Geotech Geol Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10706-016-9978-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
In-Situ Stress State and Tectonic Regime in Different Depths
of Earth Crust
Mohammad Hossein Taherynia .
Seyed Mahmoud Fatemi Aghda .
Ahmad Fahimifar
Received: 30 June 2015 / Accepted: 2 January 2016
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
Abstract In this paper by consideration of tectonic
conditions along with theoretical and empirical rela-
tionships, a new strategy for estimation of the variation
range of lateral stress coefficients [K = 0.5(Sh ?
SH)/SV] at different depths is presented. Tectonic
regime is the main factor affecting the in situ stress
arrangement, and therefore, the lateral stress coeffi-
cient in the earth’s crust. Based on tectonic regimes and
the associated in situ stress arrangements, the upper
and lower bound of K value are determined in reverse
and normal faulting tectonic regimes, respectively.
Another limiting factor of in situ stress magnitudes and
the K values at different depths is strength of the earth’s
crust. The horizontal stresses in active tectonic regions
are considered as the horizontal stress due to overbur-
den loading and additional horizontal tectonic stresses
(DSTec), therefore, horizontal stresses are assumed as
combination of two main parts; first part depends on the
depth and the second part is independent of the depth.
Based on the results of this study, increase in horizontal
stresses is due to the increasing in the overburden
loading, while the additional tectonic stresses remain
constant, is the main reason of the tectonic regime
M. H. Taherynia  S. M. Fatemi Aghda (&)
Department of Geological Sciences, Kharazmi University,
Tehran, Iran
e-mail: fatemi@khu.ac.ir
A. Fahimifar
Department of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
changes and resulted in a nonlinear decrease of K value
with depth.
Keywords In-situ stresses  Lateral stress
coefficient  Tectonic regime  Faulting theory
1 Introduction
Measurement of in situ stresses in different geological
locations in the world indicates significant variation of
horizontal stresses and the lateral-stress coefficient,
especially in shallow depths. At greater depth, the
range of K narrows considerably and the value of K
shows a highly nonlinear decrease with depth. At
depths [4 km the observed values of K are generally
\1. Neither Heim’s rule (K = 1) nor the biaxial stress
model provide a reasonable explanation for the data
trends (Zang and Stephansson 2009; Zang et al. 2012).
Also, many researchers have reported a change of
tectonic regime with depth with regard to the in situ
stress measurements at different depths (Kang et al.
2010; Rummel et al. 1986). For instance, in situ stress
measurements in Björkö geothermal project near
Stockholm, Sweden, at depths \400–500 m proved
the reverse faulting stress state, while with increasing
the depth more than 500 m the stress arrangement is
changed to strike-slip faulting regime (Ask and
Stephansson 2003). Also, hydraulic fracturing tests
in a 5110 m deep oil well in the Michigan Basin,
123

indicated a change in tectonic regime with depth:
thrust faulting from 0 to 200 m, strike-slip faulting
from 200 to 4500 m and normal faulting at depths
[4500 m (Haimson 1977). Plumb, studied the results
of 1000 hydraulic fracturing tests in sedimentary rocks
(Plumb 1994), and concluded that the reverse faulting
is the dominant tectonic regime in the upper 1 km, but
it changes to strike-slip or normal faulting regimes at
the greater depths. Changing of stress regimes with
depth is referred to as stress decoupling and can occur
for various reasons, e.g. a marked hiatus in the
stratigraphy like, a basement-cover situation, different
lithology in a rock sequence, non-persistent far-field
boundary stresses, post-glacial lithosphere flexure and
major discontinuities intersecting the area (Stephans-
son and Zang 2012).
Post-glacial lithosphere flexure is explained for
stress change with depth and horizontally distance in
many area such as Fennoscandia where was covered
by Baltic ice sheet. Two simplified end-member
models to explained effect of glaciation-deglaciation
loading–unloading cycle on the local stress field are
presented by Stephansson (1988) and Stein et al.
(1989). Based on Stephansson (1988) proposed model
the bending stresses did not relaxed during the
existence of the ice sheet and subsequent melting of
the ice sheet expected that induced compression stress
at shallow depth (\5 km) and tensional stress at the
base of the lithosphere under the former ice sheet. But
in the away from ice sheet the stress decupling are
inverted i.e. compression stress at shallow depth and
tensional stress at the base of the lithosphere. In Stein
et al. (1989) model induced bending stresses in the
lithosphere under ice sheet relaxed and unloading
leads to tensional stress at shallow depth and com-
pression stress at the base of the lithosphere under the
former ice sheet. As shown in the two models stress
state changes in the lithosphere thickness but in all
mentioned cases stress decupling interval ([3 km) is
very limited with compared to lithosphere thickness
(30–50 km). Therefore it seems that the post-glacial
lithosphere flexure despite good explained for stress
perturbations over a horizontal distance, con not
explained the stress decupling with depths in the
small interval.
