Advertisement

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 52, Issue 12, pp 5071–5084 | Cite as

Uncertainty in In Situ Stress Estimations: A Statistical Simulation to Study the Effect of Numbers of Stress Measurements

  • Yu FengEmail author
  • John P. Harrison
  • Nezam Bozorgzadeh
Original Paper
  • 149 Downloads

Abstract

Obtaining reliable estimates of the mean in situ stress state is crucial for much rock mechanics and rock engineering analysis. However, due to the variability inherent to stress measurements, a common question is how many stress measurements are required to obtain mean stress estimates of acceptable reliability. This paper investigates the effect of the number of stress measurements used on the uncertainties in estimates of mean stress state. We use Monte Carlo simulation in conjunction with a recently developed multivariate statistical model to simulate stress data sets of different sizes, and then investigate the uncertainties in the mean stress state estimated from these simulated stresses. Three sets of actual stress measurements published in the literature are used to provide realistic values for stress population parameters. We show that the uncertainties depend not only on the number of stress measurements but also on the stress components being estimated and the overall variability of the stress field; hence, suggesting a fixed universal minimum number of stress measurements is inappropriate. The results also show that the number of stress measurements required for reliably estimating the complete stress state may be significantly greater than those required for any one or two individual components of the mean stress state, and are likely to exceed the number available in rock engineering practice. In addition, with the small numbers of measurements typically used in rock engineering, large uncertainties are likely to exist and these may yield misleading stress estimates. We end with suggestions for reducing these large uncertainties in stress estimations.

Keywords

Uncertainty Stress variability Stress estimation Multivariate statistics Monte Carlo simulation 

List of Symbols

\({\mathbf{S}}_{i}\)

ith stress tensor, i = 1, 2, …, n

\({\bar{\mathbf{S}}}\)

Mean stress tensor

\(\sigma_{x}\), \(\sigma_{y}\), \(\sigma_{z}\)

Normal components of stress tensor referred to xyz Cartesian coordinate system

\(\tau_{xy}\), \(\tau_{xz}\), \(\tau_{yz}\)

Shear components of stress tensor referred to xyz Cartesian coordinate system

\(\bar{\sigma }_{x}\), \(\bar{\sigma }_{y}\), \(\bar{\sigma }_{z}\)

Mean of \(\sigma_{x}\), \(\sigma_{y}\), \(\sigma_{z}\), respectively

\(\bar{\tau }_{xy}\), \(\bar{\tau }_{xz}\), \(\bar{\tau }_{yz}\)

Mean of \(\tau_{xy}\), \(\tau_{xz}\), \(\tau_{yz}\), respectively

\({\mathbf{s}}\)

Stress vector comprising six distinct tensor components

\({\varvec{\upmu}}\)

Population mean vector

\({\varvec{\Omega}}\)

Population covariance matrix

\({\varvec{\hat{\upmu}}}\)

Maximum-likelihood estimator (MLE) of population mean vector

\({\boldsymbol{\hat{\Omega }}}\)

MLE of population covariance matrix

\({\mathbf{s}}_{i}\)

Vector of the ith measured stress tensor, i = 1, 2, …, n

\({\bar{\mathbf{s}}}\)

Mean of \({\mathbf{s}}_{i}\)

\(\sigma_{1}\)

Major principal stress

\(\sigma_{2}\)

Intermediate principal stress

\(\sigma_{3}\)

Minor principal stress

\({\varvec{\Sigma}}\)

Covariance matrix of stress data set \({\mathbf{s}}_{i}\)

