Determination of Insitu Stress from Oriented Core

P.M. Dight
Senior Principal
Coffey Mining (a division of Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd)

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of a program of determining the current insitu stress based on
testing under cores taken from exploration drilling. The analysis of the results uses the deformation rate
technique (DRA) developed by Yamamoto and published in1990. The results when rotated into the
appropriate direction are confirmed in direction and magnitude by two independent stress measurement
programs using Hydraulic Fracture.
Work has also been undertaken to confirm the technique with CSIRO Hollow Inclusion (HI) tests. The initial
testing which established the veracity of the method was undertaken in May 2002. Confirmatory testing of
previously tested under cores was completed in August 2004. These tests not only showed the current insitu
stress, but also confirmed the Kaiser Effect stresses measured by the Acoustic Emission (AE) technique, as
well as revealed the maximum load that the samples had been tested. Six independent test programs have
been undertaken using different personnel and different laboratories to confirm that the approach is robust,
simple and elegant.

The results are also supported by a tectogenetic study (after Bogacz et al 2002) undertaken for the site. The
results confirm a low stress field for the proposed mine, When combined with the tectogenetic study they
provide an understanding of the local tectonic regime responsible for the mineralizing event hence provide a
guide to exploration potential.

The insitu stress determined from these tests is not the Kaiser effect (KE) although the KE can be measured
from the procedure as noted by Yamamoto in 1990. Using the knowledge that the stress is locked into the
sample, it can be demonstrated that other methods such as AE also measure the same effect but with
considerably less reliability. The maximum stress measured from the tests undertaken on diamond drill core
is a function of the orientation of the hole and the insitu stress. This is demonstrated in the paper. The stress
measurement technique is independent of elastic theory and can be shown to work on samples previously
tested. That is, it is a non destructive test.

1 INTRODUCTION
also been shown to measure the maximum previous
There have been many attempts to identify the insitu stress measured in core recovered from diamond
stress from diamond drill core since J Kaiser (1950, drilling (Villaescusa et al 2003 etc).
1953) identified that materials have a stress memory Villaescusa showed that by using sub core obtained
even when tested well below their maximum from oriented core that the stress field could be
strength in the “elastic” range. Kaiser discovered determined. There has been discussion in the
that acoustic emission (AE) could determine the literature (eg. Lavrov 2002, and Holcomb 1993)
previous maximum stress that the sample had who claim that a 3D sample is needed. This author
experienced through the onset of a significant concludes that Villaescusa’s approach is valid.
amount of noise/sound. The ability to obtain a measure of the stress field
The effect has become known as the Kaiser Effect from core is clearly an incentive given the cost of
(KE). The phenomenon has been confirmed in alternate insitu techniques (eg Hydraulic fracture
many laboratory tests (Goodman, 1963, Kurita, et (HF), Hollow Inclusion cell (HI cell (CSIRO, NZ)),
al., 1979, etc (see Lavrov 2002)). The effect has borehole slotter, etc). This is even more important
given that stress rotation/ local issues (lithology
changes, faulting, etc) will impact on

