International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 699–709

Analysis of stress measurements using a numerical model methodology

S.D. McKinnon*
Department of Mining Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., Canada K7L 3N6
Accepted 12 July 2001

Abstract

A method is described that enables the boundary conditions of numerical models to be calibrated to individual or groups of stress
measurements. The method was developed to interpret stress measurements made in mines where it is not possible to locate the
measurement points far enough away from excavations to obtain a direct measurement of the pre-mining stress field. It can also be
used to analyze measurements that are influenced by surface topography. The stress field at any point is assumed to be comprised of
gravitational and tectonic components. The tectonic component is assumed to act entirely in the horizontal plane in the far-field and
at the model boundary. Unit normal and shear tractions are applied to the model boundaries and the response is computed at the
location of the measurement points in the model. An optimization procedure is used to compute the proportions of each unit
response tensor that is required, in addition to the gravitational stress, to reproduce the measured stress at the measurement point in
the model. Scaling of the measured stress tensor can be included in the optimization to account for incorrect rock modulus scaling of
the measured strains. The method is demonstrated using a synthetic set of stresses from a numerical model in which the
measurements are influenced by a nearby excavation and topography. r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
There are many purposes for which stress measure-
ments are made. One important reason is the estimation
of the pre-mining stress fieldFi.e., the state of stress
that would exist prior to any excavations being made.
This is a useful quantity to know, as it can be used to
compute tractions that should be applied to the
boundaries of numerical models or used in closed-form
solutions to calculate stress concentrations around
excavations of specific geometries. A major difficulty
that often arises when interpreting measurement results
is to know how representative they are of the pre-mining
stress field. The measured stresses may be a combination
of the pre-mining state of stress plus components
induced by other sources.
In mining, the most common method of determining
stresses in rock is to overcore a strain cell cemented onto
the surface of a borehole [1]. The strain cell measures
deformation of the borehole walls resulting from stress
relief, from which in situ stresses can be computed. For
underground measurements, it is usually possible to
locate the measurement point in a borehole sufficiently
*Tel.: +1-613-533-6553; fax: +1-613-533-6597.
E-mail address: sm@mine.queensu.ca (S.D. McKinnon).
far from the sidewall of the tunnel from which the
measurement is being made to minimize the effect of
stresses induced by the tunnel. However, the stress field
in which the tunnel is located may, in turn, be influenced
by other factors such as topography or nearby large
excavations. Some correction for these other sources of
induced stress is therefore necessary in order to extract
the pre-mining state of stress from the measured stresses.
In certain situations, it is possible to compute the
effects of these additional sources of induced stress and
remove them from the measurements. Analytical solu-
tions that could be used in this process are available for
simple two- and three-dimensional openings [2], or for
more complex geometries such as ridges and cliffs [3–5].
In practice, however, the geometries of these solutions
seldom match those of real excavation.
Using numerical models, it is possible to compute the
stress field around more complex-shaped excavations,
but this requires calibration of the model boundary
conditions to the stress measurements. Fig. 1 shows a
cross-section through a mine located in mountainous
terrain, illustrating potential difficulties in calibration. In
this example, the stress field measured at each site could
be different due to the varying influences of mine
excavations and topography, even with a constant
far-field stress regime. Determination of appropriate

1365-1609/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 5 - 1 6 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 3 7 - 5
700 S.D. McKinnon / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 699–709
Fig. 1. The purpose of stress field calibration is to determine boundary
conditions that reproduce stress measurements. Stress measurements
used to determine the boundary conditions may be influenced by
factors such as mining induced stresses and topography.
boundary tractions that would regenerate the measured
stresses would not be simple in this case.
The objective of this paper is to describe a technique
to calibrate boundary tractions for numerical models
using stress measurements. The technique was devel-
oped specifically to remove the types of difficulties
mentioned in the previous example, and is easily
implemented in spreadsheet programs. Once numerical
model boundary conditions have been determined, it is a
simple matter to compute a variety of useful quantities
at any point in the model, such as total stress, pre-
mining stress, mining-induced stress, and the stress field
for any sequence of excavations made in the interior of
the model. The technique will be demonstrated using a
numerical model of a hypothetical mine in a mountai-
nous region.
2. Analysis technique
It is common practice to divide the stress field in the
earth’s crust into vertical and horizontal components [6].
This is particularly convenient when specifying bound-
ary tractions for numerical models since model bound-
aries are generally vertical and horizontal planes. The
vertical component is generally equal to the weight of
the overlying material and is gravitational in origin [7].
Departures from gravitational stress in the vertical
direction have been observed [8,9] but these are rare
and thought to be due to specific geological circum-
stances. In the horizontal direction, there is a larger
variation in magnitude with depth [7]. As described by
Amadei & Stephansson [6] and Herget [10] this variation
can be attributed to many sources. For convenience, all
non-gravitational sources of far-field stresses are
grouped together in what is referred to as the ‘‘tectonic’’
component of the stress field. Furthermore, it is assumed
that in the far-field, i.e. at the boundaries of numerical
models, the horizontal and vertical stresses are principal
stresses.
Since a stress measurement always samples the total
stress field, the measured tensor can be decomposed into
these gravitational and tectonic components,
smeas
ij ¼ sgrav
ij þ stect
ij : ð1Þ
Excavation geometry, topography and material den-
sities are usually fairly well known, so it is possible to
build a numerical model and compute the gravitational
stresses at the location corresponding to the measure-
ment point. Knowing both the measured and gravita-
tional stress tensors, the tectonic stress tensor at the
measurement point can be computed from Eq. (1) by
tensor subtraction.
stect meas
ij ¼ sij  sgrav
ij : ð2Þ
To regenerate the total stress field throughout a
numerical model, however, it is necessary to determine
the far-field tectonic stresses as opposed to the local
value determined using Eq. (2). The objective of the
analysis, therefore, is to determine the tractions that
must be applied to the model boundary (the far-field) in
order to reproduce the computed tectonic stress
evaluated at the measurement points.
2.1. Tectonic component of stress field constant with
depth
For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the tectonic
component of the far-field stress tensor can be expressed
as a constant plus a vertical gradient. The simplest case
of depth independence will be addressed first. This is
applicable to cases in which there is insufficient depth
variation in stress measurement locations to accurately
resolve vertical gradients. It is also assumed that all
vertical components of the far-field tectonic stress tensor
are zero. This is the normal assumption made in
numerical analysis, and follows from the assumption
that in the far-field, principal stresses lie in vertical and
horizontal planes. In the following analyses, all tensor
manipulations are carried out in a common Cartesian
reference frame with x and z in the horizontal plane and
y vertical. The sign convention for stress follows that of
elasticity with compression negative.
Tractions applied to the model boundary to account
for the tectonic component of the total stress field can be
expressed as
ti ¼ ffstect ð3Þ
ij nj :
The superscript ff refers to the far-field tectonic stress
tensor, whose components are unknown. Using a
numerical model, it is possible to compute the stresses
induced at the measurement points due to the applica-
tion of unit tractions applied to the model boundary.
For convenience, the lateral boundaries of the model are
taken to be parallel to the global coordinate axes. If a
unit normal traction is applied in the x-direction, it will
result in a state of stress described by the tensor m sxij at
the measurement point. The superscripts m and x refer
 S.D. McKinnon / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 699–709
to stresses sampled at the measurement point in the
model due to a unit traction applied in the x-direction
on the model boundary. The tensor m sxij is referred to as
the unit response tensor in the x-direction, and its com-
putation is illustrated in Fig. 2. Similarly, the remaining
normal and shear traction unit response tensors m szij and
m xz
sij can be computed using the same model.
Assuming the rock mass to be linearly elastic and
isotropic, the tectonic stress estimated from the stress
measurement, Eq. (2), can be described as a linear
combination of the unit response tensors in the
following manner:
c tect
sij ¼ A m sxij þ B m szij þ C m sxz
ij ;
where the coefficients A; B; and C are as yet unknown.
The superscript c on the left-hand side of (4) refers to the
fact that this is a computed value of tectonic stress,
derived entirely from the numerical model. Eq. (4) is a
set of six equations, one for each tensor component,
each with three unknowns. Coefficients A; B; and C
must be found such that the computed tectonic stress
tensor components equal those determined from the
measurements using Eq. (2). Since there are more
equations than unknowns, a unique solution cannot
be guaranteed. The solution strategy is therefore to
minimize the error between the tectonic component of
the measured stress tensor and that computed from the
numerical model
serror
ij ¼ stect c tect
ij  sij ;
where serror
ij is an error tensor. Substitution of Eqs. (2)
and (4) into (5) yields
serror
ij ¼ smeas
ij  sgrav
ij  ðA m sxij þ B m szij þ C m sxz