Also, such stress regime changes at different depths is
a common phenomenon and it has been reported in
many regions with different geological conditions, it
seems that the reasons mentioned above, that usually are
123
Geotech Geol Eng
present at local or regional scales, cannot be considered
as the main reasons for the stress decoupling.
In this paper, by studying the theoretical and
empirical relationships being suggested for determin-
ing the horizontal stresses and the lateral stress
coefficient, a possible range of K values is proposed
for each tectonic regime with considering the stress
arrangement in different tectonic regimes based on
Anderson’s faulting theory and the allowable relative
stress magnitudes based on the frictional faulting
theory. Also, considering the stress states in different
tectonic regimes, a new perspective is presented for
explanation of the non-linear decrease of K value and
the stress decoupling with depth.
2 Theoretical and Empirical Relationships
Due to difficulties and high costs of in situ stress
measuring tests, development of theoretical and empir-
ical relationships for prediction of in situ stresses have
been always an interesting task for many researchers.
The uniaxial strain theory and the relationships derived
by Eaton (1969) can be considered as the basis of
theoretical relationships for estimation of horizontal
stresses. Based on uniaxial strain theory, horizontal
stresses are induced simply as a result of the vertical
stress and equating to stresses required to completely
restrain the lateral deformations of an elastic body acted
upon by this vertical stress (Brown and Hoek 1978).
According to this theory the two horizontal stresses will
be a fraction of the vertical stress, and, therefore the
horizontal to vertical stress ratio is lower than 1.
However, data provided from horizontal stresses
measured in many regions show significant differences
with the results of this approach. In-situ stress measure-
ments indicated that the two principal horizontal stresses
are in general not equal and can be several times greater
than the vertical stress especially at shallow depths (Fjær
et al. 2008). Tectonic stress is ascribed, by many
investigators, as one of the main reasons for the
observed difference (Blanton and Olson 1999; Brown
and Hoek 1978; Fjær et al. 2008; Sone and Zoback 2014;
Zang et al. 2012; Zang and Stephansson 2008).
Many researchers, by using the provided data from
stress measurements at specific sites and/or regions,
proposed empirical relationships for the variation of
vertical and horizontal stresses with depth (Brown and
Hoek 1978; Herget 1974; Stephansson 1993; Zang and
Geotech Geol Eng
Stephansson 2009). In-situ stress measurements indi-
cated that the vertical stress magnitude can be
estimated by the overburden weight in most regions
(Amadei and Stephansson 1997; Brown and Hoek
1978; Herget 1974; Zang et al. 2012). According to
Brown and Hoek (1978) the vertical stress increases
linearly with depth as is shown in Fig. 1.
Also Brown and Hoek (1978) presented two
envelopes that provide rough bounds for lateral stress
coefficient (K):
0:1 1:5
þ 0:3  K  þ 0:5 ð1Þ
z z
where z is the depth below the ground surface in
kilometers.
After Brown and Hoek (1978) other researchers
collected more data of stress measurements from
different regions and modified the lower bound to
K = 1/3 that is equal to the lateral stress coefficient of a
biaxial stress model for t = 0.25 (Zang and Stephans-
son 2008). As is shown in Fig. 1b, K converges to a
value of unity (K ? 1) at depths [3 km, which is
consistent with time-dependent elimination of shear
stress in rock (Heim’s rule) (Talobre 1957).
3 The Tectonic Regimes and the Stress State
in a Region
Tectonic processes have an important influence on the
in situ stresses and can even change the arrangements
Fig. 1 Variation of vertical
stress and lateral stress
coefficients (K) with depth
according to Brown and
Hoek (1978) [modified after
Brady and Brown (2004)]
in tectonically active regions. According to Zoback
and Zoback (2002), the state of stress in the brittle
upper crust is dominated by large-scale tectonic
processes.
Based on Anderson’s faulting theory (Anderson
1951) the arrangement of principal stresses (S1, S2, &
S3) can be related to the style of currently active faults,
that would be induced by a given tectonic regime in a
region. According to Anderson faulting theory, in a
normal faulting (N) regime SV is the greatest principal
stress (S1) and Sh is the least principal stress at depth
(SV C SH C Sh) and therefore the value of K in this
regime is\1, while in the reverse faulting (RF) regime
the stress field is very compressive and both horizontal
stresses exceed the vertical stress (SH C Sh C SV)
and, therefore, the value of K in this regime is always
[1. The strike-slip faulting (SS) regime represents an
intermediate stress state where the vertical stress is
greater than the minimum horizontal stress and less
than the maximum horizontal stress (SH C Sv C Sh),
thus the value of K in this regime is about 1.
Bearing in mind that all rocks at depth essentially
contain pre-existing fractures and faults with different
orientations, domains of variation of in situ stress
components at different depths can be restricted by the
frictional strength of optimally oriented faults, by
considering the difference between the maximum (r1)
and minimum (r3) effective principal stresses con-
trolling rock mass failure (Townend and Zoback 2000;
Zoback and Healy 1984; Zoback 2010). Based on
frictional faulting theory they suggested that an upper
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 2 Stress state of different fault types based on Anderson theory (Zang and Stephansson 2009)

bound could be estimated for the ratio of r1 and r3 by
using the following equation (Jaeger and Cook 1979):
r1 S1  p h 2 1=2 i2
¼  l þ1 þl ð2Þ
r3 S3  p
where p is the pore pressure and l is the coefficient of
frictional sliding on pre-existing faults that are opti-
mally oriented for slip in the existing stress field.
Commonly, the coefficient of friction is assumed equal
to 0.6 (Zoback et al. 2003). As is mentioned, by using
Anderson’s faulting theory, it can be determined that
the in situ principal stresses (i.e. SH, Sh, or Sv)
correspond to S1, S2 and S3, with the principal stress
state in the three types of faulting regimes and the
associated states of stress in Mohr space as shown in
Fig. 2.
Therefore, in the normal faulting regime (SV -
C SH C Sh) the upper bound for the ratio of vertical
effective stress (r1) and minimum horizontal effective
stress (r3), i.e. 1/K0 is given by:
1 SV  p r1 h 2 1=2 i2
¼ ¼  l þ 1 þl ð3Þ
K 0 Sh  p r 3
The lower bound of the lateral stress coefficient can
thus be calculated using Eq. (3) as Kh C 0.32 (as-
suming l = 0.6). With respect to Eq. (3), it should be

123
Geotech Geol Eng
noted it is written in terms of effective stresses
yielding a value of the effective lateral stress coeffi-
cient (K0 ). It should be noted that using total stress a
larger value for K is obtained. Therefore, assuming p is
non_zero, the calculated value of K0 using Eq. (3)
yields a lower bound for K.
In a similar manner, in the reverse faulting regime
(SH C Sh C SV), the upper bound of the ratio of
horizontal to vertical effective stresses, i.e. K0 value
can be calculated as:
SH  p r1 h 2 1=2 i2
K0 ¼ ¼  l þ1 þl ð4Þ
SV  p r 3
This equation gives the upper bound of K
(KH B 3.12, assuming l = 0.6). The K value
obtained from Eq. (4), similar to K obtained from
Eq. (3), is the effective K value. However, unlike K0
obtained from Eq. (3), the K0 value obtained from
Eq. (4) is the maximum value of K, and if total stresses
are used a smaller value would be calculated for K.
Therefore, the effective K calculated by Eq. (4) can be
assumed as the upper bound of K. Also, the same
relationship applied for the strike-slip (SS) faulting
regime suggests the ratios of maximum and minimum
horizontal effective stresses will not exceed:
SH  p r1 h 2 1=2 i2
¼  l þ1 þl ð5Þ
Sh  p r3
Considering the above discussions, it can be
concluded that the domain of variations of K value
in the normal faulting regime is between 0.32 and
1(0.32 \ K \ 1), and in the reverse faulting regime is
between 1 and 3.12 (1 \ K \ 3.12). The expected
range and the in situ measurement values of K in
different tectonic regimes are shown in Fig. 3.
As is shown in Fig. 3 most of the lateral-stress
coefficient points fall within the expected ranges. Only
a few points plot outside the expected ranges which
could be due to neglecting the cohesive strength of
faults in the friction faulting theory or due to mismatch
of mapped fault type. At significant depth, the effect of
cohesive strength is relatively unimportant compared
to the frictional strength of any fault, and thus can be
neglected, as suggested in Jaeger and Cook’s relation-
ship (Eq. 2). However, at shallower depth this may not
be true (Zoback et al. 2003).
Some insight on the ratio of Sh/SH can be estimated
by studying faulting regimes in strike-slip regimes.
According to Eq. 5 the minimum value of Sh/SH
K
0 1 2 3
0
K=3.12
0.5
1
Depht (km)
K=1/3.12
K=1
1.5 K=1.5/Z+0.5
2
NORMAL FAULTING
STRIKE-SLIP FAULTING
2.5
THRUST FAULTING
3
Fig. 3 Domain of variation of K in different tectonic regimes
[data from Jamison and Cook (1978)]
related with strike-slip faulting is equal to 0.32
(assuming l = 0.6). Data from the World Stress
Map (WSM) project for minimum and maximum
horizontal stresses (Zang et al. 2012) is shown in
Fig. 4. The dashed red line in Fig. 4 shows the lower
bound of the Sh/SH as calculated from Eq. (4). As is
evident, good correlation exists around the linear
regression line of Sh = 0.57 SH. It is necessary to
mention that the stress data is collected from world-
wide with different tectonic conditions.