ISRM Conference on In-Situ Stress, Norway 2006

Page 1
any point sample, so the need to get statistical 2004, took the results of Holmes’ testing and
samples. Here the HF technique and borehole slotter developed the stress tensor of the insitu stress using
have a superior ability to obtain “statistical” samples Eigen Vector analysis. This correlated with the HF
than the HI technique. However the assumptions in work undertaken in 1996 (McMahon) and 2002
the former technique limit its usefulness and the (AMC).
latter technique has not been widely accepted. It is important to understand a fundamental
Yamamoto et al (1990) published a comprehensive assumption applicable to interpreting HF test results.
paper outlining the deformation rate technique An assumption in geology, and indeed necessary for
(DRA) for measuring KE. The approach examines HF work, is that one of the principal stresses should
the inelastic strain between successive load cycles in be approximately vertical or parallel to the axis of
a uniaxial test. Simply, this states that the previous the borehole (Park, 1993, Hobbs et al 1978,
stress level in a sample can be detected by Vanderhor 2001). This assumption may be correct
determining the strain difference between two in general and at depth, however it is not correct
successive cycles of loading (known as the inelastic near faulted systems, which is applicable around
strain). If the response was elastic the difference most mineralized systems. The local tectonic events
would be zero. which allowed the ore placement must be
In mathematical form it is expressed as: understood in order to predict ore extension and new
locations, otherwise a very important element of the
∆ei,j(σ) =ej(σ) – ei(σ) ∋ j>i exploration process is missing (Bogacz et al 2002 ).
Yamamoto used the method to examine the A subsequent program of DRA testing was
maximum previous stress that the material had been commissioned using different testing equipment and
tested to as per the AE method. instrumentation. This program was undertaken by
Since that time there has been some recent work Professor A Dyskin and Professor B Tarasov at
where DRA had been used to examine the results of UWA. The program undertook testing on the
laboratory testing (Barr et al 1999, Seto & remaining samples that were available from the
Villaescusa 1999, and Meyer et al 2002). Meyer initial AE program.
showed that DRA could provide information on each A later program of DRA testing using another
load step and hence the stress history could be independent laboratory has been completed using
understood from the test results. freshly prepared sub core. These results confirm the
Using Meyer’s concept, Dight (2002) showed that previous work within the experimental error and
the current stress acting in the axis of the borehole local variations likely to exist in stress measurement.
could be determined from a DRA test, in addition to The question has been raised whether the Kaiser
each load step and the previous maximum stress that effect is the current insitu stress in particular when
the sample had experienced. This test was compared measured from bore core (Lavrov 2002).
to the testing undertaken by WASM (2003) using Leeman (1965) identified that the maximum stress
the AE technique. It was clear from the initial tests recorded in core was greater than the insitu stress.
undertaken by Dight in 2002 that the maximum This caused problems when measuring the stress in
previous stress experienced by the core as measured rock based on the doorstopper method. As the stress
by DRA and AE, that is the Kaiser Effect, had increases during the coring process, it is unlikely
occurred during sampling. However there was that the Kaiser effect would correspond with the
insufficient material to obtain the stress tensor for insitu stress unless the core was oriented exactly
the DRA work at that stage. along the axis of one of the principal stresses. This
Sub samples tested by WASM (2003) using AE phenomenon can be modeled in 3D using numerical
were returned to the commissioning company in methods.
2002. These samples were stored for 2 years before This paper presents the results of a comprehensive
being retested using the DRA technique. The first set of tests undertaken in ultramafic, intrusive rock
set was undertaken by a final year engineering and quartzites.
student at University of WA (UWA) (Calan Holmes Testing has been undertaken by 4 independent
2004). The results were summarized in his thesis. laboratories on oriented core ranging from 45mm
The objective of this work was to determine whether diameter (NQ2) to 150 mm diameter.
the DRA technique applied some two years after the The DRA testing on the core adjacent to the HI tests
AE work, could determine the initial KE takeoff was conducted “blind” after Lambe 1973, to
point and the maximum load that the sample to establish the veracity of the approach.
which the samples had been tested. The results In 2002, in a series of experiments conducted in the
proved that the stress memory was still intact. Dight author’s laboratory, it was shown that using the

ISRM Conference on In-Situ Stress, Norway 2006

Page 2
DRA technique analysis of the stress/ strain would have been 404m approximately as shown in
difference (σ/∆εij) graphs for a series of tests, each Figure 1.
load applied to a sample could be determined, not
just the previous maximum load. The experiment
consisted of loading and unloading a sample to a
number of “unknown loads” prior to testing it to
destruction. By careful examination of the results,
not only could each of the “unknown” loads be
determined, so could the Kaiser Effect (resulting
from the sampling of the core) as well as the
component of the insitu stress aligned along the axis
of the sample (knowing the orientation of the sample
in 3D space). In this case the inferred insitu stress
was less than the Kaiser Effect. One possible
Figure 1 Typical Section
explanation is presented later in this paper.
Subsequently some limited testing of one group of 6
independently oriented sub samples prepared by All sub sampling and sample preparation was
WASM (2003) was undertaken by a final year undertaken by WASM (2003). Following AE
engineering student at UWA (Holmes (2004)). testing, the samples were returned to commissioning
These results were analyzed by to determine the company. The samples were stored awaiting an
insitu stress tensor and presented in August 2004. opportunity to undertake the DRA testing.
The stress magnitudes determined from the DRA Sub sampling by WASM was undertaken by under
testing indicated a low stress field for the particular coring the oriented core recovered from the test site.
project. The results, when rotated into the same The orientations of the under core relative to the
orientation as the Hydraulic Fracture tests bottom of core mark (trend and plunge) (Figure 2)
undertaken for the same project, were consistent in are:
magnitude and orientation (McMahon (1996), AMC • 000°/90°
(2002)). A fundamental assumption in Hydraulic • 000°/45°
Fractures tests and borehole breakout analysis is that • 000°/00°
one of the principal stresses is parallel to the • 270°/45°
borehole axis. In the case presented it was identified • 270°/00°
that the boreholes were actually skewed to the • 225°/00°
principal stress direction.
As a consequence of the initial research work was
commissioned.
The work comprised:

• Testing of core from 3 oriented diamond drill

holes drilled from within the pit,
• Testing of core recovered from adjacent to
the HF test horizons, and
• Testing of core recovered from 3 HI cell tests
(undertaken from an exploration adit.
This paper summarizes the important results of the
all the work undertaken.

2 SAMPLES
The initial samples for DRA testing following the
AE testing were recovered from three geotechnical
holes drilled for the project. The holes were GT098,
GT099 and GT101a.
A typical section is for GT101a is shown in Figure Figure 2 Model of sub sampling
1. This is approximately 454m vertically below the
collar. At the time of recovery the overburden depth

ISRM Conference on In-Situ Stress, Norway 2006

Page 3
The core diameter is typically 18 to 20mm. The sub
sample length is 40 to 50mm (depending on the
original core diameter). End planarity is specified to
be within 0.02mm which coincides with the ISRM
specification on end preparation for UCS testing.
The test samples are measured for compliance with a
strict requirement for parallelism.
The true orientation of the samples in space is then
calculated from the orientation and survey of the
hole.
Samples are strain gauged to obtain the stress strain
relationship (Figure 3). Note that this test does not
rely on the theory of elasticity to obtain a result.

Figure 4 Stress (MPa)

A typical stress/ strain difference (σ/∆εij) is

presented in Figure 4. Examination of the figure
shows that there are at two inflection points. The
exact determination of the inflection point is
currently achieved using a curve fitting procedure.
At this stage the procedure is manual and the
inflection point can vary between analysts. The
consequence is that the stress magnitude may vary
by 10%, but this appears to have little influence on
the stress orientation. Further work is needed to
establish a criterion for linearity either side of the
inflection point to define the procedure.
One of the inflection points is interpreted to coincide
with the current insitu stress while the last inflection
point is interpreted to coincide with the previous
Figure 3 Strain Gauging maximum stress the sample has experienced. In the
case of re-testing samples this would be the
Samples are tested axially without confinement. maximum stress applied during the AE testing
The test program requires 2 load cycles from which program.
the strain difference is calculated. Careful examination of the graphs has allowed the
The test can be conducted in a strain controlled interpretation of the stress measured by the AE
machine or a stress controlled machine. method as well.
Results for the full load/unload cycle are recorded. The results of the axial stress determined for each
The results are forwarded from the laboratory for orientation are summarized on the analysis sheet
interpretation. presented as Figure 5.

3 RESULTS

Testing has now been conducted on 235 samples in

6 stages of testing (comprising the testing
undertaken by Dight (2002), Holmes (2004), UWA
(2004)) and a commercial laboratory. Tests were
conducted on samples recovered from geotechnical
holes GT098, GT099), GT101a, HYD1, HYD2,
SM04, SM05 and SM08.

ISRM Conference on In-Situ Stress, Norway 2006

Page 4
 A graph of the mean stress orientation is presented
as Figure A, so that an immediate impression can be
obtained of the stress determination. In the analysis
it is then a simple matter of including/excluding
measurements to see the impact on the orientation.
Table D presents an estimate of the overburden
stress based on the assumption that the hole is
straight from the collar to the test site and that the
overburden is measured from the collar of the hole.
As was discussed in section above, the actual
overburden was less than the depth below collar.
Later work will look at integrating the survey and
density data to provide a more “precise” overburden
stress at the test site.
Also shown in Table D is the k factor. This is a
factor used to provide a ratio of the average
horizontal stress to average vertical stress.
That is:
k = (σxx +σyy)/2/σzz

Note that this is only an index and ignores the shear

stress components.
Table E summarizes the information on the phreatic
head. This may impose a local stress gradient at the
test location. Table F then presents the “vertical” or
Figure 5 Typical Output overburden load and “principal horizontal” stresses
with the impact of the pore water pressure (assuming
4 ANALYSIS atmospheric conditions) while Table G presents the
same results, minus the pore water effect.
The results from the test program are summarized in The analysis procedure has followed the standard
Figure 5. The format of the figures includes details matrix inversion to determine the stress tensor using
of the hole from which the sample was recovered Eigen vectors.
and the sample location (Table A). This data has
been supplied by the mine.
5 POSSIBLE EXPLANATION
The next table (Table B) in the figure summarizes
the stress measured and the orientation of the axial A thin section of the core is shown in Figure 6 with
load in 3D space. Where multiple tests have been the scale shown. It is postulated that the in situ
performed in the same orientation, it has currently stress is locked into the granular surface in a semi
been assumed that the stresses are disturbed brittle or brittle manner. The mobilization of these
normally and hence the average of the results is surfaces (i.e. 10-7m2) occurs at very small local
presented along with the standard deviation. The events as shown in Figure 7 adapted from Gibson
average stress is used for the calculation of the stress 2001.
tensor. In later work the statistical distribution of
the results will be presented along with F statistics.
Table C presents the stress tensor providing the
trend, plunge and magnitude. At present the order of
the stress output (i.e. σ1, σ2 and σ3) is determined
by the calculation procedure, so the stresses are not
necessarily in order of magnitude.
The results are presented in a format that can be
readily input into Dips®.
In Table C there is a summary of the stress
magnitude ratio. This is used in stress analysis
programs. It also gives a measure of the deviatoric
stress.

ISRM Conference on In-Situ Stress, Norway 2006

Page 5
Figure 6 Thin Section of Lamproite this particular example of 1.5 times the insitu stress
(maximum stress is 25 MPa. It is postulated that this
would then be the KE measured by DRA.
Other possible reasons include locked in stress
resulting from temperature effects. It is particularly
important when sub coring in the laboratory to
minimize this effect by using careful sampling
techniques.

8 CONCLUSIONS

The DRA testing has shown that the insitu stress (IS)
Figure 7 Insitu Stress Locked in Grain Size and the KE can be determined. Testing has been
undertaken in blind tests,
Testing has also bee undertaken by four independent
6 COMPARISON OF TEST RESULTS
testing groups with a variety of equipment and strain
A summary of the test results for each of the gauge lengths.
approaches presented in this paper are presented in The results are robust and repeatable. Finally they
Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 (see at completion of report). A are also inexpensive to perform.
comparison can be made between the inferred stress
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
direction from tectogenesis (Bogacz et al 2002), HF
(McMahon, 1996, AMC 2002), DRA (Insitu Stress The testing to date has been undertaken with a
(IS) and KE) and CSIRO Hollow Inclusion cell background of a known problem. Testing from
results (HI). All the results can be easily correlated other sites will be needed to develop further
except for the Kaiser Effect. confidence in this approach.
It appears that the correlation to the Tectogenetic
7 OVERSTRESS IN CORE
model is very strong and this aspect of the research
One reason for over stress resulting from the coring should be investigated further. If this approach has
process is demonstrated in Figure 8. In this example merit, then if there is any oriented core from
the principal stresses are: exploration target sites, the local stress orientation
and magnitude could be determined for exploration
σ1 = 16.7 MPa 288o/4o targets.
The method may be applicable to examining the
σ2= 8.6 MPa 194o/37o, and stresses adjacent to open pit walls or to examine the
effect of blast damage. These could then be
σ3= 6.2 MPa 027o/43o. modeled using stress analysis programs.