ij Þ:
This is also identical to the difference between the
measured and computed total stress at the measurement
Fig. 2. Definition of unit response tensor, determined at measurement
point due to application of unit traction to boundary. Result is a
tensor with components as shown, computed at the location in the
model corresponding to the measurement point.
701
point in the model. All terms on the right-hand side of
Eq. (6) are known except for the three unit-response
tensor coefficients A; B; and C; which will be solved for
numerically.
The error tensor serror
ij has six independent compo-
nents. Ideally, a good solution will result in error that is
uniformly distributed among the tensor components
rather than being concentrated in only one or two
components. This is because there is no a priori physical
reason to suspect that the measurement process leads to
a higher error in any particular component of strain. A
least-squares approach was chosen to control the
distribution of error. Therefore, the sum of the squares
ð4Þ
of the components of the error tensor must be
minimizedFi.e.,
C ¼ Sðserror Þ2 ; ð7Þ
ij
where C will be referred to as the error value. The form
of Eq. (7) is similar to a two-norm error estimate; a true
two-norm estimate is the square root of (7) [11]. A one-
norm method, such as summing the absolute values of
the components of the error tensor, may lead to a lower
overall error estimate in certain cases, but individual
component errors could be high, which is physically
undesirable.
The scheme for computing the boundary tectonic
stress field is, therefore, to vary the values of coefficients
A; B; and C in Eq. (6) in order to minimize C according
to Eq. (7). The magnitude of the boundary tectonic
ð5Þ
tractions, Eq. (3), are determined by multiplying the unit
tractions by the appropriate coefficient A; B; or C
determined from the error minimization. The far-field
tectonic stress tensor is related to the boundary tractions
ð6Þ
by Eq. (3). Once the components of the far-field tectonic
stress tensor have been determined, tensor transforma-
tion can be used to determine the corresponding
principal stress orientations and magnitudes.
2.2. Variation of tectonic component of stress field with
depth plus constant
Data from stress measurements worldwide, Brown
and Hoek [7], show a trend for the ratio of horizontal to
vertical stress (k ratio) to decrease nonlinearly with
depth, while the vertical component of stress tends to
vary linearly with depth. Stress measurements made
over a large enough range of depth at a site could
therefore have a variation in the tectonic component of
stress that would not be well represented by the constant
tectonic stress assumption described above.
This variation can be accounted for in the analysis
methodology by including coefficients for unit vertical
gradient response tensors. These tensors are computed
by applying unit tractions with magnitude 0.0 at the top
and 1.0 at the bottom of the side boundaries of the
model. The computed response at the measurement
702 S.D. McKinnon / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 699–709
point would be the unit gradient response tensor. A total
of three additional unit response tensors are required,
one for the horizontal shear traction and one for each of
the two horizontal normal tractions. They are computed
in a similar manner to the unit response tensors for the
constant component of the far-field tectonic stress,
illustrated in Fig. 2.
Eq. (4), the computed tectonic stress at the measure-
ment site in the model, can be re-written to include the
unit gradient response tensors and their coefficients as
follows:
c tect
sij ¼ A m sxij þ B m szij þ C m sxz
ij
þ A0 m sxijg þ B0 m szijg þ C 0 m sxz
ijg :
The gradient coefficients in the x; z and xz directions
are A0 ; B0 and C 0 ; respectively. The addition of the
subscript g to the tensors implies a unit gradient
response tensor. Eqs. (6) and (7) would be modified
accordingly in the solution process.
The introduction of three additional variables results
in a set of six equations with six unknowns. Ideally, this
would result in there being a unique solution, but in
reality, stress measurements are not error free and the
task is to find the best approximate solution. Experience
in applying this method stress measurement data [12]
has shown that the task of finding an absolute, as
opposed to a local, minimum solution to the error tensor
is difficult due to the greatly expanded solution space. In
some cases, it may be possible on either a practical or a
geological basis to reduce the number of independent
variables. For example, it could be assumed that the
gradient coefficients in the horizontal plane are equal in
which case A0 ¼ B0 : It could also be assumed that the
far-field horizontal stresses are isotropic in which case
A ¼ B: For brevity, the remainder of the paper will
focus on the case in which these gradients are assumed
to be zero.
2.3. Modification to account for error in Young’s modulus
determination
Because the components of the error tensor corre-
spond to the misfit between the measured and computed
tensor components at the measurement site, their
magnitudes provide a useful assessment of which tensor
components have the greatest error in the optimum
solution. When applying the procedure to stress
measurement data from various mines [12], there tended
to be more error in the vertical component of stress than
in any other component. The procedure enables the
magnitude of the horizontal components of the error
tensor to be controlled by adjusting the coefficients of
the tectonic boundary tractions. However, there is no
such adjustment applied to either the gravitational or
the measured tensors in Eq. (6) and, therefore, there is
no control over the magnitude of the vertical compo-
nents of stresses in these tensors.
Of the gravitational and measured stress tensors, the
measured tensor is assumed to be more prone to error
than the estimate of gravitational stresses. This is
because the gravitational component of the stress field
is controlled by physical geometry and material den-
sities, both of which should be reasonably well known
(there are exceptions [8,9] which will be addressed later).
Conversely, the measured stresses are calculated from
measured strains multiplied by the Young’s modulus of
the rock, which is generally determined from indepen-
dent tests. The consequence of an erroneous Young’s
ð8Þ modulus is a scaling of all stress tensor components by
an unknown factor. This is believed to be one of the
main factors contributing to the larger error in the
vertical direction detected in the error tensor. Since there
