IN SITU STRESS MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES - A REVIEW

Chandrani D. Prasad* Ritesh D. Lokhande** Achyuta Krishna Ghosh***

ABSTRACT
In situ stress is the existing stress in the rock mass. Because of the existence of faults,
joints, folds, stratification, anisotropy and non-uniformity in rocks the in situ stresses
vary a lot from one point to another. For designing and evaluating the stability of an
underground structure, engineers do have little option of selecting a rock type for
opening an excavation. More often than none, even the shape and size of these
openings is guided by several other engineering factors which may not be altered at will.
Hence, to ensure the stability of an opening, a through knowledge of in situ stress field
is required. . A stress field can be reliably determined by in situ stress measurement.
There are a number of techniques by which in situ stress can be measured. Some are
found to be very useful in certain conditions while some of them are still under
development. A brief review of all these methods have been presented in this paper.
INTRODUCTION
In situ stress is the existing stress in a rock mass. As soon as an excavation is made the
virgin ground stress condition gets disturbed and redistributed in the rock mass surrounding
opening, and may cause instability in the opening. Once the virgin in situ stress condition
and rock mass properties are known, post-excavation states of stress and stability of the
ground excavation and the requirements of supports, if any, may be estimated with fair
accuracy by numerical simulation. Thus the knowledge of magnitude, distribution and
orientation of in situ stresses is an input of great significance in critical decision making in
designing any ground excavation for civil construction or mining.

METHODS OF IN SITU STRESS MEASUREMENTS

Based on the principles, the techniques of in situ stress measurement can be classified as
follows:
 Hydraulic Methods  Relief Methods  Jacking Methods
 Strain Recovery Methods  Borehole Breakout Methods  Other Indirect Methods

Hydraulic Methods
The basic principle of hydraulic method is to determine in situ stresses by isolating a section
of borehole and creating a fracture or opening an existing fracture by hydraulic pressure. The
technique to create a fracture in borehole wall by applying hydraulic pressure was first
introduced by Clark (1949).
In Hydraulic Fracturing, a new fracture is created which propagates in a direction normal to
the minimum stress direction in such an isolated part of a borehole where no geological
weakness planes or fractures pre-exist. Values of the pressure corresponding to the fracture
initiation, its reopening and shut-in are recorded and then related to pre-existing stresses.
The directions of the principal stresses are found out from the orientation of the fracture,
which is determined by impression packers (Fig. 1). Hubbert & Wills (1957) used the theory
of elasticity to conclude that the induced fracture direction and the pressure during
pressurisation are directly related to the principal in situ stresses. The method can be used in
deep boreholes and has been successfully tested in 6 to 9 km deep vertical holes (Tekamp
et. al., 1995) in various rock conditions.

*Senior Project Assistant, **Junior Scientific Assistant, ***Scientist,

Central Mining Research Institute, Dhanbad

1
 Fluid Pressure
Fluid Pressure

Compass
Inflatable Packer
Impression Packer

Fracture

Rubber Liner

Borehole
Fig.1 Basic steps of Hydraulic Fracturing, (a) pressurisation of borehole, (b) fracture orientation

Hydro fracturing is a costly and time-consuming technique, and needs heavy equipment to
be taken to the test site. This method is not at all suitable for porous rocks or for jointed and
fractured rocks where at least 1 m length of borehole is not free from pre-existing geological
weakness planes or fractures. Haimson (1968) found that in porous rock mass, pumped fluid
raises the pore pressure and increases stresses and displacements. This additional stress
and displacement reduce the critical pressure required to initiate the fracture and
consequently the width of the fracture so formed (Amadei et. al., 1997).
To overcome this pore pressure effect, Sleeve Fracturing was developed by Stephansson
(1983). In this method no fluid penetrates the rock upon fracturing as a hard rubber
membrane is inserted into the borehole and then pressure is applied. The induced fractures
at the borehole wall can be single or double and accordingly it is called single fracture
method (Fig. 2) or double fracture method. Double fracture technique is first proposed by
Serata & Kikuchi (1986).

Consolidation by compression
Friction Shell

Fracture
Fracture

Fig.2 Single fracture developed by S-350 system.

Serata developed S-350 System (Fig. 3) to determine in situ stresses. The instrument
consists of two sections, loading section and electronic section. Loading section consist of a
steel mandrel, one urethane loading unit, two end cups and two end seals and two to four
Linear Variable Differential Transducer (LVDT) mounted inside the loading unit for sensing
diametral deformation. Semi-cylindrical shells having two gaps diametrically opposite utilised
to create fracture surround the urethane tube. Directions, magnitudes and orientations of
principal stresses are determined from the actual fracture reopening pressure of fractures in
different directions and using equations developed for the purpose.

2
 Quick Coupler Operating Rod
S-350
Electric cable
Electric Unit
Field Computer
Power Pack

High Pressure Pump

Fig.3 S-350 system developed by Serata

Method is cleaner, quicker and more convenient than hydrofracturing as it eliminates the
need to transport and pump large quantities of pressurising fluid. The method can be carried
out in fractured ground as well. However induced fractures do not propagate far from the
borehole wall and a small volume of rock is involved in each test. To obtain a more precise
value of in situ stress in jointed rock, larger rock volume should be considered. Also existing
micro fractures in the rock makes it difficult to obtain a sharp and consistent elastic
breakdown points in pressure versus volume or diametral deformation curves.