Notes

References

  1. Aerts S, Haesbroeck G, Ruwet C (2015) Multivariate coefficients of variation: comparison and influence functions. J Multivar Anal 142:183–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2015.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amadei B, Stephansson O (1997) Rock stress and its measurement. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ask D (2003) Analysis of overcoring stress data at the Äspö HRL, Sweden–analysis of overcoring rock stress measurements preformed using the CSIRO HI. Report IPR-04-06, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozorgzadeh N, Yanagimura Y, Harrison JP (2017) Effect of small numbers of test results on accuracy of Hoek-Brown strength parameter estimations: a statistical simulation study. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50:3293–3305.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-017-1352-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bozorgzadeh N, Escobar MD, Harrison JP (2018) Comprehensive statistical analysis of intact rock strength for reliability-based design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 106:374–387.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady BHG, Brown ET (2004) Rock mechanics for underground mining, 3rd edn. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown ET, Hoek E (1978) Trends in relationships between measured in situ stresses and depth. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 15(4):211–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(78)91227-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Contreras LF, Brown ET, Ruest M (2018) Bayesian data analysis to quantify the uncertainty of intact rock strength. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 10:11–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2017.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Day-Lewis ADF (2008) Characterization and modeling of in situ stress heterogeneity. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  10. Der Kiureghian A (2008) Analysis of structural reliability under parameter uncertainties. Probab Eng Mech 23:351–358.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2007.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dyke CG, Hyett AJ, Hudson JA (1987) A preliminary assessment of correct reduction of field measurement data: scalars, vectors and tensors. In: Sakurai S (ed) Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on field measurements in geomechanics. Balkema, Kobe, pp 1085–1095Google Scholar
  12. Dzik EJ, Walker JR, Martin CD (1989) A computer program (COSTUM) to calculate confidence intervals for in situ stress measurements. Report AECL-9575, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., PinawaGoogle Scholar
  13. Einstein HH (1996) Risk and risk analysis in rock engineering. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 11:141–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-7798(96)00014-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Einstein HH (2003) Uncertainty in rock mechanics and rock engineering—then and now. In: 10th ISRM congress. International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Sandton, pp 281–294Google Scholar
  15. Ellis PD (2010) The essential guide to effect sizes: statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feng Y, Harrison JP (2018) A novel method for constructing confidence intervals for in situ stress. In: Proceedings of the 10th Asian rock mechanics symposium. Society for Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  17. Feng Y, Bozorgzadeh N, Harrison JP (2018) Investigating the effect of sample size on uncertainty in stress estimations. In: Proceedings of the 52th U.S. rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. American Rock Mechanics Association, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  18. Gao K, Harrison JP (2016) Mean and dispersion of stress tensors using Euclidean and Riemannian approaches. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 85:165–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.03.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gao K, Harrison JP (2017) Generation of random stress tensors. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 94:18–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gao K, Harrison JP (2018a) Multivariate distribution model for stress variability characterisation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 102:144–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gao K, Harrison JP (2018b) Re-examination of the in situ stress measurements on the 240 level of the AECL’s URL using tensor-based approaches. Rock Mech Rock Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1530-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gao K, Harrison JP (2019) Examination of mean stress calculation approaches in rock mechanics. Rock Mech Rock Eng 52(1):83–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1568-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison JP, Xiang J, Latham JP (2010) Stress heterogeneity in a fractured rock mass modelled with the combined finite-discrete element method. In: 44th U.S. rock mechanics symposium and 5th U.S.-Canada rock mechanics symposium. American Rock Mechanics Association, Salt Lake CityGoogle Scholar
  24. Hudson JA, Cooling CM (1988) In situ rock stresses and their measurement in the U.K.—part I. The current state of knowledge. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 25:363–370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(88)90976-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hudson JA, Feng XT (2010) Variability of In Situ Rock Stress. In: Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on in-situ rock stress. International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, BeijingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hudson JA, Harrison JP (1997) Engineering rock mechanics: an introduction to the principles. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Hudson JA, Cornet FH, Christiansson RC (2003) ISRM suggested methods for rock stress estimation—part 1: strategy for rock stress estimation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:991–998.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2003.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hyett AJ (1990) Numerical and experimental modelling of the potential state of stress in a naturally fractured rock mass. PhD Thesis, University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson RA, Wichern DW (2007) Applied multivariate statistical analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  30. Koptev AI, Ershov AV, Malovichko EA (2013) The stress state of the Earth’s lithosphere: results of statistical processing of the world stress-map data. Mosc Univ Geol Bull 68:17–25.  https://doi.org/10.3103/S0145875213010067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Langford JC, Diederichs MS (2013) Reliability based approach to tunnel lining design using a modified point estimate method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 60:263–276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.12.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin CD (1990) Characterizing in situ stress domains at the AECL Underground Research Laboratory. Can Geotech J 27:631–646.  https://doi.org/10.1139/t90-077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin CD, Christiansson R (1991a) Overcoring in highly stressed granite—the influence of microcracking. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 28:53–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(91)93233-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin CD, Christiansson RC (1991b) Overcoring in highly stressed granite: comparison of USBM and modified CSIR devices. Rock Mech Rock Eng 24:207–235.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01045032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin CD, Read RS, Lang PA (1990) Seven years of in situ stress measurements at the URL—an overview. In: Proceedings of the 31th US symposium on rock mechanics. American Rock Mechanics Association, GoldenGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin CD, Kaiser PK, Christiansson R (2003) Stress, instability and design of underground excavations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:1027–1047.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(03)00110-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Obara Y, Sugawara K (2003) Updating the use of the CCBO cell in Japan: overcoring case studies. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:1189–1203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2003.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siren T, Hakala M, Valli J, Kantia P, Hudson JA, Johansson E (2015) In situ strength and failure mechanisms of migmatitic gneiss and pegmatitic granite at the nuclear waste disposal site in Olkiluoto, Western Finland. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 79:135–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Song L, Chang C, Lee H (2016) A stochastic approach to the determination of in situ stress magnitudes from sonic velocity and breakout logging data. In: Johansson E, Raasakka V (eds) Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on in-situ rock stress. International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Tampere, pp 492–500Google Scholar
  40. Voinov VG, Nikulin MS (1996) Unbiased estimators and their applications—volume 2: multivariate case. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  41. Walker JR, Martin CD, Dzik EJ (1990) Confidence intervals for in situ stress measurements. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27:139–141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(90)94864-P CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yanagimura Y, Bozorgzadeh N, Harrison JP (2016) Optimal sample size for managing uncertainty in Hoek-Brown strength parameters. In: 50th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium 2016. American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar
  43. Zang A, Stephansson O (2009) Stress field of the earth’s crust. Springer Science + Business Media B.V, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  44. Zoback MD (2010) Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Mineral EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s-RMC, Royal Military College of CanadaKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations