
are interconnected. The pressure that is exerted by a static column
of fluid is called the hydrostatic pressure and it varies with the
fluid density (Swarbrick & Osborne 1998). There are two methods
commonly used to determine PP from well logs: Eaton method and
Bowers method (Eaton 1972, 1975; Bowers 1995). The Eaton’s
sonic method is quick and directly applicable to estimate PP. The
computed PP based on the compaction trend can easily be calibrated
with the measured pressure from MDT and MW. Another popular
method, the Bowers method employs vertical effective stress (VES).
In compaction disequilibrium conditions, Bowers (1995) pro-
posed an empirically determined method to calculate the effective
stress as follows:
V = V0 + Aσ B (2a)
where, V is the velocity at a given depth and V0 stands for the surface
velocity (normally 1500 m s−1 ), σ represents the VES, and A and B
are the parameters obtained from calibrating regional offset velocity
versus effective stress data. In unloading conditions, Bowers (1995)
Tectonic Strain and Stress Magnitude in Assam 661
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
proposed the following empirical relation:
   U1  B
σ
V = V0 + A σmax , (2b)
σmax
where,
  B1
υmax − 1500
σmax = , (2c)
A
where, U is the unloading parameter. σ max and υ max represent the
values of maximum effective stress and maximum velocity at the
onset of unloading, respectively (Bowers 1995).
Eaton’s sonic equation (Eaton 1972, 1975) to compute PP is
given below:
PP = SV − (SV − Ph ) ∗ (tn /t)n . (3)
where, Ph = hydrostatic pressure gradient is assumed as 10 MPa
km−1 ,
t = compressional sonic traveltime,
tn = traveltime computed from normal compaction trend (NCT)
and
n = Eaton’s exponent,
Both methods depend on pressure mechanism and require knowl-
edge of depositional history of the basin (Azadpour & Manaman
2015). However, Eaton’s equation is directly calibrated in depth–
pressure space where the data are collected whereas, Bower’s equa-
tion requires transforming the data to VES–velocity space. Gutier-
rez et al. (2006) show that the selection of one PP prediction model
over another primarily depends on convenience and performance
in a particular geological setting. Both models are expected to per-
form well in this setting and Eaton’s sonic equation (3) is chosen to
compute PP for six wells under this area for simplicity.
The first step in determining the PP from sonic log is to esti-
mate the NCT. Consolidation and compaction of clastic sediments
due to its burial causes loss of porosity. Compressional sonic trav-
eltime (t) in formations depends on rock lithology, mineralogy,
porosity, clay content, fluid saturation, stresses and temperature (Lei
et al. 2012). The compaction property observed in sonic traveltime
against low-permeable shale follows a linear/exponential trend with
depth and is termed as NCT. The behaviour of NCT is observed with
loss of porosity as sediments are loaded with hydrostatic pressure
and only the trend from such sediments is used to establish the
662 J. Alam, R. Chatterjee and S. Dasgupta
Figure 3. The normal compaction trend (NCT) for combining three wells:
M1, M2 and M3 in the normal faulted regime. Single exponential trend
describes the compaction trend. Shale points are used to draw NCT for the
depth interval 500–1600 m, which is under hydrostatic condition.
baseline behaviour for the Eaton method. Selection of depth in-
terval against shale with similar lithological properties is the most
critical criteria to draw NCT from t log of individual wells under
the study area. GR logs are used for delimiting shale points from
well logs. Setting GR log values from 70 to 120 API, we delimit
shale points from all wells. NCT for PP modelling using Eaton’s
method considers the depth ranges that are hydrostatic. The NCT
in t log has been found to follow an exponential relationship for
selected depth intervals against shale points for six wells.
It is noted that a single NCT can be fitted for the shale points
combining three wells, M1, M2 and M3 that are in close proximity
located in normal faulting regime. The normally compacted shale
points (depth interval: 500–1600 m), from these three wells have
been used to draw the combined NCT as shown in Fig. 3. However,
separate NCTs are drawn to fit shale points of wells N1, N2 and
J1, respectively, in thrust faulting regime (Figs 4a–c). These wells
are quite distant from each other. It is observed from Fig. 4 that
individual exponential equations fit the compaction trends in well
N2 and J1, while two exponential relations are required to fit the
traveltime against shale in well N1. A single trend is fitted through
the shale points upto the depth of 1538 m (thrusted sediments)
and another trend is drawn to explain the compaction from 1538
to 3775 m in well N1. Therefore, two separate NCTs are used to
illustrate the shale compaction for the deep well, N1 penetrating
sediment upto 3775 m (Fig. 4a). The seismic section through well
N1 shows thrusted sediments in the upper part of the well till depth
of 1538 m, which may be the reason for dual NCT in this well
(Fig. 4a). Figs 4(b) and (c) show the NCTs for the wells N2 and J1,
respectively in the thrusted sediments (Figs 4b and c). It is very com-
mon to use a single exponential trend, normally applied for shales
deposited of similar age, environment and provenance throughout
the basin (Tingay et al. 2003). However, it is best to use separate
NCT for varying depositional environments, unconformities and
uplifted sediment section (Bjørlykke 2014). There is a deviation of
t from NCT amounting 15–18 μs ft−1 at about 4000 m in well
N1, which may be attributed to lithology change or disequilibrium
compaction. Other wells show shale points more or less coinciding
with the NCT with slight deviation from NCT.
PP has been calculated varying Eaton’s exponent (n) as 0.5, 1,
1.5, 2 and 3 using t log. The most reliable and direct pressure mea-
surement can be obtained mainly from the drill stem test, MDT and
repeat formation test. MW can be used as a proxy for the PP where
direct pressure measurement data is not available (Law & Spencer
1998; van Ruth et al. 2002). MDT data are available to calibrate the
estimated PP from t log. A chi-square statistic has been obtained
to bring out the relation between the measured pressure from MDT
and the computed PP using Eaton’s sonic equation. A chi-square
statistic is a single number that provides information regarding how
much difference exists between measured data and computed data.
The formula used is (Koch & Link 1970)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
n (PPMi − PPEi )2
χ2 = , (4)
i=1 PPEi
where χ 2 is the chi-square statistic,
PMi = the measured PP from the MDT and
PPEi = PP estimated from Eaton’s equation.
Table 1 lists the chi-square statistic (χ 2 ) for fitting between PPMi
and PPi with varying Eaton’s exponent from 0 to 3 for six wells. A
low value of chi-square is inferred as a higher correlation between
two data sets as compared to a high value of chi-square statistic. It is
observed that in wells M1, M2, M3 and N2, χ 2 is lowest for PP es-
timation with Eaton’s exponent 1. In wells N1 and J1, it is observed
that χ 2 is minimum for PP estimation with Eaton’s exponent 0.5
following nearly hydrostatic condition at shallow depth. As we lack
MDT values at deeper depth for wells N1 and J1, we use Eaton’s
exponent 1 for further PP determination under the study area.
For the sake of simplicity, PP predicted with Eaton’s exponent 0,
1, 2 and 3 are shown for four wells: M1, M3, N1 and J1, respectively
(Figs 5a–d). The Eaton’s exponent is essentially an ‘amplification
factor’ that links the magnitude of the sonic velocity anomaly ob-
served to the magnitude of the overpressure. Large value of ex-
ponent ‘n’ magnifies the effect of changes in compressional sonic
traveltime implying that large ‘n’ corresponds to a small or weak
sonic response to changes in PP. An exponent of 3.0 or higher is
the normal relationship between overpressures generated by dise-
quilibrium compaction and their response on the sonic log (Tingay
et al. 2003). Places such as tertiary deltas show very large sonic
velocity anomalies in association with overpressure, and they need
to be amplified by an exponent of 3 to match the predicted PP (e.g.
Swarbrick & Osborne 1998; Tingay et al. 2003, 2008; Singha &
Chatterjee 2014; Dasgupta et al. 2016). We require to use an expo-
nent of 1.0 because the sonic log anomalies used to predict PP herein
are much lesser than what is normally observed with disequilibrium
compaction. Small value of ‘n’ such as 1 used in this case study di-
minishes the amplification effect and suggests the sonic response is
larger than typical for a comparable change in PP. A very low sonic
Eaton’s exponent would suggest that PP follows the hydrostatic and
is dependent on the sonic velocity in these formations.
The estimation of horizontal stress magnitude requires the infor-
mation on PP, vertical stress and tectonic strain under the study area.
Conventional techniques for estimating the maximum and minimum
horizontal stresses are based on analysing borehole breakouts (BOs)
and leak-off pressure necessary to fracture the surrounding forma-
tion, respectively (Gough & Bell 1981; Bell & Gough 1982; Zoback
et al. 1985; Moos & Zoback 1990; Raaen et al. 2006). We shall es-
timate horizontal stress magnitudes using frictional limiting theory
and poroelastic models in the next section.
3.3 Estimation of horizontal stress magnitudes
The Earth’s crust contains different types of structural variation like,
distributed fault systems, fractures and discontinuities of varying
scales and orientations (Chester & Chester 2000; Zoback 2007).
 Tectonic Strain and Stress Magnitude in Assam 663

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
Figure 4. Presents the NCT for three wells (a)N1, (b)N2 and (c)J1 which belong to the thrust faulting regime. NCT for well N1 is fitted with two exponential
trends while for well N2 and J1, it is individually fitted with a single exponential trend.

Table 1. Chi-square statistic (χ 2 ) for varying pore pressure with varying Eaton’s exponent.
χ 2 for Pore pressure χ 2 for Pore pressure χ 2 for Pore pressure χ 2 for Pore pressure
χ 2 for Pore pressure calculated with calculated with calculated with calculated with χ 2 for Pore pressure
calculated with Eaton’s exponent Eaton’s exponent Eaton’s exponent Eaton’s exponent calculated with
Well Eaton’s exponent 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Eaton’s exponent 3.0
M1 1.43 0.69 0.39 0.49 1.13 3.11
M2 0.66 0.73 0.05 0.20 0.55 0.72
M3 0.60 0.31 0.10 0.13 0.17 0.56
N1 2.04 0.19 0.52 1.19 2.16 6.27
N2 1.76 0.60 0.41 1.72 1.53 4.37
J1 0.34 0.28 0.47 0.74 1.16 2.10

Frictional strength of faults, fractures and discontinuity limit the where, μ is the coefficient of internal friction, assumed to be
stress magnitudes at depth. Several observations around the world 0.6 (Byerlee 1978; Zoback & Healy 1984) for the Upper Assam
show that stress magnitudes in the crust are in equilibrium with basin.
its frictional strength (e.g. Zoback & Healy 1984; Townend & Eqs (5) and (7) have been used for computation of lower and
Zoback 2000). Frictional limiting theory suggests the relationship upper bounds of Sh and SH , respectively. The lower bound of Sh in
between the effective stress ratio and frictional strength of rock normal faulting regime varies from 14.1 to 15.0 MPa km−1 while in
under following fault regimes (Anderson 1951; Jaeger & Cook reverse faulting regime the upper bound of SH ranges from 47.8 to
1979): 51.3 MPa km−1 . Frictional limiting theory (Jaeger & Cook 1979)
considers that the maximum horizontal stress is limited by the fric-
 2
SV − PP  2 1/ tional properties of rock. This theory overestimates the horizontal
Normal faulting ≤ μ +1 2 +μ , (5)
Sh − PP stress magnitudes (Bailey et al. 2017).
Rocks may behave inelastically for significant periods in their
history with material properties that vary with time depending
 2 on consolidation and diagenesis (Blanton & Olson 1999).The
SH − PP  1 Blanton–Olson approach determines tectonic strain assuming
Strike − slip faulting ≤ μ2 + 1 /2 + μ and (6)
Sh − PP porous medium and uses static Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio,
SV , PP and LOT data. They assume that the strain in the direction
orthogonal to the applied tectonic stress is zero. Blanton & Olson
 2 (1999) have developed new constants (say, C1 and C2 ) involving
SH − PP  1
Reverse faulting ≤ μ2 + 1 /2 + μ , (7) static Young’s modulus (Ys ) and Poisson’s ratio (ν) characterizing
SV − PP
664 J. Alam, R. Chatterjee and S. Dasgupta

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019

Figure 5. The hydrostatic pressure (Ph ), predicted pore pressure (PP) from Eaton’s sonic equation with varying exponent of 1 (PP1), 2 (PP2) and 3 (PP3)
along with vertical stress (SV ), mud weight (MW) and modular dynamic tester (MDT) data for wells (a) M1, (b) M3, (c) N1 and (d) J1, respectively. Here, PP
using Eaton’s exponent 0 presents hydrostatic pressure.
 Tectonic Strain and Stress Magnitude in Assam 665

the rock properties. using eq. (14):

Ys Sh = ν C1 εtect + C2 . (14)
C1 = (8)
1 − ν2
Only a few LOT data point (one from each well, total six) are used
to calculate tectonic strain, the rest LOT points (eight from all six
νSV + (1 − 2ν) α.PP + αT .Ys .T wells) are used for validation of estimated Sh . A good match is found
C2 = , (9)
1−ν between the LOT and Blanton–Olson model predicted Sh (Singha
where C1 , C2 = Blanton–Olson constants, & Chatterjee 2014). It is observed from Table 2 that tectonic strain

α = Biot’s constant,
αT = thermal coefficient of expansion and
T = geothermal gradient considered as 68◦ F km−1 (Barman
et al. 2015).
Biot’s constant has been assumed as 1.0 (Bachman et al. 2011).
In the absence of measured value for the thermal coefficient of
expansion α T , 5.56E-6/F can be used for sandstones, 5.00E-6/F for
shale (Song 2012). The effect of the thermal term is reflected in the
computation of C2 in the 5th decimal place. Therefore due to its
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
(εtect ) varies from −0.0032 to −0.0044 in normal faulted region
while it varies from 0.0024 to 0.0061 in thrust faulted region. The
thrust faulted regime is characterized by a higher value of tectonic
strain as compared to the tectonic strain of normal faulted regime
(Table 2).
Linear poroelastic model considers horizontal strain in two Carte-
sian directions. The maximum (εx ) and minimum (ε y ) tectonic strain
is obtained by solving the linear poroelastic equations for the Upper
Assam basin (Al-Qahtani & Rahim 2001):
negligible effect, thermal term is discarded. Eq. (9) is a simple form 

1 − νs2 νs
of generalized poroelastic equation when one lateral strain is set to νs εx + ε y = Sh − (SV − PP) − PP , (15)
Ys 1 − νs
zero.
Static values of elastic constants are based on the measurement 

1 − νs2 νs
of deformation induced in a material by a known force unlike the νs ε y + εx = SH − (SV − PP) − PP , (16)
dynamic constants that involve measure of ultrasonic body wave Ys 1 − νs
velocities (Zamora et al. 1994; Fjaer 2009). There are several empir- where, εx and εy are the horizontal strain along NE–SW and NW–
ical relations to convert dynamic moduli to static moduli. Amongst SE directions, respectively. The tectonic strains are necessary in
these, we consider the relation proposed by Wang (2000). Static poroelastic model to compute horizontal stress magnitudes using
Young’s modulus (Ys ) is calculated from dynamic Young’s modulus eqs (15) and (16). First, we use the measured Sh from LOT and SH
(Yd ) using the following relation (10) (Wang 2000): from BO data for computation of tectonic strains at specific depths.
The Sh magnitude is constrained using data from LOT (Zhang
Ys = 0.4142 ∗ Yd − 1.0593, (10a)
& Roegiers 2010). LOT measurements are not available at the BO
depths of wells M1, M3 and J1. Hence, available LOT values for
well M1, M3 and J1 are plotted against depth showing loci of LOT
νs = νd . (10b) for these wells. This LOT trend is used to estimate the value of
The static (ν s ) and dynamic (ν d ) values of Poisson’s ratio are Sh for three wells, at depths where actual measurement of LOT is
same (Wang 2000). unavailable (Figs 6a–c).
Yd and ν d have been calculated from Vp /Vs ratio and density logs Image log evaluation is preferred to constrain maximum horizon-
for six wells under the study area using the following relations (11) tal stress (SH ) at the BO interval (Chhajlani et al. 2002). BOs are
and (12) (e.g. Das & Chatterjee 2017): wellbore enlargements caused by stress-induced failure of a well

2 occurring 180◦ apart. Stress-induced BOs observed on FMI logs
Vp
1 Vs 2 − 2 are shear failures of the borehole wall in response to horizontal
νd =
2  , (11) compression. This failure occurs at the azimuth of Sh , which is
2 Vp − 1
Vs 2 the azimuth at which the circumferential compressive stress (Hoop
Stress) is highest (Zoback et al. 1985; Barton et al. 1988; Bell 1996;
 Tingay et al. 2008). FMI log data are available for two wells M1
ρVs 2 3Vp 2 − 4Vs 2
Yd = (12) and M3 only. SH magnitude can be obtained from BO interval using
Vp 2 − Vs 2
FMI log with known information of Sh and unconfined compressive
The Ys and ν s are used for computation of tectonic strain for all strength (UCS) of rocks (Plumb et al. 2000) for these wells. The
six wells under the study area. C1 and C2 are calculated for the BO intervals such as: 3990–4032 m from well M1 and 2658–2800
entire length of all wells. m from well M3 are chosen from FMI logs with interpolated LOT
The tectonic strain and minimum horizontal stress is given by values from Fig. 6. Figs 7(a) and (b) show the typical examples of
(Blanton & Olson 1999; Song 2012) BO for well M1 and M3, respectively (Fig. 7). The FMI log data for
well J1 are not available to us but Srivastava & Bharali (2000) have
Sh  − C2 
εtect = , (13) reported BO interval of 2180–2830 m for well J1 in this thrusted
ν C1  area.
where, εtect = tectonic strain. The magnitude of SH at the BO intervals has been computed
The primes in eq. (13) indicate that Sh , C1  and C2  are the values using interpolated LOT (as Sh ), PP and UCS data using eq. (17),
of Sh , C1 and C2 , respectively, associated with a specific depth where maximum circumferential compressive stress (Hoop Stress)
at which LOT is available. LOT at a particular depth is generally is equal to UCS as (Barton et al. 1988)
assumed to be equivalent to the Sh value (Bailey et al. 2017). The
3SH −Sh −2PP−P = UCS, (17)
values of Sh , C1  , C2  and εtect have been listed in Table 2 along with
the depth points at which they are calculated. This tectonic strain where, P is the difference between wellbore pressure and forma-
is further considered to compute Sh for the total length of the well tion fluid pressure.
666 J. Alam, R. Chatterjee and S. Dasgupta

Table 2. Lists the leak off test (LOT) values at specific depth points with Poisson’s ratio (ν), C1 , C2 and uniaxial tectonic strain (ε tec ) for six wells, Upper
Assam basin.
Blanton & Olson
(1999) method N1 N2 J1 M1 M2 M3
Depth (m) 1827 950 1312 2711 2207 2791
LOT (MPa) 41.36 21.25 28.50 35.03 33.02 33.00
ν 0.35 0.35 0.28 0.32 0.37 0.33

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
C1 5502.74 4968.61 12238.45 6200.19 3498.26 7139.43
C2 29.66 17.04 18.74 42.22 37.10 43.26
ε tect 0.0061 0.0024 0.0027 −0.0036 −0.0032 −0.0044

Figure 6. The leak-off test (LOT) trend considered for the computation of tectonic strain in poroelastic model for three wells: (a) M1 (b) M3 and (c) J1,
respectively.

Traditionally, rock strengths are obtained directly from labora-
tory tests on core samples. But in absence of core samples, rock
strength parameter and elastic moduli can be obtained from empir-
ical relationship based on well log data. For determination of SH ,
the value of UCS is obtained from Vp for these three wells using
eq. (18) in BO regions using FMI log (Horsrud 2001):
UCS = 0.77∗Vp 2.93 .
The formation where BO is encountered in Barail formation and
is mostly composed of Argillaceous shale with minor surges of silt,
intercalation of sand and shale layers belongs to Oligocene age. We
have core derived UCS values for this formation adjacent to wells
M1 and M3 only for validation of UCS value obtained from log
data (Oil India Ltd, unpublished report). Therefore, magnitude of
SH has been computed at the BO intervals for three wells shown
in Table 3a. Table 3a shows the information on lithology with their
geological age, ranges of UCS and computed SH for the BO interval
for these wells.
Tectonic strains are computed at the BO intervals as mentioned in
Table 3a. The strain εx ranges from 0.00040 to 0.00077 in well M1,
0.00005 to 0.000099 in well M3 and 0.00069 to 0.00092 in well J1.
Similarly, the strain εy ranges from −0.00081 to −0.0011 in well
M1, −0.0010 to −0.0019 in well M3 and from 0.00051 to 0.00053
in well J1. We have used the smallest as well as largest values of
εx and εy in each well to calculate respective values of horizontal
stress magnitudes. The stress magnitudes in each case (smallest and
largest values of εx and εy ) are found to differ by about 2 MPa, so
we have assumed the largest value of tectonic strains (Table 3b) for
(18) estimation of Sh and SH for entire length of individual wells M1,
M3 and J1. Table 3b lists interpolated LOT as Sh  and BO derived
SH  and largest value of tectonic strains at specific depths for three
wells. The largest value of strains ε x and εy vary from 0.000099 to
0.00077 and from −0.0011 to −0.0019 along NE–SW and NW–
SE directions, respectively, in normal faulted regime whereas ε x is
0.00092 along NE–SW and εy is 0.00053 along NW–SE direction
for well J1 in thrust faulted regime. Higher lateral strain is observed
in thrust faulting regime as compared to the lateral strain of normal
faulted regime (Table 3b). The computed tectonic strain in thrust
faulted regime is positive NE–SW as well as NW–SE direction
whereas tectonic strain in normal faulting regime is negative along
NW–SE direction. The well M2 is in the vicinity of M1 and M3
lying in the normal faulted region while N1 and N2 share the same
 Tectonic Strain and Stress Magnitude in Assam 667

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
Figure 7. The FMI log for wells (a) M1 and (b) M3 depicting breakout (BO) intervals for derivation of SH.

Table 3a. Breakout interval for three wells with lithology, Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and maximum horizontal stress (SH ).
Well M1 M3 J1
Breakout Interval (m) 3990–4032 2658–2800 2370–2473
Lithology Agillaceous Barail dominated unit Barail shale with minor surges of silt Barail shale–shaly sand
shale sand intercalation
Age Oligocene Oligocene Oligocene
UCS (MPa) 43.73–49.34 20.09–29.28 35.17–49.79
SH (MPa) 63.42–63.95 38.29–40.57 45.37–48.99

Table 3b. Results of poroelastic modelling for obtaining tectonic strain along x- and y-axes for three wells in the Upper
Assam basin.
Poroelastic model M1 M3 J1
Sh (MPa) 50.48 32.54 44.99
SH (MPa) 63.42 39.68 48.45
v 0.25 0.34 0.28
Ys (GPa) 13.38 5.20 11.75
ε x (maximum tectonic strain) 0.00077 0.000099 0.00092
ε y (minimum tectonic strain) −0.001 −0.0019 0.00053
Sh = minimum horizontal stress, SH = maximum horizontal stress, v, Poisson’s ratio, Ys = static Young’s modulus, ε x
and ε y = tectonic strain in NE–SW and NW–SE direction.

thrusted regime as in well J1. These tectonic strains are further used with MDT, MW, LOT and BO derived SH for all wells (Fig. 8). The
along with other parameters in eqs (19) and (20) to derive minimum magnitude of Sh is validated with LOT data for all wells while that
and maximum horizontal stresses for six wells, M1, M2, M3, N1, of SH is validated with BO derived SH for three wells. Poroelastic
N2 and J1 in the Upper Assam basin: model driven Sh has a good match with LOT. This predicted SH is in
good agreement with the BO derived SH . Owing to non-availability
νs νs Ys Ys
Sh = (SV − PP) + PP + εx + ε y and (19) of image or dipmeter logs for wells, M2, N1 and N2 falling under
1 − νs 1 − νs 2 1 − νs 2
the study area validation of SH is not possible but LOT values serve
as a check on Sh values for these three wells. The poroelastic model
νs νs Ys Ys derived Sh magnitude for well N1 underestimate the LOT values
SH = (SV − PP) + PP + εy + εx . (20)
1 − νs 1 − νs 2 1 − νs 2 throughout the wells. A mismatch is observed between the LOT
Fig. 8 displays the hydrostatic pressure, PP, SV , SH and Sh along and model predicted Sh values at 2071 m of well M1. However, it
668 J. Alam, R. Chatterjee and S. Dasgupta

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
Figure 8. The comparative pressure profiles of pore pressure (PP), hydrostatic modular dynamic tester (MDT), mud weight (MW), leak-off test(LOT),
maximum horizontal stress (SH ) derived from breakout interval, minimum horizontal stress (Sh ) derived from Blanton & Olson (1999) model, Sh and SH from
biaxial poroelastic model and vertical stress (SV ) for wells (a) M1, (b) M2, (c) M3, (d) N1, (e) N2 and (f) J1. For poroelastic modelling of horizontal stress,
well M2 uses strain values calculated from well M1 while N1 and N2 use strain values calculated for well J1 as they share similar stress regimes.

shows quite encouraging match at other calibration points where
LOT is available. Blanton–Olson derived Sh shows a slightly closer
match with LOT. Both the models are estimating Sh satisfactorily
for all wells except well N1 (Fig. 8). Presence of hydrofrac or BO
data would have assisted to explain the lowering of Sh magnitude
for well N1.
Table 4 shows the PP, stress gradients, stress ratio and inferred
faulting regimes for these six wells. PP is observed to be hydro-
static for geological formations: Dhekiajuli, Girujan, Tipam, Barail
and Kopili formations. PP gradient of wells, M1, M2 and N2 be-
comes slightly high ranging from 10.7 to 11.9 MPa km−1 in Sylhet
and Langpur formations. The SV magnitude increases with depth
with gradient varying from 21.7 to 23.8 MPa km−1 . The horizontal
stresses show higher value than the SV (SH > Sh > SV ) for wells N1,
N2 and J1 for upper part of the well due to lateral compression in
the thrusted zone. The rate of increase of horizontal stress is less
as compared to the rate of increase of SV with depth. It is observed
from the poroelastic model that Sh gradient varies from 12.0 to
15.2 MPa km−1 in normal faulted region while it reaches maximum
of 21.4 MPa km−1 in thrust faulted region. Similarly, SH gradient
varies from 14.9 to 16.4 MPa km−1 in normal faulted region while
in thrust faulted region it varies from 16.7 to 23.1 MPa km−1 . Using
the biaxial poroelastic model, it is observed that the average Sh /SV
varies from 0.86 to 1.02 and from 0.68 to 0.72 in thrust and normal
 Tectonic Strain and Stress Magnitude in Assam 669

Table 4. Lists pore pressure and other stress gradients from different models under different stress regimes.
Sh (Blanton &
Stress gradient from Olson, 1999)
Well and depth PPGradient SV Gradient Frictional theory gradient Poroelastic stress
interval (MPa/km) (MPa/km) (MPa/km) (MPa/km) gradient (MPa/km) Sh /SV SH /SV Faulting Regime

Sh SH Sh SH
N1 (690–4309 m) 10.10 23.30 51.30 17.30 16.10 16.70 0.86 0.92 Thrust to Normal

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
faulting
N2 (236–1510 m) 11.60 23.80 49.90 20.80 21.40 23.10 1.01 1.09 Thrust faulting
J1 (600–1300 m) 10.30 22.40 47.80 17.00 17.80 19.70 1.02 1.18 Thrust to normal
faulting
M1 (408–4189 m) 10.70 22.20 14.40 11.70 12.50 16.40 0.72 0.82 Normal faulting
M2 11.9 21.70 15.00 14.80 15.20 16.10 0.72 0.83 Normal faulting
(1109–2835 m)
M3 (435–2799 m) 10.50 21.80 14.10 12.80 12.00 14.90 0.68 0.76 Normal faulting
PP=pore pressure, SV =Vertical stress, Sh = minimum horizontal stress, SH =maximum horizontal stress.

faulted regions, respectively. An average SH /SV varies from 0.92 to
1.18 and from 0.76 to 0.83 in thrust and normal faulted regions,
respectively. It is noted that the lower bound of Sh calculated from
frictional limiting theory does not match with the measured Sh from
LOT in the normal faulting regime. The frictional limiting theory
predicted Sh and SH gradients overestimate the value of Sh and SH
computed from poroelastic model.
Fig. 9 displays the Blanton–Olson predicted Sh versus LOT and
poroelastic model predicted Sh versus LOT plots showing variation
of goodness of fit (R2 ) from 0.98 to 0.99, respectively. Standard
deviation (sd) of residual error is minimum (±1.39) for prediction
of poroelastic model derived Sh . For Sh , predicted using Blanton–
Olson model the sd of residual error is ±1.43. This implies that
Sh estimated using poroelastic model fits better with the measured
LOT data.
4 M U LT I P L E R E G R E S S I O N A N A LY S I S
FOR PREDICTION OF Sh
Another estimate of Sh is demonstrated to constrain stress magni-
tude and tectonic strain of any faulted regime. It is observed that the
Sh varies with PP, vertical stress and the ratio of seismic velocities
of the medium (Eberhart-Phillips et al. 1989; Hillis 2000; Vernik &
Kachanov 2010). Amongst six wells, the wells N1, N2 and M1 have
maximum numbers of LOT data as compared to the rest of the wells.
The data from these three wells are used for multiple regression anal-
ysis for computation of Sh . A single regression model is proposed
for a dependent variable (Sh ) using three independent variables: SV ,
PP and (Vp /Vs )2 for the above-mentioned three wells distributed in
the Upper Assam basin. Table 5a lists the well names, LOT with
respective depths, SV , PP and (Vp /Vs )2 for the statistical analysis
and is showing the values for the dependent and independent vari-
ables. The technique, analysis of variance (ANOVA), evaluates the
relationship between a dependent variable and three independent
variables. This is carried out using IBM SPSS Statistical Software,
version 21.0.
The ANOVA calculations for multiple regressions as shown in
Table 5b, the model degrees of freedom (df) are equal to 3, the error
(residual) df, that is, the df for residual are equal to 6 and the total df
are 9. The null hypothesis for ANOVA (Koch & Link 1970) states
that means of group such as m1 , m2 and m3 for SV , PP and (Vp /Vs )2 ,
respectively are equal to zero, that is, m1 = m2 = m3 = 0. The in-
dependent variables namely; SV , PP, and (Vp /Vs )2 are three different
groups in this analysis and the alternative hypothesis simply states
that at least one of the parameters mj = 0, j = 1, 2,3.
The t-test is implemented to compare individual means. The
two variables are linked using an unstandardized coefficient us-
ing linear regression. This can be generalized to multiple regres-
sions taking into consideration several covariates and simultane-
ously trying to explain their collective relationship to the outcome.
The model summary Table 5b shows the F-statistic is equal to
957.227/95.907 = 9.981. The distribution is F (3, 6), and the prob-
ability of observing a value greater than or equal to 9.981 and
significance (sig.) of this test has value of 0.010. There is strong ev-
idence that m1 is not equal to zero. The ratio between sum of squares
for regression model (SSM) and total sum of squares (SST), that
is, SSM/SST = R2 is known as the squared multiple correlation co-
efficient (Table 5c). Therefore, R2 = 2871.680/3447.124 = 0.833.
Adjusted R2 in Table 5c is computed using the formula 1 − ((1 –
R2 )∗(N − 1))/(N − 3 − 1)) where N is 10. Standard (Std.) error
of the estimate is referred to as the root mean squared error. It is
the square root of the mean square for the residuals in Table 5c.
In this linear regression model the estimated raw or unstandardized
regression coefficient for a predictor variable (referred to as B in
Table 5d) is interpreted as the change in the predicted value of the
dependent variable for one unit increase in the predictor variables:
SV , PP and (Vp /Vs )2 . If B = 1, for every unit increase in predictor,
the dependent variable also increases by 1. Measure of dependent
variable (Sh ) when all predictors are set to zero is got by the constant
term (Table 5d). The intercept or constant term (Table 5d) provides
the predicted value of the dependent variable when all predictors are
set to zero. The constant coefficient (20.025) is this simple mean of
group means. Impact of each predictor is reflected by knowing the
values of standardized coefficient, beta as well as the significance
(sig.) for each predictor (Table 5d).
The beta value measures the effect of each predictor variable on
Sh . For example, a beta value of 0.459 of SV indicates that a change
of one sd in the predictor variable will result in a change of 0.459 sds
in the dependent variable. So, a higher beta value indicates greater
effect on dependent variable.
Multiple linear regression attempts to model the relationship be-
tween three independent variables and a dependent variable (Sh ) by
fitting a linear equation to observed data:
 2
Vp
Sh = 20.025 + 0.317SV + 0.533PP − 2.117 . (21)
Vs
670 J. Alam, R. Chatterjee and S. Dasgupta

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
Figure 9. The regression plot between (a) Blanton–Olson and (b) poroelastic model predicted minimum horizontal stress (Sh ) and leak-off test (LOT),
combining data from wells M1, M3 and J1 with best-fit regression line and standard deviation (sd) of residual error.

Table 5a. Independent and dependent variables utilized for generation of multilinear regression model.
Well name Depth (m) LOT (MPa) SV (MPa) PP (MPa) (Vp /Vs )2
N1 691 9.30 12.94 7.22 3.99
N1 1827 41.36 39.45 18.55 4.27
N1 3140 62.36 70.06 30.56 3.47
N2 239 3.15 5.37 2.97 7.64
N2 950 21.01 22.06 10.94 4.41
N2 1471 31.11 34.47 19.42 4.24
M1 686 9.10 13.94 7.05 9.74
M1 2711 35.03 58.10 28.50 3.85
M1 3897.79 54.05 85.64 44.55 4.12
M1 2071 29.02 43.83 22.93 5.29

Table 5b. Results from the Multiple Regression Model.

ANOVAa
Sum of
Model squares df Mean square F Sig.
1 Regression 2871.680 3 957.227 9.981 .010b
Residual 575.443 6 95.907
Total 3447.124 9
a Dependent variable: LOT.
b Predictors: (constant), (Vp /Vs )2 , PP, SV .

Table 5c. Model Summary.

Adjusted Std. Error of
Model R R2 R2 the Estimate
1 .913a .833 .750 9.79322
a Predictors: (constant), (Vp /Vs )2 , PP, SV .

Table 5d. Coefficients from Multiple Regression Analysis.

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 20.025 13.974 1.433 .202
SV .317 .225 .459 1.409 .209
PP .533 .487 .345 1.095 .316
(Vp /Vs )2 −2.117 1.960 −.217 -1.080 .322
a Dependent Variable: LOT.
 Tectonic Strain and Stress Magnitude in Assam 671

4.1 Result and validation magnitudes SV > SH > Sh , suggests association of normal fault in
deeper sections of wells N1 and J1. The well N2 reaches 1521 m in
Eq. (21) has been used to estimate Sh for another three wells: M2,
purely reverse faulting regime (Fig. 2b) showing the order of stress
M3 and J1 for testing of models under study. Fig. 10 displays the
magnitudes SH > Sh ≈ SV (Fig. 8e). The wells, N1 and J1, being
regression results between the predicted Sh with LOT, for wells M2,
deeper wells cross-cuts the NT on its way and characterize two dif-
M3 and J1 with R2 = 0.83. The sd of residual error in this regression
ferent faulting regimes (e.g. Fig. 2b for well N1). However, delving
model is found to be ± 4.44. The predicted Sh matches in a very
deeper into the wells we observe SV > SH > Sh suggesting a change
good manner with four LOT values whereas there is a mismatch
in regime to normal faulting system. This may be attributed to the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
of about 5 MPa with one LOT value (Fig. 10). This new Sh model
fact based on previous observations that SV is not exactly the mini-
is now applied for these wells for computation of Sh with depth.
mum stress because the principal stresses in thrust systems can be
Fig. 11 illustrates the predicted Sh from regression model along
rotated near active thrust faults or detachments (Hafner 1951; Last
with LOT values and computed Sh using poroelasic model. As the
& McLean 1996). On the rotation of stress axes, the minimum stress
sd of residual error is minimum for Sh predicted using poroelastic
will be less than the vertical stress/overburden pressure (Couzens-
model, we have compared the regression model predicted Sh with
Schultz & Chan 2010). Though rotation of principal stress axes is
that predicted from poroelastic model. Eq. (19) (with strain set to 0)
likely to be present but it is unlikely to be the major driver from
is a specific instance of a function of SV , PP and (Vp /Vs )2 . Eq. (21)
a shallow thrust faulting regime to a deep normal faulting regime.
is expressed as a function of SV , PP and (Vp /Vs )2 . It is observed
More detailed subsurface information is required to substantiate the
that predicted Sh using regression model mostly agrees well with
cause of change in stress regime.
the Sh, trend computed from poroelastic model with a maximum
Spatial distribution of tectonic strain has widespread application
mismatch of 10 MPa in deeper sections of well M3. The model
for studying the movement of the Earth’s crust, wellbore failures
predicted Sh equals satisfactorily with the poroelastic model driven
in hydrocarbon exploration as well as pillar designing in coal min-
Sh for wells M2 and J1. Maximum mismatch of 2.75 and 2.5 MPa
ing area in active region (Gray & See 2007; Gupta & Gahalaut
is observed in wells M3 and J1, respectively. Regression model
2014; Hayavi & Abdideh 2016; Molaghab et al. 2017). Gray &
predicted Sh diverges from given LOT values at deeper sections of
See (2007) had measured maximum and minimum tectonic strains
wells M3 and J1. It is noted that the model predicted Sh shows an
along maximum and minimum principal stress direction using over-
elevated value of 10 MPa at 2791 m and 2.5 MPa at 2430 m for
coring technique in an Australian coalfield. The tectonic strain rate
wells M3 and J1, respectively. Without prior information on LOT
is generally measured using GPS observation for continental dy-
values, conventional log data may be utilized to estimate Sh using
namic research. The occurrence of an earthquake locally depends
eq. (21) in this area satisfactorily.
on the absolute level of strain, but a complete knowledge of past
earthquakes history for a sufficiently long time interval is, in most
The parameters used in this regression model incorporate con-
cases, inaccessible. A minimum estimate of the local accumulated
ventional log data from normal and thrust faulted regions. The
strain can, however, be obtained by the point wise integration of
mismatch upto 10 MPa observed from Fig. 11 may cause signifi-
seismic moment accumulation and release, for the time interval
cant error for detailed well design but may be adequate for regional
covered by sufficiently complete information (D’Agostino 2014).
work such as crustal stress anisotropy and overall stress estimation.
The compression rate ranging on an average between ∼50 and 100
Earlier model discussed in previous sections (eqs 14 and 19) require
nanostrain yr−1 is the major component of deformation in the EHS
information on tectonic strain to compute Sh . There is no real differ-
area. Also transverse extension of an average of ∼50 nanostrain
ence between the requirements for the Blanton–Olson, poroelastic
yr−1 is found to exist around 28◦ N, between 92◦ E and 94◦ E, ex-
and regression models described in this paper. The first two models
plained by existence of a series of N–S striking normal faults (Datta
do use tectonic strains but mathematically they are simply fitting
Gupta et al. 2015).
parameters that are never measured. The regression approach does
The tectonic strain computed from log data may certainly add to
not explicitly reference strain but the same data are being fit and the
the scientific value of understanding geodynamics of this region.
linear fitting parameters serve the same mathematical purpose as
The calculated strain thus indicates the sediment deformation at the
the strain parameters in the prior methods. Though the approaches
well site in thrusted and normal faulted region of the Upper Assam
have different mathematical forms but they fit the same dependent
basin. Blanton–Olson model predicted tectonic strain ranges from
variables while using the same independent variables. The only
−4.4 × 10−3 to 6.1 × 10−3 . The maximum and minimum horizon-
advantages of a particular approach must lie in the accuracy of pre-
tal strains along NE–SW and NW–SE from poroelastic model vary
diction and likely validity of extrapolation to conditions outside of
from 9.9 × 10−5 to 9.2 × 10−4 and −1.9 × 10−3 to 5.3 × 10−4 , re-
this particular data set. Comparing the sd of residual errors for Sh
spectively. The comparison between regression model predicted Sh
estimated using all three models it is observed that sd is minimum
and poroelastic model predicted Sh show good corroboration. The
for Sh estimation using poroelastic model. However, eq. (21) pro-
advantage of regression model is that minimum horizontal stress
vides a gross estimate of Sh in this area when data for more detailed
magnitude can be estimated in normal as well as thrust faulted
estimates are lacking.
regimes even without prior knowledge of tectonic strain under the
study area. The discrepancy of 10 MPa between the regression
model predicted Sh and LOT values in deeper section of wells M3
5 DISCUSSION
and J1 will cause inaccuracies in detailed studies of well design, cas-
In a compressive system as observed in the NT area for wells N1, N2 ing design, wellbore stability analysis and production scheduling.
and J1, it is inferred that SV is minimum in the upthrusted sediments However, this model may be used for regional stress studies where
but in deeper parts the SV is found to be more than the magnitudes of LOT, minifrac or hydrofrac data are not available. The Sh gradient
SH and Sh especially in wells N1 and J1. Initially in the upper parts derived from Blanton–Olson and poroelastic models substantiates
of the wells (upto 1635 m in N1 and 1119 m in J1) thrust faulting each other for all six wells. In this compressive stress fields it is
mechanisms are followed with SH > Sh > SV . The order of the stress expected that all LOT values will be between 90 and 100 per cent
672 J. Alam, R. Chatterjee and S. Dasgupta

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
Figure 10 The regression plot between predicted minimum horizontal stress (Sh ) and leak off test (LOT), combining data from wells M2, M3 and J1 is shown
with the best fit regression line and standard deviation (sd) of residual error.

Figure 11 Shows the regression model (ANOVA) predicted minimum horizontal stress (Sh ), and poroelastic model predicted Sh with depth for wells (a)M2,
(b)M3 and (c)J1 respectively. Hydrostatic pressure (Ph), pore pressure (PP), mud weight (MW), leak off test (LOT) and vertical stress (SV ) are also plotted.

of SV . However in deeper section such as in well N1, LOT falls to
as low as 70 per cent of SV . This may be interpreted as existence of
normal faulting stress regime in these thrust systems (Dakua et al.
2008). Geologic evidence for this active compressional thrust sys-
tem (Belt of Schuppen) under the study area is supported by GPS
motions and focal mechanism studies (Couzens-Schultz & Chan
2010; Kayal et al. 2010; Baruah et al. 2013; Gupta & Gahalaut
2014).
6 C O N C LU S I O N S
PP has been estimated using Eaton’s sonic model in the Upper
Assam basin for six wells with an exponent of 1.0 calibrated with
MDT data. PP gradients mostly follow hydrostatic trend with a
slight high value ranging from 10.7 to 11.9 MPa km−1 for wells
M1, M2 and N2. This paper demonstrates different methodologies
to estimate stress magnitudes in tectonically active part of this basin.
The frictional limiting model overestimates the magnitude of SH and
Sh . Blanton–Olson model is useful for computation of Sh magnitude
for six wells under the study area. Using poroelastic model, the
maximum and minimum tectonic strains are observed in normal and
thrust faulting regimes. Employing these strain parameters, Sh and
SH magnitudes are supported with LOT and BO derived SH values,
respectively. Average stress ratio, Sh /SV varies from 0.70 in normal
faulting regime to 0.96 in thrust faulting regime whereas SH /SV
varies from 0.80 in normal faulting regime to 1.06 in thrust faulting
regime, respectively. The order of stress magnitudes describe the
normal faulting and thrust faulting regime that corroborate with
previous studies based on earthquake focal mechanism and GPS
survey. A new regression model has been attempted to predict Sh in

this area with very good R2 = 0.83 using well log data. This paper
discusses the application of three different models: two physical
models with different levels of complexity and one ad hoc linearized
form. From Figs 9 and 10 we can infer that amongst the three models,
the computed Sh using poroelastic biaxial strain model follows the
measured LOT most faithfully. However, complex geological terrain
and inaccessible areas pose as constraints for estimating Sh due to
non-availability or lacking of LOT, minifrac and hydrofrac data.
This paper has major highlights of finding of tectonic strain, stress
magnitudes and delineation of stress regimes using well log data,
which can further be modified with larger data set covering other
tectonic parts of northeastern India.
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
Authors are thankful to Oil India Limited, Duliajan for provid-
ing well log, seismic data and geological information. Ministry
of Earth Science, India is acknowledged for funding the project
(MoES/P.O. (Seismo)/1(273)/2015). We thank Department of Ap-
plied Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of
Mines), Dhanbad in helping us carry out the research work.
REFERENCES
Al-Qahtani, M. & Rahim, Z., 2001. A mathematical algorithm for modeling
geomechanical rock properties of the Khu and Pre-Khu reservoirs in
Ghawar field, in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, pp. 123–129, Bahrain.
Anderson, E.M., 2nd, 1951. The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formation
with Applications to Britain, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 206.
Angelier, J. & Baruah, S., 2009. Seismotectonics in northeast India: a stress
analysis of focal mechanism solutions of earthquakes and its kinematic
implications, Geophys. J. Int., 178(1), 303–326.
Armijo, R., Tapponnier, P., Mercier, J.L. & Tangling, H., 1986. Quaternary
extension in southern Tibet: field observations and tectonic implications,
J. geophys. Res., 91, 13 803–13 872.
Azadpour, M. & Manaman, N.S., 2015. Determination of pore pressure from
sonic log: a case study on one of Iran carbonate reservoir rocks, Iran. J.
Oil Gas Sci. Technol., 4(3), 37–50.
Bachman, R.C., Sen, V., Khalmanova, D., Okouma Mangha, V. & Settari, A.,
2011. Examining the effects of stress dependent reservoir permeability
on stimulated horizontal montney gas wells, in Canadian Unconventional
Resources Conference, Calgary, Canada.
Bailey, A., Tenthorey, E. & Ayling, B., 2017. Characterising the present-day
stress regime of the Georgina Basin, Aust. J. Earth Sci., 64(1), 121–136.
Banerjee, P., Burgmann, R., Nagarajan, B. & Apel, E., 2008. Intraplate
deformation of the Indian subcontinent, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35.
Barman, B.J., Kashyap, B., Das, R. & Mitra, D.S., 2015. On the geothermal
gradient anomalies of hydrocarbon entrapment in parts of Rudrasagar and
Charali fields in Upper Assam, in 11th Biennial International Conference
& Exposition, Jaipur, India.
Barton, C.A., Zoback, M.D. & Burns, K.L., 1988. In-situ stress orientation
and magnitude at the Fenton Hill geothermal site, New Mexico, deter-
mined from wellbore breakouts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 15, 467–470.
Baruah, S., Baruah, S. & Kayal, J.R., 2013. State of tectonic stress in north-
east India and adjoining south Asia region: an appraisal, Bull. seism. Soc.
Am., 103, 894–910.
Bell, J.S., 1996. Petro geoscience. 1. In situ stresses in sedimentary rocks
(part 1): measurement techniques, Geosci. Can., 23(2), 85–100.
Bell, J.S. & Gough, D.I., 1982. The use of borehole breakouts in the study
of crustal stress, 82–1075, 539–557, Open-File Rep, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Bendick, R. & Bilham, R., 2001. How perfect is the Himalayan arc? Geology,
29, 791–794.
Tectonic Strain and Stress Magnitude in Assam 673
Bjørlykke, K., 2014. Relationships between depositional environments,
burial history and rock properties. Some principal aspects of diagenetic
process in sedimentary basins, Sedimentary Geol., 301, 1–14.
Blanton, T. & Olson, J., 1999. Stress magnitudes from logs: effects of tectonic
strains and temperature, SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng., 5, 62–68.
Bowers, G.L., 1995. Pore pressure estimation from velocity data: account-
ing for pore pressure mechanisms besides undercompaction, SPE Drill.
Completion, 10, 89–95.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
Byerlee, J.D., 1978. Friction of rock, Pure appl. Geophys., 116, 615–626.
Chatterjee, R. & Mukhopadhyay, M., 2001. Stress-induced borehole elon-
gation up to 3.6 km depth in the Cauvery basin, India, SPWLA 42nd
Annual Logging Symposium, in SPWLA 42nd Annual Logging Sympo-
sium, Houston, TX.
Chatterjee, R. & Mukhopadhyay, M., 2003. Stress modeling for the oil and
gas fields of Krishna–Godavari and Cauvery basins, India, using finite
element technique, Petrophysics, 44(5), 244–252.
Chatterjee, R. & Mukhopdhyay, M., 2002. In-situ stress determination using
well log data for the oil fields of the Krishna–Godavari basin, Petrophysics,
43, 26–27.
Chester, F.M. & Chester, J.S., 2000. Stress and deformation along wavy
frictional faults, J. geophys. Res., 105, 23 421–23 430.
Chhajlani, R., Zheng, Z., Mayfield, D. & MacArthur, B., 2002. Utilization of
geomechanics for Medusa field development, deep-water Gulf of Mexico,
in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX.
Couzens-Schultz, B.A. & Chan, A.W., 2010. Stress determination in active
thrust belts: an alternative leak-off pressure interpretation, J. Struct. Geol.,
32, 1061–1069.
D’Agostino, N., 2014. Complete seismic release of tectonic strain and earth-
quake recurrence in the Apennines, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 1155–1162.
Dakua, K.K., Gogoi, N.B. & Bharali, B.R., 2008. Structural features and its
brief study in and around Margherita-Ledo Area, Upper Assam Basin, in
7th International Conference and Exposition on Petroleum Geophysics,
Hyderabad, India.
Das, B. & Chatterjee, R., 2017. Wellbore stability analysis and prediction
of minimum mud weight for few wells in Krishna–Godavari Basin, India,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 93, 30–37.
Dasgupta, S., Chatterjee, R. & Mohanty, S., 2016. Magnitude, mechanisms
and prediction of abnormal pore pressure using well data in the Krishna–
Godavari Basin, east coast of India, AAPG Bull., 100(12), 1833–1855.
Datta Gupta, T., Riguzzi, F., Dasgupta, S., Mukhopadhyay, B., Roy, S. &
Sharma, S., 2015. Kinematics and strain rates of the Eastern Himalayan
Syntaxis from new GPS campaigns in Northeast India, Tectonophysics,
655, 15–26
Eaton, B.A., 1972. Graphical method predicts geopressures worldwide,
World Oil, 182, 51–56.
Eaton, B.A., 1975. The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs,
in Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas,
TX.
Eberhart-Phillips, D., Han, D.H. & Zoback, M.D., 1989. Empirical rela-
tionships among seismic velocity, effective pressure, porosity, and clay
content in sandstone, Geophysics, 54, 82–89.
Fitch, T.J., 1970. Earthquake mechanisms in the Himalayan, Burmese, and
Andaman Regions and continental tectonics in central Asia, J. geophys.
Res., 75(14), 2699–2710.
Fjær, E., 2009. Static and dynamic moduli of a weak sandstone, Geophysics,
74, WA103–WA112.
Gough, D.I. & Bell, J.S., 1981. Stress orientations from oil well fractures in
Alberta and Texas, Can. J. Earth Sci., 18, 638–645.
Gowd, T.N., Srirama Rao, S.V. & Chary, K.B., 1998. Seismotectonics of
northeastern India, Curr. Sci., 74(1), 75–80.
Gowd, T.N., Srirama Rao, S.V. & Gaur, V.K., 1992. Tectonic stress field in
the Indian subcontinent, J. geophys. Res., 98, 11 879–11 888.
Gray, I. & See, L., 2007. The measurement and interpretation of in situ
stress using an overcoring technique from surface, in 1st Canada-US
Rock Mechanics Symposium, pp. 721–727, eds Eberhardt, E., Stead, D. &
Morrison, T., Taylor & Francis.
GSI, 2000. Seismo-Tectonic Atlas of India and its Environs, Geological
Survey of India.
674 J. Alam, R. Chatterjee and S. Dasgupta
Gupta, H.K. & Gahalaut, V.K., 2014. Seismotectonics and large earthquake
generation in the Himalayan region, Gondwana Res., 25(1), 204–213.
Gupta, H.K., Rajendran, K. & Singh, H.N., 1986. Seismicity of the
north-east India region. Part I: the data base, J. Geol. Soc. India, 28,
345–365.
Gupta, H.K. & Singh, H.N., 1986. Seismicity of the north-east India region.
Part II: earthquake swarms precursory to moderate magnitude to great
earthquakes, J. Geol. Soc. India, 28, 367–406.
Gutierrez, M.A., Braunsdor, N.R. & Couzens, B.A., 2006. Calibration and
ranking of pore-pressure prediction models, Leading Edge, 25(12), 1516–
1523.
Hafner, W., 1951. Stress distributions and faulting, Bull. geol. Soc. Am., 62,
373–398.
Hayavi, M.T. & Abdideh, M., 2016. Estimation of in-situ horizontal stresses
using the linear poroelastic model and minifrac test results in tectonically
active area, Russ. J. Earth Sci., 16.
Hillis, R., 2000. Pore pressure/stress coupling and its implications for seis-
micity, Explor. Geophys., 31, 448–454.
Hillis, R.R. & Reynolds, S.D., 2003. In situ stress field of Australia, Hillis,
R.R. & Muller, R.D.in Evolution and Dynamics of the Australian Plate,
372, pp. 49–58 , Geological Society of America.
Horsrud, P., 2001. Estimating mechanical properties of shale from empirical
correlations, SPE Drill. Completion, 16(2), 68–73.
Jaeger, J.C. & Cook, N.G.W., 1979. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, 3rd
edn, Chapman & Hall.
Kayal, J.R. et al., 2010. The 2009 Bhutan and Assam felt earthquakes (Mw
6.3 and 5.1) at the Kopili fault in the northeast Himalaya region, Geomatics
Nat. Hazards Risk, 1(3), 273–281.
Khan, P.K., 2005. Mapping of b-value beneath the Shillong Plateau,
Gondwana Res., 8, 271–276.
Khan, P.K., Ghosh, M., Chakraborty, P.P. & Mukherjee, D., 2011. Seismic
b-value and the assessment of ambient stress in northeast India, Pure
appl. Geophys., 168(10), 1693–1706.
Khattri, K., Wyss, M., Gaur, V.K., Saha, S.N. & Bansal, V.K., 1983. Local
seismic activity in the region of the Assam Gap, northeast India, Bull.
seism. Soc. Am., 73, 459–470.
Koch, G.S. & Link, R.F., 1970. Statistical Analysis of Geological Data, Vol.
1, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Last, N.C. & McLean, M.R., 1996. Assessing the impact of trajectory on
weIls drilled in an overthrust region, J. Pet. Technol., 48, 620–626.
Law, B.E & Spencer, C.W, 1998. Abnormal pressure in hydrocarbon envi-
ronments, AAPG Memoir, 70, 1–11.
Lei, T., Sinha, B.K. & Sanders, M., 2012. Estimation of horizontal stress
magnitudes and stress coefficients of velocities using borehole sonic data,
Geophysics, 77(3), 181–196.
Maung, H., 1987. Transcurrent movements in the Burma–Andaman Sea
region, Geology, 15(10), 911–912.
Molaghab, A., Taherynia, M.H., Aghda, S.M.F. & Fahimifar, A., 2017.
Determination of minimum and maximum stress profiles using wellbore
failure evidences: a case study—a deep oil well in the southwest of Iran,
J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol., 7, 707–715.
Molnar, P., 1984. Structure and tectonics of the Himalaya: constraints and
implications of geophysical data, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 12, 489–
518
Molnar, P. & England, P., 1990. Temperatures, heat flux, and frictional stress
near major thrust faults, J. geophys. Res., 95, 4833–4856.
Molnar, P. & Qidong, D., 1984. Faulting associated with large earthquakes
and the average rate of deformation in central and eastern Asia, J. geophys.
Res., 89, 6203–6227.
Moos, D. & Zoback, M.D., 1990. Utilization of observations of well bore
failure to constrain the orientation and magnitude of crustal stresses’
application to continental, Deep Sea Drilling Project, and ocean Drilling
program boreholes, J. geophys. Res., 95(B6), 9305–9325
Mullick, M., Riguzzi, F. & Mukhopadhyay, D., 2009. Estimates of motion
and strain rates across active faults in the frontal part of eastern Himalayas
in North Bengal from GPS measurements, Terra Nova, 21, 410–415.
Nandy, D.R., 2001. Geodynamics of Northeastern India and Adjoining Re-
gion, ACB Publications.
Plumb, R., Edwards, S., Pidcock, G., Lee, D. & Stacey., B., 2000. The
mechanical Earth model concept and its application to high-risk well
construction projects, in Proceedings of IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
New Orleans, LA.
Plumb, R.A., Evans, K.F. & Engelder, T., 1991. Geophysical log responses
and their corelation with bed-to-bed stress contrasts in Paleozoicrocks,
Appalachian plateau, New York, J. geophys. Res., 96, 14 509–14 528.
Raaen, A.M., Horsrud, P., Kjørholt, H. & Økland, D., 2006. Improved routine
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
estimation of the minimum horizontal stress component from extended
leak-off tests, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 43, 37–48.
Rajabi, M., Tingay, M. & Heidbach, O., 2016. The present-day stress field
of New South Wales, Australia, Aust. J. Earth Sci., 63, 1–21.
Rajendran, K. & Rajendran, C.P., 2011. Revisiting some significant
earthquake sources in the Himalaya: perspectives on past seismicity,
Tectonophysics, 504, 75–88.
Raoof, J., Mukhopadhyay, S., Koulakov, I. & Kayal, J.R., 2017. 3-D seismic
tomography of the lithosphere and its geodynamic implications beneath
the northeast India region, Tectonics, 36, 962–980.
Saha, D., 2011. Integrated analysis of Gravity and Magnetic data in the Upper
Assam shelf and adjoining Schupen belt area: a critical review, in The
2nd South Asian Geoscience Conference and Exhibition, GEOIndia2011,
Greater Noida, India.
Sawai, S. & Sar, D., 2006. Analysis of gravity data for estimating thickness
of Gondwana sediments in Dhansiri valley of Upper Assam of Assam–
Arakan Basin, in 6th International Conference & Exposition on Petroleum
Geophysics, Kolkata, India.
Seeber, L., Armbruster, J. & Quittmeyer, R., 1981. Seismicity and con-
tinental collision in Himalayan arc, in Zagros, Hindu-Kush, Himalaya:
Geodynamic Evolution, Vol. 3, pp. 215–242, eds Gupta, H.K. & Delany,
F.M., American Geophysical Union.
Singha, D.K. & Chatterjee, R., 2014. Detection of overpressure zones
and a statistical model for pore pressure estimation from well logs in
the Krishna–Godavari Basin, India, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 15(4),
1009–1020.
Singha, D.K. & Chatterjee, R., 2015. Geomechanical modeling using finite
element method for prediction of in-situ stress in Krishna–Godavari basin,
India, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 73, 15–27.
Song, L., 2012. Measurement of minimum horizontal stress from logging
and drilling data in unconventional oil and gas, MSc thesis, University of
Calgary, Calgary.
Srivastava, S.K. & Bharali, B., 2000. Stress regimes in parts of Upper Assam
basin: borehole breakout data analysis and its comparison with earthquake
focal mechanism, J. Ind. Geophys. Union, 4(1), 59–68.
Swarbrick, R.E. & Osborne, M.J., 1998. Mechanisms that generate abnormal
pressures: an overview, in Abnormal Pressures in Hydrocarbon Environ-
ments: AAPG Memoir, Vol. 70, pp. 13–34, eds Law, B.E., Ulmishek, G.F.
& Slavin, V.I., American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Tingay, M., Hillis, R., Swarbrick, R., Morley, C. & Damit, A., 2008. Origin
of overpressure and pore-pressure predictionin the Baram Delta province,
Brunei, AAPG Bull., 93, 51–74.
Tingay, M.R.P., Hillis, R.R., C.K., M., Swarbrick, R.E. & Okpere, E.C.,
2003. Variation in vertical stress in the Baram Basin, Brunei: tectonic and
geomechanical implications, Mar. Pet. Geol., 20, 1201–1212.
Townend, J. & Zoback, M.D., 2000. How faulting keeps the crust strong,
Geology, 28(5), 399–402.
van Ruth , P.J, Hillis, R.R. & Swarbrick, R.E, 2002. Detecting overpres-
sure using porosity-based techniques in the Carnarvon basin, Australia,
APPEA, 42:559–569.
Vernant, P.R. et al., 2014. Clockwise rotation of the Brahmaputra Valley
relative to India: tectonic convergence in the eastern Himalaya, Naga
Hills, and Shillong Plateau, J. geophys. Res., 119(8), 6558–6571.
Vernik, L. & Kachanov, M., 2010. Modeling elastic properties of siliciclastic
rocks, Geophysics, 75, 171–182.
Wang, H.F., 2000. Theory of Linear Poroelasticity, Princeton University
Press.
Yin, A., 2006. Cenozoic tectonic evolution of the Himalayan orogen as
constrained by along-strike variation of structural geometry, exhumation
history, and foreland sedimentation, Earth-Sci. Rev., 76, 1–131.

Yin, A. & Harrison, M., 2000. Geologic evolution of the Himalayan–Tibetan
orogen, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 28, 211–280.
Zamora, M., Sartoris, G. & Chelini, W., 1994. Laboratory measurements
of ultrasonic wave velocities in rocks from the Campi Flegrei volcanic
system and their relation to other field data, J. geophys. Res., 99(B7), 13
553–13 561.
Zhang, J. & Roegiers, J., 2010. Discussion on Integrating borehole-breakout
dimensions, strength criteria, and leakoff test results,to constrain the state
of stress across the Chelungpu Fault, Taiwan, Tectonophysics, 492, 295–
298.
View publication stats
Tectonic Strain and Stress Magnitude in Assam 675
Zoback, M.D., 2007. Reservoir Geomechanics, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Zoback, M.D. & Healy, J.H., 1984. Friction, faulting, and ‘in situ’ stresses,
Ann. Geophys., 2, 689–698.
Zoback, M.D., Moos, D., Mastin, L. & Anderson, R.N., 1985.
Well borehole breakouts and in situ stress, J. geophys. Res., 90,
5523–5530.
Zoback, M.L., Zoback, M.D., Adams, J., Assumpcao, M., Bell, S., Bergman,
E.A. & Fuchs, K., 1989. Global patterns of tectonic stress, Nature,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/216/1/659/5144768 by National Geophysical Research Institute user on 09 January 2019
341(6240), 291–298.