3
To find a suitable method for stress investigation and large numbers of tests
determination in weak and jointed rock are required for approximate value
mass it was thought to reopen the Cornet, (1993).
preexisting fractures in the rock mass and
thus Hydraulic Test on Pre-Existing
Fractures (HTPF) method was proposed
by Cornet (1986). The method consists of
reopening an existing fracture of known
orientation that has been isolated in Joint
between two packers (Fig. 4). By using
low flow rate of injection, the fluid n n
pressure, which balances exactly the
normal stress across the fracture, was
measured. The method does not require
determination of the tensile strength of
rock. It is the only method available at
great depth when the borehole is not
parallel to a principal stress direction. The
major limitation is the hypothesis that
fractures observed in the borehole is
planar in the size range selected for Fig. 4. Reopening of existing fracture
The problem of long time site preparation and carrying of heavy equipment to the site is
reduced to some extent by Minifrac system designed by Enever, Walton & Wold (1990) of
CSIRO. However it is having its own limitation as the equipment is made for 38 mm diameter
borehole and a maximum packer pressure of 35 MPa. Hand pumps allow for a maximum
pressure of 40 MPa and a maximum flow rate of 200 litres per minute. An intrinsically safe
version for use in hazardous area such as in underground mines is also available (Amadei
et. al., 1997).
RELIEF METHODS
The Surface Relief Method is useful to determine in situ stresses on underground
excavation walls. Rock surfaces are first instrumented with gauges or pins. Then, the rock
response to stress relief by cutting or drilling is obtained by recording strains in the gauges
and pins before and after the relief process and then related to the in situ stress components
in the plane of the rock surface. Basic requirement of this method is that the rock volume
should be fracture free.
This method suffers from a number of limitations, namely-
[a] The performance of the gauges or pins is affected by humidity and dust,
[b] Strains or displacements are measured on a rock that might have been disturbed and
damaged by weathering and excavation process itself,
[c] Stress concentration factors are assumed in order to relate the stress measured
locally in the wall of the excavation to the far field stress component and
[d] It involves small rock volume.
To overcome this limitation it was desirable to measure strains in isolated places such as in
boreholes. Various strain gauges are then developed. Basic steps in Overcoring (Fig. 5) are
a hole is drilled and advanced at full overcore diameter to the first required depth of
measurement. A small pilot hole is drilled beyond this depth. Gauge is then inserted in the
pilot hole and the hole containing gauge is then overcored. With the use of elasticity theory
and the strain readings, the state of stress is determined.

4
 Borehole Deformation Gauge

Fig. 5. Basic steps in overcoring

The first gauge was developed in US Bureau of Mines by Obert, Merrill & Morgan (1962).
This gauge was able to measure change in diameter in one direction only of EX size (38 mm
) and to have knowledge of complete state of stress it requires several measurements.
Merrill (1967) developed the three-component deformation gauge that requires three
boreholes measurement for defining the stress tensor.
The deformation-sensing device of USBM Gauge (Fig. 6) consists of six pieces of heat-
treated beryllium copper strips mounted on six cantilevers. The six strips are located in three
diametral directions at 60o intervals. Two gauges one on the top and the other on the bottom
are mounted in each strip near the clamped ends. The four strain gauges on each two
diametrically located strips are wired to form a four-arm bridge circuit, the strain outputs of
which are calibrated to indicate the amounts of deflection for the two strips. The deflections
of the cantilever strips are caused by the movement of pistons that are always in intimate
contact with the wall of the borehole. Each overcoring measures only the principal stresses
located in the plane perpendicular to the axis of the borehole, the determination of complete
state of stress at a point requires three overcorings at three different orientations.
With USBM gauge, measurements have been made to depths of 70 m in vertical boreholes
(Amadei et. al., 1997). Overcoring should proceed until over coring bit has passed the
measuring buttons for a distance of at least 150 mm and therefore it requires overcore of at
least 300 mm long. Thompson (1990) has modified this instrument to Deep Borehole
Deformation Gauge for operating at depths to 1000 m in water filled boreholes.
The USBM probe is waterproof, robust and reliable and operates very well in water filled
holes. It is very well suited to measurements in downholes drilled from the surface. Resulting
hollow cylinder can be used to determine necessary elastic constants.
The limitations to the use of USBM gauge is that it requires large diameter hole, long over
cores, bulky equipment and three overcoring at three different orientations, moreover gauge
can be damaged if the core breaks. This gauge is not suitable for weak and fractured rock
mass.

5
 Fig. 6. Sections of USBM Gauge
The drawbacks of USBM gauge can be overcome by another instrument designed by
Leeman (1964) known as Doorstopper (Fig. 7). It essentially consists of a 45o strain rosette,
a circular shim, and four pins in an insulated connecting plug and a rubber plug. The rock
with attached doorstopper is overcored to relieve it from stresses.

Fig.7. Schematic Cross Section and bottom view of Doorstopper

A small overcore of 50 mm is sufficient for successful overcoring. With doorstopper an

extreme value for the core length of 5mm has also been reported (Choquet, 1994). Thus it is
suitable for weak and fractured rocks where long cores are not always available. Also it is
most suitable for underground measurements. Method is very quick, but the end of borehole
should be smooth, dry and flat for using this instrument. It is not suitable for watery holes as
doorstopper is required to be glued to the rock surface. Curing of glue takes 1 to 20 hours
depending on the glue used and borehole condition. Continuous monitoring is not possible.
To allow continuous monitoring doorstopper was gradually modified by Gregory et al (1983),
Gill et. al., (1987) and Corthesy, Gill & Nguyen (1990). This modified version allows
continuous monitoring and is suitable for use in watery holes. It monitors temperature also at
the rock cell interface. However, with the development of more suitable measurement
techniques its use is now obsolete. Both USBM gauge and doorstopper require
measurements in three boreholes at three different orientations.
A similar technique was developed by Hawkes & Moxon (1965). Instead of using strain
gauges a biaxial gauge of photoelastic material was used. The gauge so developed is called

6
as Photoelastic Biaxial Strain Gauge. This gauge is attached to the rock surface of 76mm
diameter borehole and overcored. The isochromatic fringe pattern developed during
overcoring by polarized light is observed and interpreted in terms of strains and stresses in
the plane perpendicular to the borehole (Hawkes, 1968, 1971). However no continuous
monitoring is possible with this instrument and its use is limited to near surface areas. In wet
condition cementing of this gauge to borehole wall is also a problem. It also requires three
borehole measurements for complete knowledge of stress.
Some of the limitation can be overcome by
CSIR Triaxial Strain Cell (Fig. 8)
designed by Leeman & Hayes (1966). It
consists of triple strain rosette at an angle
of 90o, 180o and 315o from the horizontal
diameter. Instrument is suitable for
measurement in EX size hole. CSIR strain
cell has been used to a depth of 30-50 m
from working faces. To avoid water
problems boreholes are drilled slightly
upward and dips toward the opening.
Complete stress can be determined from a
single borehole. Elastic constants of rock Fig.8. Orientation of strain gauges in CSIR
can be determined by radial loading of the Strain Cell
recovered over core containing strain cell.
Though it solves the requirement of three boreholes it suffers from the following limitations
viz., it requires long overcores, no continuous monitoring is possible and curing of glue takes
a long time. In case of weak and bedded rocks the location of strain gauges with reference to
beds or layers and possible cracks affects cell, because gauges are glued directly on the
rock and strain gauges provide point measurements.
Later on in 1979, Hiltscher, Martna & Strindell of Swedish State Power Board (SSPB),
modified this cell. Cell has been tested in vertical boreholes down to a depth of 500 m and
more recently to a depth of 1000m (Ljunggren, 1995).
Another way of measuring rock stress is to overcore inclusion type measuring instruments in
the borehole. Inclusions can be either rigid type or soft type. Several rigid inclusions are
available. But the main problem associated with them is that they offer resistance to
borehole deformation and sets tensile stresses along rock and inclusion interface during
overcoring. And according to elastic theory this stresses are sufficient to break the bond
between the rock and the inclusion. To overcome this limitation thin walled hollow inclusion
gauges such as LNEC (Labatorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon) Gauge and
CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organization) HI (Hollow
Inclusion) Gauge are developed.
LNEC gauge was designed by Rocha et. al., (1974). The instrument is an epoxy resin
cylinder with ten strain gauges distributed along the middle part of cylinder. Basic
requirement is that the cement should be strong and intact for measurements to be
acceptable otherwise the changes may be unreadable.
Wortnicki & Walton of CSIRO (1976) developed CSIRO HI cell (Fig. 9). Cell is a thin walled
epoxy pipe with outer and inner diameter equal to 36 & 32 mm respectively. 1 mm thick layer
is used to attach the cell to the pilot hole. It consists of triple strain gauge rosette at 120 o
apart at 0.5 mm below cell outer surface. Out of total 9 strain gauges 2 gauges measures
strain parallel to the axis of cell, 3 gauges measures tangential stresses and other 4
measures strains at + 45o.
In CSIRO HI Cell complete stress can be determined from a single borehole. Continuous
monitoring is possible. Elastic constants of rock can be determined by radial loading of the

7
recovered over core containing strain cell. Cell is not affected by moisture and dust as the
gauges are enclosed in epoxy. However cell is costly and is not recoverable unless
recovered by the method proposed by Cai (1990). However, curing is difficult under wet and
cool environment. Error is introduced in readings as no dummy gauge is provided to
compensate temperature changes. This instrument is not suitable for very weak rocks.

Fig.9. Orientation of strain gauges in CSIRO HI Cell

In this context we should not forget to mention the triaxial strain cell developed by Changsha
Research Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, China (1974) (Guang, et. al., 1982). The initial
design consists of a probe having 3 rubber cantilevers with three strain rosettes bonded on
it. Later on two types of cell containing eight and six strain gauges was developed. For both
the types a strain coefficient matrix developed and a computer program has also been
developed to calculate the stress tensor. This cell is suitable for EX size hole. With this
method also continuous monitoring is not possible and has been used only in competent
rock that too in dry condition.