10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The support of my colleagues at BFP (now Coffey

Mining) – Gary Auld, Peter Fuller, Don Miller,
Geoff Searle, Tom Seymour, and Ian Hulls, the
assistance from UWA – Prof A Dyskin and Prof B
Tarasov is greatly appreciated. This work would
never have been undertaken without the pioneering
work of Prof E Villaescusa and his team at WASM.
The support and intellectual challenges posed by Dr
V Bogacz and the theory of tectogenesis is a critical
factor in this work and where it will benefit
exploration, to Calan Holmes who trusted enough to
Figure 8 The Kaiser Effect locked in Core during
start the testing, to Prof K Yamamoto for his
Sampling encouragement and lastly to Rio Tinto and Argyle
The hole is shown as sub horizontal. Careful Diamond Mines for their support.
inspection of the maximum stress on the surface of
the core shows that there is a stress concentration; in
ISRM Conference on In-Situ Stress, Norway 2006
Page 6
Table 1 Borehole HYD-2 Results

Method Stress MPa Trend Plunge Depth Measured ρgh

(°) (°) σv
Tectogenesis σ1 244 44 NA NA NA
Tectogenesis σ2 042 43
Tectogenesis σ3 142 12
H.F. σv 9.62 000 90 348 9.62 9.62
H.F. σH1 8.12 52.5 0
H.F. σH2 4.1 142.5 0
DRA-IS σ1 12.0 216.6 32.7 341 7.8 9.11
DRA-IS σ2 9.3 103.6 31.2
DRA-IS σ3 4.1 341.2 41.5
DRA-KE σ1 33.9 203.7 12.5 350 16.2 9.5
DRA-KE σ2 23.9 108.1 23.9
DRA-KE σ3 13.6 319.1 62.7

Table 2 Borehole HYD-2 Principal Stresses Solved on Horizontal Plane (That is: HF results are reference)

Method Stress MPa Trend Plunge Depth Measured ρgh

(°) (°) σv
Tectogenesis σv NA 0 90 NA NA NA
Tectogenesis σH1 - 48 0
Tectogenesis σH2 - 138 0
H.F. σv 9.62 000 90 348 9.62 9.62
H.F. σH1 8.12 52.5 0
H.F. σH2 4.1 142.5 0
DRA-IS σv 7.81 0 90 341 7.8 9.11
DRA-IS σH1 10.81 57.7 0
DRA-IS σH2 6.79 147.7 0
DRA-KE σv 16.20 0 90 350 16.2 9.5
DRA-KE σH1 33.14 28.1 0
DRA-KE σH2 22.06 118.1 0

Table 3 Borehole GT101A

Method Stress MPa Trend Plunge Depth Measured ρgh

(°) (°) σv
Tectogenesis σa 244 44 NA NA NA
Tectogenesis σb 042 43
Tectogenesis σc 142 12
H.F. σv 9.62 000 90 348 9.62 9.62
H.F. σH1 8.12 52.5 0
H.F. σH2 4.1 142.5 0
DRA-IS σ1 14.5 123 38.7 454 10.69 12.12
DRA-IS σ2 7.6 008 27.0
DRA-IS σ3 5.7 254 39.4
DRA-KE σ1 54.7 100.6 12.0 454 23.0 12.12
DRA-KE σ2 43.7 10.4 1.0
DRA-KE σ3 21.6 275.9 78.0

ISRM Conference on In-Situ Stress, Norway 2006

Page 7
Table 4 Exploration Decline Measurement

Stress MPa Trend Plunge Depth Measured ρgh

Method Sample (°) (°) σv
Tectogenesis σ1 244 44 NA NA NA
Tectogenesis σ2 042 43
Tectogenesis σ3 142 12
HI SM08 σ1 8.6 29 73 242 8.16 6.45
HI SM08 σ2 5.6 238 15
HI SM08 σ3 -3.5 146 8
HI SM04 σ1 11.4 217 63 193 10.71 5.14
HI SM04 σ2 8.2 43 27
HI SM04 σ3 -0.1 312 3
HI SM05 σ1 8.8 272 55 242 7.9 6.45
HI SM05 σ2 7.1 058 30
HI SM05 σ3 2.9 158 16
DRA-IS SM08 σ1 9.6 81.7 23.0 242 6.33 6.45
DRA-IS SM08 σ2 8.8 192.2 39.6
DRA-IS SM08 σ3 3.0 329.5 41.7
DRA-IS SM04 σ1 7.9 159.7 43.7 193 6.11 5.14
DRA-IS SM04 σ2 4.3 64.7 5.2
DRA-IS SM04 σ3 2.7 329.3 45.9
DRA-IS SM05 σ1 9.1 256.3 4.4 242 6.71 6.45
DRA-IS SM05 σ2 7.0 356.5 66.3
DRA-IS SM05 σ3 4.8 164.4 23.3