is no way in advance of knowing the accuracy of the
experimentally determined modulus, a scaling factor
applied to the measured stress tensor is introduced into
the optimization procedure to account for this source of
error. This coefficient, D; was incorporated into Eq. (6)
as follows:
serror
ij ¼ Dsmeas
ij  sgrav
ij  ðA m sxij þ B m szij þ C m sxz
ij Þ:
ð9Þ
In an ideal case, where Young’s modulus is exact, the
value of D will be 1.0. Since there are six tensor
components and four independent coefficients, this
method will always lead to a lower error estimate than
the use of Eq. (6), which has only three independent
coefficients. This may imply that a better mathematical
solution has been reached, but there may be physical
reasons why a particular stress measurement may be a
poor estimator of the real stress field. Before a solution
is accepted, several indicators of the solution scheme
should be examined, including (1) the magnitude of the
error value, (2) the magnitude of the error tensor
components and the distribution of error, (3) the degree
of departure of D from a value of 1.0, (4) consistency of
the measurement with other data, and (5) comparison
with what would be reasonable to expect (a subjective
but important practical constraint).
2.4. Pre-mining and mining-induced stresses
The response tensors must be computed using a
numerical model whose geometry is representative of the
time when the measurements were made in order to
capture the correct local influences of the excavations. If
the boundaries of the model are sufficiently far from
excavations such that mining-induced effects are negli-
gible, the calibrated boundary tractions remain constant
for modest changes to the mining geometry. Therefore,
 S.D. McKinnon / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 699–709
the geometry of the excavations may be changed in
order to compute the state of stress at various stages of
mining using the same calibrated boundary tractions. By
numerically ‘‘filling in’’ the mine and summing com-
puted tectonic and gravitational stresses, pre-mining
stresses anywhere in the model can be determined.
Mining-induced stress can be computed by subtracting
the pre-mining stress at any point from the post-mining
stress.
The measured total stress is composed of the pre-
mining stresses plus mining-induced stress
smeas
ij ¼ spre ind
ij þ sij :
Modifying Eq. (1) an expression can be written for
the pre-mining stress tensor in terms of the gravita-
tional and tectonic stress tensors at the measurement
point
u grav
spre
ij ¼ sij þustect
ij :
The superscript u (unmined) refers to the stress field at
the measurement point prior to mining. Gravitational
stresses are computed by numerically ‘‘filling in’’ the
excavations with solid rock and determining the
equilibrium gravitational stresses at each measurement
point. The tectonic stresses are obtained using a model
with the pre-mining geometry and computing the unit
response tensors at each measurement point. Eq. (11)
can then be written as
u grav
spre
ij ¼ sij þ ðA u sxij þ B u szij þ C u sxz
ij Þ:
Fig. 3. Perspective view of a three-dimensional numerical model with surface topography. The mine is located centrally beneath the surface of the
model.
703
Substituting (12) into (10) and rewriting in terms of the
induced stresses
sind meas
ij ¼ Dsij  ½u sgrav
ij þ ðA u sxij þ B u szij þ C u sxz
ij Þ:
ð13Þ
Note that Eq. (13) has been written in terms of the
scaled measurement analysis coefficients. If this scaling is
not desired, the values of A; B and C must be derived
from an unscaled measurement analysis because, in
general, they will not be equal to the coefficients from a
scaled measurement analysis. Use of scaled measurement
ð10Þ coefficients in this analysis is not only physically mean-
ingful, but it is consistent with the origin of all other
tensors in Eq. (13), which are computed numerically.
3. Example analyses
ð11Þ
3.1. Description of the stress measurements
To illustrate how numerical model boundary tractions
are calibrated using the above procedure, a set of
‘‘numerical’’ stress measurements is analyzed. Use of
stresses from a numerical model has the advantage that
boundary conditions are known exactly, whereas they
are not known for real data. Verification is therefore
simple.
Fig. 3 shows a perspective view of a rock mass with a
ð12Þ hill and an adjacent depression in the central region. The
704 S.D. McKinnon / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 699–709
Fig. 4. Cross-section through the model showing the location of the mine relative to the surface.
Fig. 5. Boundary tectonic stress field applied to the model.
program 3DEC [13] was used in this analysis, but any
three-dimensional stress analysis code could be used
provided that boundary conditions can be adequately
controlled. The external dimensions of the model are
1800 m 1800 m in plan and 800 m high at the
boundary. The topography reaches a high of 980 m
and a low of 680 m and is contained within a
1000 m 1000 m central region of the model. Fig. 4
shows a vertical section through the model looking in
the –x direction. The ‘‘mine’’ is a cubic-shaped open
excavation with side dimensions of 200 m. The rock
mass is isotropic, homogeneous and linearly elastic, with
a density of 2500 kg/m3, a Young’s modulus of 20 GPa
and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.25.
The stress field in the model was formed by gravity
plus the far-field tectonic stresses shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 6. Location of numerical stress measurement points around the
mine. Distances are in meters.
Several measurement points were chosen, the location
of which are shown in Fig. 6. The total stress at each of
the measurement points is shown in Table 1. The
differences in magnitude and orientation of the principal
stresses at these locations show the combined effects of
topography and mining induced stresses.
Application of the measurement analysis technique
showed that the boundary stresses could be determined
exactly, as would be expected from an analysis of
measurements derived from the same numerical model
used to compute the unit response tensors. Since this is
not a particularly interesting case pedagogically, it will
not be described further. To show a more realistic
application of the analysis method, a test was devised in
which random errors plus a scaling factor were applied
to the stresses measured in the model. Table 2 shows the
stress tensor components at the measurement points
(corresponding to the stresses shown in Table 1), the
 S.D. McKinnon / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 699–709 705

Table 1
Stresses computed in the model at the measurement point locations

Point s1 Dip Dip Dir. s2 Dip Dip Dir. s3 Dip Dip Dir.

1 9.19 87.02 62.64 4.78 0.35 325.96 0.08 2.96 235.94

2 9.06 86.05 13.62 6.15 2.23 137.96 0.10 3.26 228.09
3 8.27 83.76 337.91 6.33 5.67 132.96 0.26 2.62 223.22
4 7.37 1.08 129.95 3.51 80.27 33.65 0.09 9.66 220.14
5 10.98 60.74 119.28 5.89 27.01 323.81 0.28 10.41 228.43
6 11.92 83.47 93.93 7.20 4.99 314.20 0.84 4.20 223.83

Table 2
Calculation of ‘‘distorted’’ measurements

Point sxx szz syy sxz syz sxy

Measured stress tensor components

1 1.46 3.26 9.16 2.25 0.25 0.41
2 2.81 3.47 9.02 2.99 0.42 0.30
3 3.50 3.14 8.24 3.03 0.40 0.11
4 4.32 3.06 3.41 3.62 0.41 0.44
5 3.78 3.79 9.58 3.22 0.40 2.64
6 4.23 3.91 11.82 3.16 0.30 0.85

Random number multipliers ðMean=1:0; s ¼ 0:1Þ

Mean
1 0.903 0.998 0.917 1.073 0.979 1.196 1.011
2 0.979 1.186 1.102 0.969 0.952 1.202 1.065
3 0.972 1.027 0.883 0.988 1.054 1.133 1.009
4 1.004 0.983 1.046 0.977 1.022 0.830 0.977
5 1.058 0.943 0.969 0.883 0.889 1.091 0.972
6 0.980 0.938 0.945 0.912 0.957 1.040 0.962
Average=0.999

Stress tensor components multiplied by random number and each tensor scaled by constant
Scaling factor
1 1.78 4.40 11.34 3.26 0.32 0.66 1.35
2 3.66 5.48 13.22 3.86 0.54 0.48 1.33
3 4.45 4.22 9.52 3.92 0.55 0.17 1.31
4 6.29 4.36 5.16 5.13 0.60 0.53 1.45
5 5.84 5.22 13.56 4.15 0.52 4.20 1.46
6 5.72 5.06 115.42 3.98 0.39 1.23 1.38
Average=1.38

random multipliers applied to the respective tensor
components, and the resulting tensor after multiplying
the components at each site by a scaling factor. These
distorted measurements are a better reflection of the
quality of data likely to be obtained from measure-
ments.
By applying a different random multiplier to each
component of the measurement tensors, there is a loss of
information so that it is not theoretically possible to
reconstruct the original tensor. This is because six
additional unknowns have been introduced into each
measurement tensor but no additional information is
available from which to recover these factors. However,
there is some part of the original tensor still present in
the distorted measurement, and use can be made of the
fact that each additional measurement provides more
information with which to recover the original stress
field. An analogy is made to the technique used in
analyzing noisy signals, in which repeated measurements
are summed. Coherent ‘‘signal’’ is additive whereas
random ‘‘noise’’ is canceled out. The analysis technique
can make use of this in analyzing groups of data that are
randomly distorted (coherent errors are not examined).
3.2. Analysis of measurements without using coefficient
for measurement tensor scaling
In this case, each measurement is analyzed separately
with no provision for scaling of the measurement tensor.
To generate the unit response tensors at each measure-
ment location, normal tractions of 1 MPa and a shear
traction of +1 MPa were applied to the model
boundary (sign of these is arbitrary). The original
boundary tractions, Fig. 4, are computed by multiplying
the magnitude of the unit traction by the value of the
appropriate coefficient from the solution. The sign of the
706 S.D. McKinnon / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 699–709

Table 3
Analysis of measurements without using coefficient for measurement tensor scaling

Point Unit stress tensor coefficients Error value Error tensor=estimated tectoniccomputed tectonic
2
A B C R sxx szz syy sxz syz sxy

1 0.03 4.31 4.49 3.28 1.127 0.014 1.277 0.069 0.249 0.557
2 4.94 5.45 4.27 18.59 0.613 0.161 4.242 0.338 0.210 0.193
3 6.63 4.73 4.00 2.28 0.153 0.060 1.484 0.106 0.137 0.129
4 6.62 5.05 4.25 2.77 0.048 0.048 1.645 0.001 0.224 0.109
5 6.92 5.11 3.79 17.65 0.109 0.020 3.893 0.023 0.010 1.577
6 5.98 4.95 3.91 14.36 0.439 0.061 3.749 0.127 0.155 0.253
Average=5.19 4.93 4.12

original boundary tractions can, therefore, be recovered
correctly.
The solution process was implemented on a spread-
sheet [14], making use of built-in analysis tools. Tensor
manipulations are well suited to the cell oriented
calculation scheme of spreadsheets and their almost
universal availability makes implementation of the
method a relatively simple and rapid task since no
programming is required. Table 3 shows the calculation
results. The components of the error tensor are
assembled using Eq. (6) and the column of Error Values
shows the sum of the squares of the error tensor
components, Eq. (7). The values of A; B; and C; are
varied until a minimum error value is reached. In these
examples, the SOLVER function of Excel [14] was used
in the minimization process.
When analyzing the measurements separately, none of
the computed unit influence tensor coefficients agreed
with the tractions originally applied to the model
boundaries. An average of the coefficients provided
some improvement, but it still contained relatively large
errors. Since there is no coefficient that strongly
influences the tensor components in the vertical direc-
tion, syy ; this component of the error tensor has a
significantly higher magnitude than other components.
This is a useful diagnostic that measurement tensor
scaling may be beneficial.
3.3. Analysis of measurements simultaneously, with
scaling coefficient
Scaling of the measurement tensor is accounted for
using Eq. (9). Additionally, error minimization is carried
out on all measurements simultaneously and by
modifying Eq. (7)
Cgroup ¼ SC=N:
Since any particular measurement could be an outlier
from a cluster of relatively good measurements, the
solution should not be heavily influenced by any one
measurement. The simple average used in minimizing
Eq. (14) accomplishes this, which is essentially a one-
norm estimate [11]. Outlier measurements can be
detected by comparing the magnitude of individual
error values to the mean error value.
Applied to the numerical measurements, the results of
this calculation are shown in Table 4. The error tensor is
computed using Eq. (9) and the error value for each
tensor is computed using Eq. (7). Eq. (14) is the
objective of the error minimization and a single set of
values for A; B; C; and D are varied. As shown in
Table 4, the resulting error tensor components and the
individual error values are significantly smaller than in
the previous example. While a perfect recovery of the
original boundary tractions has not been made, the
coefficients from the solution are relatively close. Also, a
reasonable approximation of the average scaling factor
is computed, 1.35 as opposed to the original 1.38. This
example shows that the method is capable of recovering
the original stress field even if measurements contain
errors, provided use is made of a number of measure-
ments that sample the same stress field.
In practice [12], it has been found that the scaled-
measurement analysis method yields more consistent
estimates of the far-field tectonic stress tensor. This
seems reasonable considering the physical basis for this
analysis. It has also been found that within groups of
measurements, there exists a high probability that at
least one measurement will not be consistent with the
remaining measurements. In general, therefore, it is
recommended that first, a scaled-measurement analysis
be carried out for each measurement. The error value
and the values of the coefficients can then be compared.
An inconsistent measurement will likely have a widely
different set of coefficients and possibly a higher error
value than the other measurements. This measurement
can then be removed from the solution in which the
remaining measurements are grouped as in the example
shown in Table 4.
ð14Þ
In this example, it can be shown that the optimum
coefficient values of the grouped measurements are very
similar to the mean values of the individual coefficients.
This is because the stress field in the model is truly
homogeneous once the effects of topography and mining
geometry are removed. For real data sets, this is unlikely
to be the case since various factors such as material
 S.D. McKinnon / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 699–709 707

Table 4
Analysis of measurements using measurement scaling coefficient

Point Unit stress tensor coefficients Error value Error tensor=estimated tectoniccomputed tectonic
2
A B C D R sxx szz syy sxz syz sxy