Another method, which does not require overcoring, is Borehole Slotting (Fig.10) was
developed by Bock & Foruria (1984) and Bock (1986). In this method a half moon shaped
slot 1m wide and 25 mm deep is cut in the borehole wall radially or axially with the help of a
diamond saw. A strain sensor near the slot within a 15o arc monitors closure of this slot.
Strain sensor is a part of slotter. Strains so
measured are then converted to Borehole
corresponding stress by using linear
elasticity theory. Three cuts in different
directions are necessary to determine the
Slot
stresses in the plane perpendicular to the
hole. Continuous monitoring is possible.
Instrument is recoverable. However it has =15o
been tested for shallow depths less than Diamond
blade
30 m only and the borehole must be dry.
The stress parallel to the borehole wall is Recoverable strain
estimated. sensor

8
 Fig.10. Borehole Slotter section

All the above methods involve a very small rock volume. It is likely that the measured
stresses are sensitive to changes in the mineral composition of the rock and the grain size
and thus methods involving much larger rock volume have been proposed [Brady, Friday &
Alexander, (1976), Brady, Lemos & Cundall, (1976) & Chandler (1993)].
In these methods several strain gauges on the surface of a large diameter based raise is
overcored at different levels. The average stress over entire rock volume is then determined.
Zajic & Bohac (1983) and Sakurai & Shimizu (1986) proposed a method on similar line,
which involves measurement of displacement at several cross sections of an opening after
an excavation. Analytical and numerical methods are then used to determine in situ stresses.
Another method suggested by Wiles and Kaiser (1994) involves measurement in the vicinity
of an advancing excavation. Measurements of several instruments such as CSIRO HI cell,
triaxial strain Cell, Extensometers, Convergence gauges, and closure meters are used
simultaneously to determine the complete state of stress.
JACKING METHODS
In this method also called stress-compensating methods, drilling overlapping holes to make
a slot disturbs the stress equilibrium of a rockmass. This slot creates deformation in the rock.
A jack is then inserted in the slot and pressurised to restore the deformation in the rockmass.
This restoration pressure at which deformation is cancelled is assumed to be equal to the
stress normal to the slot, which existed in the rock before cutting the slot.
Flat Jack (Fig.11) was first proposed by distance of L/3 from the centre of the slot,
Habib & Mirchand (1952) and later where L is the length of slot.
modified by Panek & Stock (1963). It
represents one of the first techniques used
in rock for measuring in situ stresses. This
method is applicable to the areas where
access is available this method can also
be used to measure deformability of rock.
Flat jacks are usually made from thin
metal plates about 30 cm2 welded together
around their perimeter and provided with a
communicating tube to allow oil to enter
the space between them. Pins for
measuring displacements across the slot
are placed on each side of the slot at a Fig.11. Flatjack

The advantage of this method is that it does not require knowledge of the elastic constants of
the rock. The stresses are measured directly. It creates only a partial relief of the rock mass
thus fewer disturbances are induced to the mechanical properties of the rock compared to
other methods.
However, it is not suitable for heavily jointed rock or the rock damaged by blasting and
cannot be used when component of stress normal to the slot plane is a tensile stress, as the
flat jack cannot compensate such deformation when slot opens. Stress measurement is near
the surface of opening and may get influenced by the disturbance associated with the
process of opening excavation and by atmospheric conditions (humidity and temperature).
The pressure is not transmitted entirely over the whole surface of the jack, especially at jack-
welded edges. In soft rocks, the water used for the mortar to grout the jacks in place may
soften the rock and give incorrect stress results.
The main disadvantage of stress measurement near the surface of an opening by flatjack is
eliminated by using curved jacks designed by Jaeger & Cook (1964). Curved Jack

9
Technique (Fig. 12) measure stresses in boreholes and at a distance of 3 to 6m into rock
masses. Jaeger & cook have produced curved jacks for insertion in boreholes 4 inches in
diameter and up to 20 ft. in depth.

Fig 12. Determination of absolute stress by Curved Hydraulic Jacks

It is assumed that the principal stress 3 in aligned in the direction of the boreholes in which
jacks A and B are inserted in the annulus made by a diamond core drill. The pressure in
these jacks is increased until the rock in the quadrants C and D, outside the annulus begins
to fracture. It is assumed that these fractures occur in the direction of principal stress 1 and
they are observed and their directions noted by overcoring and breaking off the larger core
for examination. The 4" hole and annulus is then extended and the jacks A and B reinserted
so that their resultant pressure acts in the direct ion normal to the 1. Theses jacks then form
the sensing elements. They are pressurized and the pressure relief on overcoring them is
noted. Two additional pairs of jacks EF and GH are then inserted in the overcored rock
annulus and pressurized to restore the stresses in AB (Stagg, 1979). Restoring pressure is
equal to the magnitude of 2 and the direction of fracture is 1 direction and perpendicular to it
is 2 directions. This can be used for measuring stresses in boreholes to a depth of 3 to 6 m
only.
STRAIN RECOVERY METHOD
The method is based on the concept that when a piece of rock is removed from the pre-
existing state of stress, it relaxes and thereby deform. The relaxation consists of elastic
component and a time dependent (anelastic) component. Accordingly on the basis of
recovering anelastic or elastic component the method is sub divided as Anelastic Strain
Recovery (ASR) and Differential Strain Curve Analysis. This method can work well in the
condition where small cores are available.
In Anelastic Strain Recovery (ASR) (Fig.13) method core is recovered and allowed to
expand which in turn allow micro cracks to propagate. Crack expands more in the direction
of minimum stress relief. Thus by proper instrumentation of recovered oriented cores, the
orientation of the principal in situ stress is inferred from the direction of measured maximum
and minimum strain. It is assumed that the direction of the principal recovery strain coincides
with the direction of the in-situ principal stresses. Determination of in-situ stress magnitudes
using the ASR method requires a viscoelastic model for the rock response to unloading. The
vertical stress is usually assumed (Tuefel, 1982).

10
 Fig.13. Instrument for ASR measurements of a drill core.
In Differential Strain Curve Analysis (DSCA) (Fig. 14) method rock specimen is allowed to
expand which in turn allow development and alignment of the micro cracks in the direction of
original stress. Subjecting it to hydrostatic loading in a pressure vessel reverses the
expansion of core, and thereby closing the micro cracks. The pressure at which all the
cracks due to deformation get closed is equal to the original stress acting. Proponents of this
method are Tuefel & Warpinski (1984) and Dey & Brown (1986).

situ stress field coincide with the principal

directions of strains due to micro crack
closure.
[b] The ratios between the three principal
in situ stresses are assumed to be
related to the ratios between three
principal strains due to crack closure.
[c] Vertical stress is the principal stress
due to the weight of overlying rock.
[d] Micro cracks are induced as the rock
expands by relief from the in situ
stress field.
[e] The cracks are proportional
. volumetrically to the in situ stress
magnitude in any direction.
Fig.14 Principle of DSCA Method
[f] Under hydrostatic loading, contraction
The main assumptions in this method are of rock in any specific direction is
as follows: analogous to the original strain in that
[a] Principal directions of the current in direction.
The main advantage of this method is that no sophisticated instruments are required in the
field. It does not require any assumption regarding the orientation of the in situ stress field
with respect to the borehole. However this method is not suitable for rocks containing
numerous cracks and for very weak rocks.
BOREHOLE BREAKOUT METHODS
Breakouts are diametrically opposed zones of enlargement under compressive stress
concentration. The main objective of this method is to utilize the orientation of breakouts to
determine the orientation of maximum and minimum horizontal principal stresses and
variation of this orientation with depth. It is assumed that breakouts occur in two diametrically
opposite zones along the direction of minimum horizontal stress and orientation of breakouts
can give orientation of major and minor horizontal in situ stresses. It is difficult to estimate
the magnitude of in situ stresses by this method. Orientation of borehole elongation can be

11
measured using borehole camera, 3 or 4-arm dipmeter, televiewer, formation micro scanner.
Analysis by using dipmeter and televiewer is more common as compared to others.
In Caliper & Dipmeter Analysis orientation of breakouts is determined with the help of
caliper and dipmeter. Dipmeter is a logging tool and it consists of 4 or more coplanar
electrode pads. When pads are pressed against the wall by a controllable force, it measures
the resisitivity of rock. Out of the four pads, pad 1 is magnetically oriented and 2 independent
calipers between pad 1 & 3 and 2 & 4 measures the borehole diameter (Amadei et. al.,
1997).
Winching the tool up the borehole carries out measurements. The borehole shape is
recorded over the depth interval for which the tool rotates 90°. The electrode pad dimensions
and borehole diameter determine the smallest breakout detectable by a dipmeter.
However this approach must be used with caution because breakouts can also be enlarged
due to reduction of rock mass strength due to temperature fluctuations or chemical
composition of drilling fluids or weathering of borehole wall especially in weak or weakly
cemented rocks. Breakouts can also be affected by the intensity of drilling (low or high
thrust) and the drilling method selected. Caliper logs do not provide information on the
detailed shape of the breakouts.
The principle of the modern Borehole Televiewer Analysis is that a narrow pulsed acoustic
beam scans the borehole wall in a tight helix as the tool moves up the borehole. The
acoustic energy is reflected from the borehole wall and the amplitude and the travel times of
the reflected signal are measured with the same transducer that generates the acoustic
beam. This data is then utilised to determine the orientation of maximum and minimum
horizontal principle stress and the variation of that orientation with depth. It is difficult to
estimate the magnitude of in situ stresses.
INDIRECT METHODS
Indirect methods measure stresses by looking at change in physical, mechanical or other
rock properties as a result of change in stress.
1. Fault Slip Data Analysis
2. Earthquake Focal Mechanisms
3. Indirect Methods (Kaiser effect, etc.,)
4. Inclusion in Time Dependent Rock
5. Measurement of Residual Stresses.

Carey and Brunier (1974) first proposed the Fault Slip Data Analysis method. In this method
measurement of slickensides on a population of faults is used to determine the orientation
as well as the magnitude of the in situ stress field. This method is based on three main
assumptions:
a) All the slickensides on the faults in the population are related to a given but unknown
stress tensor;
b) Motion on each fault plane is parallel to the acting shear stress on that plane; and
c) Fault motions are independent. Main advantage is that advance knowledge of rock
deformability properties is not required. However, there must be enough evidence that
the striations used in analysis are related to that particular stress field only.

Earthquake Focal Mechanism proposed by Engelder (1993) is based on the principle that
motion on a fault controls the pattern of seismic wave radiation specially the first motion of
the compression p-wave recorded at distant seismographs. Displacement on this fault may

12
produce earthquake, which in turn affects the stress pattern. According to McKenzie (1969),
the fault-plane solution method could not be used to infer precisely stress orientations in the
crust.
The Kaiser Effect is the sudden increase in acoustic emission when the applied stress has
reached previous maximum level of stress (Kaiser, 1953; Hughson et. al., 1986). Just like
DSCA here also a core of rock is recovered from any depth and reloaded in laboratory under
uniaxial testing machine. The difference lies in the fact that acoustic emission associated
with the previous stress level is utilised to determine the in situ stresses. Method requires
two strain measuring devices, a displacement measurement device and a sensor. Sensor is
coupled directly to the rock specimen by a tape or by an adhesive bond. All measuring
devices are connected to the specimen and loading is carried out in testing machine. Two
loading cycles are used. In first loading cycle after observing a rise in acoustic emission
against increased load, specimen is unloaded believing that this increased emission may be
due to crack closure. Specimen is then reloaded and all the strain and displacements
reading associated with the sudden increase in acoustic emission this time is taken into
consideration for stress determination. No down hole instrumentation is required.
Inclusion in Viscoelastic Rocks is another indirect method suitable for in situ stress
measurement in viscoelastic rocks such as rock salt or potash. This method utilizes
viscoelastic theory which states that when a borehole is drilled in an already stressed
material with creep properties and inclusion such as vibrating wire stressmeter, flat jacks or
other pressure cells are inserted, the steady state of stress in the inclusion with time will
reach the absolute stress in the rock. By knowing the creep properties the stresses in the
rock can be deduced from inclusion readings over shorter periods of time. Method is not
suitable for hard rock where rock may take a longer period to reach the steady state of
stress. This period may be in terms of several years.
Measurement of Residual Stresses represent a class on their own. Measurement can be
done on two different scales viz., Microscopic scale and macroscopic scale. At the
microscopic scale (crystal or grain scale) possible method include the calorimetric technique,
the x-ray technique and the spot-drilling or centre hole-drilling technique. At the macroscopic
level (specimen to rock mass), overcoring of overcored specimens (double overcoring) or
undercored specimen is carried out.
CONCLUSION
Though so many methods are developed for in situ stress measurement and some of them
are still under development, Hydraulic fracturing, USBM Gauge, CSIRO HI cell and Flatjack
are the four methods recommended by ISRM. Of these hydraulic fracturing is the most
suitable and reliable method for stress measurement at great depths. As working is
becoming deeper day by day due to depletion of shallow reserves, we are bound to know the
stress values at depth and it is likely to be the prerequisite for mine design. In case of porous
rock formation sleeve fracturing is offering advantages over hydraulic fracturing. Flatjack is
going to dominate the near surface measurements because of its simplicity and less cost
involved. Of the various overcoring gauges, CSIRO HI cell is the most promising one as it
combines the several positive features of USBM, LNEC and triaxial strain cell while avoiding
some of their drawbacks. Of the remaining methods only DSCA and Kaiser Effect can be
utilised to determine stress tensor.
REFERENCES
Amadei, B. & Stephansson, O., (1997), “Rock Stress and Its Measurement”, Chapman &
Hall Press, London.
Brady, B. H. G., Friday, R. G., & Alexander, L. G. (1976) “Stress Measurement in Bored
Raise at the Mount ISU Mine”, Proc. ISRM Symposium on Investigation of Stress in Rock,
Advances in Stress Measurement, Sydney, The Institution of Engineers, Australia, pp.12-16.

13
Brady, B. H. G., Lamos, J. V. & Cundall, P. A (1986) “Stress Measurement Schemes for
Jointed and Fractured Rock, Proc. Int. Symposium on Investigation Rock Stress and Rock
Stress Measurements”, Stockholm, Centek Publ, Lulea, pp. 167-76.
Bock, H. & Foruria V. A., (1984) “A Recoverable Borehole Slotting Instrument for in situ
stress Measurements in Rock; not requiring Overcoring in Proc. Int. Symp. Field
Measurements in Geomechanics, Zurich, Vol. 1, pp 15-29,
Bock, H., (1986) ” In situ validation of the Borehole Slotting Stressmeter,” Proc. Int. Symp.
Rock Stress & Rock Stress Measurements, Stockholm, Sweden, pp 261-270.
Cai, M., (1990), “Comparative Tests and Overcorings of Stress Measurement Devices in
Different Rock Conditions”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of New South Wales,
Australia.
Carey, E. & Brunier, B., (1974), “Analyse theorique et mumerique d’un modele mecanique
elementaire appliqué aletude d’une population de failles. CR Hebd. Seanc. Sci. Paris, D,
279, 891-94
Chandler, N. A.,(1993), “Bored Raise Overcoring for In Situ Stress Determination at the
Underground Research laboratory”, Int.J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech, Abstr. 30, 989-
92.
Choquet, P. (1994) la mesure des contraintes par la methode du surcarottage, Proc.
Seminaire Formation: Mesure des solicitatios et des contraintes dans les ouvrages et dans
les terrains, Ecole des Mines, Nancy, sept. 12-16.
Clark, J. B. A.(1949),” Hydraulic Process for Increasing the Productivity of Wells”, Trans. Am.
Inst. Min. Metall. Eng. 186.
Cornet, F. H.,(1986): “ Stress Determination from Hydraulic Test on Pre-Existing Fractures-
The HTPF Method,” Proc. Int. Symp. Rock stress and Rock Stress Measurements,
Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 301-312.
Cornet, F. H. (1993),The HTPF and the Integrated Stress Determination Methods in
Comprehensive Rock Engg. (ed. J .A. Hudson), Pergamon press, Oxford, chapter 15, vol.3,
pp.413-32.
Corthesy, R., Gill, D. E. & Nguyen, D. (1990),”The Modified Doorstopper Cell Stress
Measuring Technique”, Proc. Conf. on stresses in underground structures, Ottawa, CANMET
Publ., pp. 23-32.
Dey, J. N. & Brown, D. W.(1986):” Stress Measurements in a deep Granitic Rock Mass Using
Hydraulic Fracturing and Diffreential Strain Curve Analysis,” Proc. Inst. Symp. Rock Stress
and Rock Stress Measurements, Stockholm, Sweden, pp 351-357.
Enever, J. R., Walton, R. J. & Wold, M. B. (1990),”Scale Effects Influencing Hydraulic
Fracture and Overcoring Stress Measurements”, Proc. Int. Workshop on Scale Effects in
Rock Masses, Loen, Norway, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 317-26.
Engelder, T (1993) Stress Regimes in the lithosphere, Priinceton University press, Princeton,
New Jersey.
Franklin, J. A. &. Dusseault, M. B, (1989), “Rock Engineering”, Mc Graw Hill, U.S.A, pp. 144-
159.
Gill, D. E. et al.(1987),”Improvements to Standard Doorstopper and Leeman Cell Stress
Measuring Techniques”, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Field Measurements in Geomechanics,
Kobe, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 75-83.
Gregory, E. C. et al (1983),” In-situ Stress Measurement in a Jointed Basalt: the Suitability of
five Overcoring Techniques”, Proc. Rapid Excavation and Tunneling (RETC) Conf., Chicago,
Vol.1, SME/ AIME, pp. 42-61.
Guang, M. & Jinshon, H. Aug.(1982), “Some Aspects of Rock Stress Measurements in the
People’s Republic of China”, 1st Int. Conf. on Stability in Underground Mining, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada.

14
Habib, P. & Mirchand R. (1952), “ Measures deo pressions de Terrains par L’Essain de verin
plat,” Annales de L’Institute Technique du Batiment et des Travanx Publics, Serie, Sols et
Fondation, Paris, No. 58
Haimson, B. C. (1968) Hydraulic Fracturing in Porous and Nonporous Rock and its Potential
for Determining in situ Stresses at great depth”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Minnesota, 234 pp.
Hawkes, I. and Moxon, S.(1965),”Measurement of In situ Rock Stress using the Photoelastic
Biaxial Gage with the Core-Relief Technique”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 2, 405-19.
Hawkes, I. (1968),” Theory of Photoelastic Biaxial Strain gage”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.,
5, 57-63.
Hawkes, I. (1971),“Photoelastic Strain Gages and in situ Rock Stress Measurements”, Proc.
Int. Symp. on the Determination of stresses in Rock Masses, Lab. Nac. de Eng. Civil, Lisbon,
pp. 359-75.
Hiltscher, R., Martna, J. & Strindell, L. (1979),”The Measurement of Triaxial Rock Stresses in
Deep Holes and the use of Rock Stress Measurement in the Design and Construction of
Rock Openings”, in Proc. 4th Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech. (ISRM), Montreux, Balkema,
Rotterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 227-34.
Hubbert, K. M., & Wills, D. G.(1957) “Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing”, Petrol, Trans,
AIME. T. P. 45-97, 210, 153-66.
Hudson, J. A & Harrison, J. P., (1997),“ Engineering Rock Mechanics – An Introduction to the
Principles-Part 1 “, Elsevier Science Ltd., UK, pp 44-49.
Hughson, D. R. & Crawford, A. M. (1986),” Kaiser Effect Gauging: A New Method For
Determining the Pre-Existing In Situ Stress From An Extracted Core By Acoustic Emission, “
Proc. Int. Symp. Rock Stress and Rock Stress Measurements (Stockholm, Sweden, 1986),
pp. 359-368.
Jaeger, J. C. & Cook, N.G.W. (1964) Theory and application of curved jacks for
measurement stresses, in proc. Int. Conf. On State of stress in the earth’s crust, Santa
Monica, Elsevier, New York, pp. 381-95.
Jaeger, J. C. (1979),” Rock Mechanics and Engineering”, Cambridge Univ. Press, London,
pp 94-97.
Leeman, E. R. (1964),”The Measurement of Stress in Rock – Part 2”,. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min.
Metal, Vol. 65(2), pp. 102-108.
Leeman, E. R. & Hayes, D. J. (1966),”A Technique for Determining the Complete State of
Stress in Rock using A Single Borehole”, in Proc. 1 st Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech. (ISRM),
Lisbon, Lab. Nac. De Eng. Civil, Lisbon, Vol. II, pp. 17-24.
Merrill, R. H. (1967),:” Three Component Borehole Deformation Gauge for Determining the
Stress in Rock, Report. Investigation.—USBM, RI-7015.
Muckenzie, D. P.,(1969),”The Relation between Fault Plane Solutions for Earthquakes and
the Directions of the Principle Stresses”, Seism. Soc. Am. Bull., 50, 595-601.
Obert, L., Merrill, R. H. & Morgan, T. A.,(1962): “ A Borehole Deformation Gauge for
Determining the Stresses in Mine Rock”, USBM, Report, Investigation., 5978.
Panek, L. A & J.A. Stock, (1963) “Development of a Rock Stress Monitoring Station based on
the Flat-Slot Method of Measuring Existing Rock Stress,” US Bur. Mines Report of
Investigation (RI) 6537.
Roberts A., (1977),“Geotechnology An Introductory Text for Students and Engineers”,
Pergamon Press, U.K, pp. 175-194.
Rocha, M. et al (1974),” A new Development of the LNEC Stress Tensor Gauge”, Proc. 3 rd
Cong. Int. Soc. Rock Mech. (ISRM), Denver, National Academy of Sciences, Washington
DC, Vol. IIA, pp. 464-7.

15
Sakurai, S. & Shimizu, N. (1986),” Initial Stress Back Analyzed from Displacement due to
Underground Excavation”, in Proc. Int. Symp. On Rock stress and Rock stress
measurements, Stockholm, Centek Publ., Lulea, pp. 679-86.
Serata, S. and Kikuchi, S.,(1986),”A Diametral Deformation Method for In-Situ Stress and
Rock Property Measurement”, Int. J. Min. Geol. Eng. Vol. 4, pp.15-38.
Stagg, K. G. & Zienkienicz, O. C, 1979, “Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, John
Wiley & Son, London, pp. 191-194.
Stephanson, O. (1983),”Rock Stress Measurement by Sleeve Fracturing”, in Proc. 5th Cong.
Inst. Soc. Rock Mech. (ISRM), Melbourne, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.f129-37.
TeKamp, L.Rummel , F & Zoback, M. D. (1995),”Hydrofrac stress profile to 9 km at the
German KTB site”, Proc. Workshop on Rock stresses in the North sea, Trandheim, Norway,
NTH and SINTEF Publ., Trandheim, pp.147-53.
Thompson, P. M., (1990),”A Borehole Deformation Gauge for Stress Determinations in Deep
Borehole”, Proc. 31st US Symp. Rock Mech., Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 579-86.
Tuefel, L. W. (1982),”Prediction of Hydraulic Fracture Azimuth from Anelastic Stain Recovery
Measurements of Oriented Core”, in Proc. 23 rd US Symp. Rock Mech. Berkelcy, SME/AIME,
pp. 238-45.
Teufel, L. W., & Warpinski, N. R.,(1984):” Determination of In situ Stress Mesasurement from
Anelastic Strain Recovery Measurements of Oriented Core: Comaprison to Hydraulic
Fracture Stress Measurements in the Rollins Ss, Piceance Basin, Colorado,”Proc. 25 th U. S.
Symp. Rock Mech., Evanston, III., pp 1176-185.
Wiles, T. D. & Kaiser, P. K.(1994),”In Situ Stress Determination using the Under Excavation
Technice-I Theory . Int. J. Rock Mech. Min Sci. & Geomech, Abstr., Vol. 31, pp. 439-49.
Worotnicki, G. & Walton, R. J. (1976),”Triaxial Hollow Inclusion Gages for Determination of
Rock Stresses In Situ”, Supplement to Proc. ISRM Symp. on Investigation of Stress in Rock,
Advances in Stress Measurement, Sydney, The institution of Engineers, Australia, pp. 1-8.
Zajic, J. & Bohac, V.(1986),”Gallery Excavation Method for the Stress Determination in a
Rockmass”, in Proc. Int. Symp. On Large Rock Caverns, Helsiniki, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
Vol. 2, pp.1123-31.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are grateful to Prof. D. D. Misra, Director, CMRI, Dhanbad, for his
encouragement and permission to publish this paper. The authors are thankful to Dr. A.
Sinha & Mr. D. G. Rao, Scientists, CMRI, Dhanbad for their technical support in preparation
of this paper.

16