ISRM Conference on In-Situ Stress, Norway 2006

Page 8
REFERENCES McMahon Associates 1996. Results of Insitu Stress Tests
Appendix G in Argyle Diamond Mine – Underground
AMC 2002. HF Stress Measurements at Argyle Diamond Geotechnical Investigations – Report on Geotechnical
Mine. Observations and Measurements.
Barr, S.P. and Hunt, D.P., 1999. Anelastic strain recovery and Meyer, A.G., Hunt, S.P., and Oliver, K.J., 2002. The use of the
the Kaiser effect retention span in the Carnmenellis DRA Technique and Porosimetry for Estimating the
Granite, UK. Rock Mech. and Rock Engng. 32(3):169-193. Maximum In-situ Stress in Rock from Core. Aust.
Barr, S.P., Jupe, A.J. and Hunt, D.P. 1999. The Kaiser effect f Park, R.G. 1983. Foundations of Structural Geology. Blackie
or samples pre-stressed at 820m and 2.4km with stress Park, P.H., Jeon, S.W., and Kim, Y.K. 2001. Insitu stress
tensor results. Proc 9th Int. Cong. Rock Mech. Aug 25- measurement using AE and DRA. Korean Tunneling
28:1136-1143. Association 3(1):51-61.
Barr, S.P., Meyers, A.G., Louchnikov, V. and Oliver, K.J. Ramsay J.G. and Huber, M.I. 1983. The techniques of modern
2003. Use of the DRA technique, porosimetry and structural geology. Academic Press.
numerical modeling for estimating the maximum stress in Seto, M., Nag, D.K., and Vutukuri, V.S. 1999. In Situ rock
rock from core. ISRM Cong. 7p. stress measurement from rock cores using acoustic
Bogacz, V and Dight, P 2002. Extensional Tectonic emission and deformation rate analysis. Geot. & Geol.
Deformation and Tectonic genesis Model of the Deposit- Engng. 17:3-4:1-26.
Report prepared for Argyle Diamond Mines – BFPO Seto, M. & Villaescusa, E. 1999. In-situ Stress Determination
Consultants Report. by Acoustic Emission Techniques from McArthur River
Dight, P.M. 2002. DRA testing on Core from GT098 and Mine Cores. Proc 8th Aust. NZ. Conf. Geomech. Hobart.
GT101a – Argyle Diamond Mines. (unpublished) 2:929-934.
Gibson G. (2002). Lecture Notes on Seismicity. Seto, M., Utagawa, M. and Katsuyama, K. 2002. Some
Unpublished RMIT. fundamental studies on the AE method and its application
Goodman, R.E. 1963. Subaudible noise during compression of to in-situ stress measurements in Japan. Proc 5th Int.
rocks. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 74:487-490. Workshop on Applic. of Geophysics. In Rock Engng. July
Hobbs, B.E., Means, W.D. & Williams P.F. 1976. An outline 7th Toronto Canada. 67-71.
of Structural Geology. Wiley International Edition. Vanderhor, F. 2001. Structural Geology of Argyle Region.
Sherbon Hills, E. 1963. Elements of Structural Geology. (Unpublished).
Holcomb, D.J. 1993. General theory of the Kaiser effect. Int. Villaescusa, E., Windsor, C., Li, J., Baird, G. and Seto M.
Jnl. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 30:929-935. 2003. Stress Measurements from cored rock. MERIWA
Holmes, C 2004. Deformation Rate Analysis and “Stress Report M329.
Memory” Effect in Rock. B.Eng. Thesis UWA WASM – Curtin Consultancy Services, 2003. Stress
(unpublished). Measurements from Oriented Core Using the Acoustic
Kaiser, J. 1950. An investigation into the occurrence of noises Emission Method for Argyle Diamond Mine Stage II,
in tensile tests or a study of acoustic phenomena in tensile unpublished.
tests. PhD. Thesis. Tech Hochsch. Munchen, Munich Yamamoto K., Kuwahara, Y., Kato, N. & Hirasawa, T. 1990
Kaiser, J 1953. Erkenntnisse und Folgerungen aus der Messung Deformation rate analysis: a new method for in-situ stress
von Gerauschen bei Zugbeanspruchung von metallischen estimation from inelastic deformation of rock samples
Werstoffen. Archiv Eisenhuttenwesen. 24:43-45. under uniaxial compression. Tohoku Geophysical J., 33:1-
Kurita, K., & Fujii, N. 1979. Stress memory of crystalline 13
rocks in acoustic emission. Geophys. Res. Lett. 6:9-12. Yamamoto, K. 1995. The rock property of in-situ stress
Lambe TW (1973). Predictions in Soil Engineering. memory: Discussions on its mechanism. Int. Workshop on
Geotechnique 23 No 2,pp 149-202. Rock Stress: Measurements at Great Depth. Coords.
Lavrov, A. 2002. The Kaiser effect in rocks: principles and Matsuki & Sugawara, 8th ISRM Tokyo, Sept 35-30. 46-51.
stress estimation techniques. Int. Jnl. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Yamamoto, K., Yamamoto, H., Kato, N. and Hirasawa, T.
40:151-171. 1991. Deformation Rate Analysis for In Situ Stress
Lee, M. F., Pascoe, M. J. & Mikula, P. A. 2001. Virgin rock Estimation. 5th Conf. On Acoustic Emission/Microseismic
stresses versus rock mass strength in Western Australia’s Activity in Geologic Structures and Materials – Penn. State
Yilgarn Greenstones. WA Ground Control Workshop 22nd Uni. June 11-13. 243-255.
June. Ground Control Working Group (WA).
Leeman E. R. (1965). The measurement of stress in rock. Part
1 The principles of rock stress measurements. Pp 248-284,
Jnl of South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Leeman E. R. (1965). The measurement of stress in rock. Part
11 Borehole rock stress measuring instruments. Pp 285-
317, Jnl of South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy.
Leeman E. R. (1965). The measurement of stress in rock. Part
111- The results of some rock stress investigations. Pp
318-374, Jnl of South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy.
Li, Y., & Schmidt, D.R. 1997. Effects of Poisson’s ratio and
core stub length on bottomhole stress concentrations. Int.
Jnl. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34:761-773.

ISRM Conference on In-Situ Stress, Norway 2006

Page 9