1 5.23 4.00 2.95 0.74 0.50 0.223 0.148 0.614 0.216 0.003 0.037
2 1.04 0.293 0.410 0.881 0.081 0.019 0.023
3 1.09 0.081 0.239 1.009 0.063 0.038 0.056
4 0.25 0.015 0.118 0.408 0.255 0.047 0.050
5 0.51 0.247 0.019 0.471 0.078 0.007 0.474
6 0.22 0.268 0.205 0.288 0.151 0.004 0.007
Average=0.60
Inverse of D ¼ 1:35

property variations and geological structures would lead
to heterogeneities in the stress field. Hence, for real data
sets, individually computed coefficient values may
differ from the values determined for the group of
measurements.
measurements in complex structural environments has
shown that it is possible to locally calibrate the model
boundary stresses in this manner. However, in some
complex locations, the stress field may, in fact, be
discontinuous.

4.2. Omission of geological features from the model

4. Discussion
4.1. Effect of inhomogeneities and discontinuities in the
rock mass
Rock masses are rarely well represented by a
homogeneous isotropic continuum, as was used in the
examples above. Mineral deposits generally occur as a
result of complex geological conditions which may
include structural processes such as faulting, volcanism,
plutonism and processes of hydrothermal alteration
which modify the physical properties of the rock mass.
Furthermore, the mechanical, erosion and thermal
histories of the site under investigation may be complex,
leading to additional path dependent sources of distor-
tion to the in situ stress field known as locked-in stresses.
These factors do not make it impossible to interpret
stress measurements in a practical manner, but they are
factors of which one should be aware when using this or
any other interpretive method.
The main effect of these potential sources of local
distortion to the stress field is that the assumptions of
homogeneity and possibly isotropy are no longer valid.
Stress measurements become true-point estimators of
the stress field. The methods described above can be
used, but, instead of searching for an optimum
boundary tectonic-stress field to fit all measurements,
the data should be grouped to search for stress domains.
The choice of the groupings and, therefore, the domain
boundaries, should be made on some realistic geological
basis, particularly structural domains, Reba.ı et al. [15],
and possibly regions of contrasting mechanical char-
acteristics. These physically based domain boundaries
are more likely to correspond to stress domains.
Experience in applying the method to groups of
It may be desirable to omit many geological features
from the model altogether, simply because there is no
way of adequately determining their effect on the
state of stress. In this case, the boundary stresses
computed using the analysis procedure might not
correspond to the true tectonic stress field in terms of
magnitude or orientation. The result will be a local
calibration of an idealized model. This is important
to note for cases in which the locally computed tectonic
stress field may differ in orientation from what might
have been expected on the basis of regional compilations
of major horizontal principal stress orientations,
such as from the World Stress Map Project [16] or that
of Herget [17]. For application purposes, the local
calibration using a simplified numerical model is
acceptable with the constraint that stresses computed
far from the region of calibration in the model may be
unreliable.
4.3. Comparison of measurements and graphical
presentation of tectonic stresses
Because stress measurements are susceptible to small-
scale local effects, it is common practice to make
measurements at more than one location. Measurements
are usually compared to determine if the stress field is
the same at each location or whether there is an
identifiable variation. Since stress measurements are
relatively expensive to perform, typical measurement
programs are limited in scope and the problem is one of
determining a representative uniform stress field. How-
ever, even if the far-field tectonic stresses are constant
across a site, topographic influences alone can cause the
total stress field to vary in a complex manner from point
708 S.D. McKinnon / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 699–709
to point. Mining induced effects add further complica-
tions. In these cases it is impossible to directly compare
the results of stress measurements at different locations
in a meaningful manner.
To overcome this problem, all local effects must be
removed from the measurements. This includes effects of
topography and mining geometry. There is also no real
need to include the gravitational component of the stress
field for comparison purposes. This component is
certainly important for stability considerations, but for
simple comparison purposes it can complicate matters.
On this basis it too should be removed from the
measurement.
The net result of removing these factors from the
measurement is simply the far-field tectonic stresses,
which can be computed directly from the coefficients of
the analysis method described. Multiplication of the
coefficients A; B; and C with the respective unit
boundary tractions yields the two normal and one shear
components of the far-field tectonic stresses. These
tensor components can be used to plot two-dimensional
principal stress tensors.
If the stress field composition is uniform, all tensor
plots will be similar. If there are distinct domains or
coherent variations in the stress field, these changes
will show up as a scatter or flow of the stress field.
Application of this simple graphical method of compar-
ing large numbers of stress measurements has proven to
be very useful in practice as in general it is much easier
to visually grasp two rather than three-dimensional
information.
5. Summary and conclusions
The method described enables the boundary condi-
tions of numerical models to be calibrated to stress
measurements that may contain a variety of local
influences, including topographic and mining induced
stresses. The method is based on the assumption that the
stress field can be decomposed into gravitational and
tectonic components. This is not only convenient for the
analysis, but it has a strong physical basis. The far-field
tectonic stresses (at the model boundaries) are assumed
to act entirely within the horizontal plane even though
they may be reoriented at the measurement point due to
the influence of various local factors. Because the
gravitational component of the stress field is relatively
simple to compute, the objective of the analysis is to
determine the unknown far-field tectonic stresses. These
are found using a tensor fitting technique that compares
the tectonic components of the measured stress field the
with those computed from the numerical model. Specific
points of interest are:
1. The method can be applied to single or multiple
measurements. If groups of measurements are being
analyzed, the distribution of error between individual
measurements can be used to test whether measure-
ments form a consistent group or whether individual
measurements should be rejected from the group.
2. A scaling factor applied to the measured stress tensor
components can be incorporated into the analysis to
remove the effect of an incorrect rock modulus used
in converting measured strains into stresses.
3. The method can be used even if many known
geological features have been omitted from the
model. In this case, the method will produce only a
local calibration specific to the idealized model, for
which the computed far-field tectonic stress tensor
may not correspond to regional tectonic processes.
4. When analyzing groups of stress measurements, the
locations of groups which appear to be generated by
the same combination of gravitational and tectonic
stresses may be used to establish stress domains.
Greater insight into the stress field can be obtained if
links can be established between stress domains and
geological domains.
5. Because the computed boundary tectonic stress
tensor should be constant for any stage of mining,
the model can be used to numerically compute the
pre-mining stress field. By subtracting the pre-mining
stress field from the total measured stress, the mining-
induced stress field can be computed.
6. Plotting of the computed far-field tectonic stresses as
a principal stress tensor provides a simple means of
comparing stress measurements which may be
distorted by local effects such as topography and
excavations. The analysis method effectively enable
all of the local effects to be removed.
7. The method is easy to implement in commercially
available spreadsheet programs.
Acknowledgements
.
Pedro Varona and Jonny Sjoberg are recognized for
their comments as the method was being developed.
Ivan Garrido de la Barra, consulting geologist in
Santiago, is acknowledged for sharing his geological
insights and for many fruitful discussions regarding the
effects of structures in mining environments. Patricio
Gomez of Itasca S.A. in Santiago is gratefully acknowl-
edged for his persistence in analyzing complex sets of
stress measurements using this method. Working with
Patricio led to important improvements to the applica-
tion of the analysis method.
References
[1] Worotnicki G, Walton RJ. Triaxial ‘Hollow Inclusion’ gauges for
the determination of rock stress in situ. Proceeding of the ISRM
 S.D. McKinnon / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 699–709
Symposium on Investigation of Stress in Rock and Advances in
Shear Measurement. Sydney supplement, 1976. p. 1–8.
[2] Timoshenko PS, Goodier JN. Theory of elasticity. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1970.
[3] Pan E, Amadei B, Savage WZ. Gravitational stresses in long
symmetric ridges and valleys in anisotropic rock. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1994;31:293–312.
[4] Savage WZ. Gravity induced stresses near a vertical cliff. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1993;30:325–30.
[5] Savage WZ, Swolfs HS. Tectonic and gravitational stress in long
symmetric ridges and valleys. J Geophys Res 1986;91:3677–85.
[6] Amadei B, Stephansson O. Rock stress and its measurement.
London: Chapman & Hall, 1977.
[7] Brown ET, Hoek E. Trends in relationships between measured
in-situ stresses and depth. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 1978;15:211–5.
[8] Gaviglio P, Revalor R, Piguet JP, Dejean M. Tectonic struc-
tures, strata properties and rockbursts occurrence in a french coal
mine. Rockbursts and seismicity in mines. Rotterdam: Balkema,
1990.
709
[9] Martin CD, Chandler NA. Stress heterogeneity and geological
structures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1993;30:993–9.
[10] Herget G. Stresses in rock. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1988.
[11] Branham RL. Scientific data analysis: an introduction to
overdetermined systems. New York: Springer, 1990.
[12] McKinnon SD. Unpublished stress measurement data from
consulting projects.
[13] Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 3DEC Version 1.5. Itasca
Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1994.
[14] Excel 2000. Microsoft Corporation, 2000.
[15] Reba.ı S, Philip H, Taboada A. Modern tectonic stress field in the
Mediterranean region: evidence for variation in stress directions
at different scales. J Geophys Res 1992;109:1–35.
[16] Zoback ML. First- and second-order patterns of stress in the
lithosphere: the world stress map project. J Geophys Res
1992;97(B8):11703–28.
[17] Herget G. Stress assumptions for underground excavations in the
Canadian Shield. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1987;24(1):95–7.