According to Anderson’s faulting theory, as shown
in Fig. 2, it can be concluded that in the normal
faulting regime difference of SH and Sh is minimum,
however, in the strike-slip faulting regime difference
of SH and Sh is maximum, and it is verified by in situ
stress measurement database. According to the
database provided by Zang et al. (2012) the main
values of Sh/SH in NF, RF, and SS faulting regimes are
equal to 0.64, 0.57, and 0.53, respectively.
4 Variation of the Lateral Stress Coefficient
and Tectonic Regimes with Depth
As is mentioned above, horizontal stresses at depth
induced as a result of the vertical stress (SV) and the
additional tectonic stresses (DSTec) can be expressed
as follows:
123

Fig. 4 Variation of minimum and maximum horizontal stresses
(Zang et al. 2012) and expected upper and lower bounds based
on Anderson and fractional faulting theory
Sh ¼ kSV þ DSTec ð6Þ
where k is the pure lateral stress coefficient that can be
calculated by using the uniaxial strain theory (Eaton
1969). By substituting SV = 27z MPa/km in the upper
bound of the lateral stress coefficient (Eq. 1), the
following equation is obtained:
ShðavÞ ¼ 0:5SV þ 40:5 ð7Þ
Equations (6) and (7) have similar algebraic form and
can be divided into two terms: The first term contains
the vertical stress and therefore, depends on depth,
while the second term is independent of depth and
depends on the tectonic regime of the area. Thus, the
first term of Eq. (6) can be considered as the part of
horizontal stress caused by vertical stress and the
second term can be considered as additional tectonic
stress. At shallow depth, the second term is more
important than the first term, however, with increasing
depth and therefore, increasing SV, the first term
becomes more important than the second term, which
becomes asymptotic to a constant value with depth.
Thus, based on Brown and Hoek (1978) equation
(Eq. 1) and Eqs. (6) and (7), it can be concluded that
the value of pure lateral stress coefficient (k) does not
notably change with depth, and remains in range of
1/3–1/2. Based on Eq. (7) up to a depth of 3 km only
(SV = 81 MPa) it can be expected that the minimum
horizontal stress will remain greater than the vertical
stress with reveres faulting stress conditions dominant,
as is shown in Fig. 3.
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fangquan and Yingnan (1990) suggested an upper
bound estimation equation for data from across China,
that can be rewritten as below:
ShðavÞ ¼ 0:5SV þ 11:9 ð8Þ
According to Eq. (8) Sv = Sh(av) at a depth of
0.88 km, and therefore, it is not expected that at a
greater depth than this there would be a reverse
faulting stress state in the studied region. Kang et al.
(2010) presented 97 stress data records from coal
mines in China that number of in situ stress measure-
ments records with reverse and normal to strike-slip
faulting regimes at different depths are presented in
Table 1.
As can be observed from Table 1, a reverse faulting
stress state is absent in the data for any depths[0.6 km
in the studied area. According to Eq. (8) and similarly
to Eq. (7) the value of k remains equal to 0.5, but the
value of the additional tectonic stress which is a
regional parameter changes. Although this additional
term shows a wide range of variation, it should be
mentioned that as it is related to plate tectonics-
induced stresses, these can be considered the same for
a large area which have uniform tectonic conditions.
Herget (1993) studies on the stress condition of
Canadian Shield indicated that the tectonic stresses
are typically very uniform over areas larger than
10,000 km2.
In addition to mentioned relationships, there are
several relationships that presented by different
authors for expression of horizontal stress profile at
specific sites or for different regions of the world. For
example, Haimson and Voight (1977) based on results
of in situ stress measurements using hydrofracturing
test carried out in Reykjavik, Iceland, presented
equations for determination horizontal stress profiles
that can be rewritten as:
Sh ¼ 0:5SV þ 1:75 ðMPaÞ ð9Þ
SH ¼ 0:5SV þ 4:2 ðMPaÞ ð10Þ
In this area, based on Eqs. (9) and (10), the stress
regime change from reverse to strike-slip is occurred
at depth of 0.125 km and it changed to normal faulting
at a depth of 0.3 km. The focal mechanism solutions
indicted the strike-slip to normal faulting regime is
dominated in the stress measured site (Einarsson
1991).
Geotech Geol Eng
Table 1 In-situ stress state Depth (km) Reverse faulting
at different depths of
Chinese underground coal 0.2
mines (Kang et al. 2010)
0.2–0.4 11
0.4–0.6
0.6
Herget (1987) presented a relationship for the
average horizontal stress change with depth at the
Canadian shied that can be rewritten by assuming
Sv = 28.5 MPa/km (Herget 1993) as below form:
ShðavÞ ¼ 0:39SV þ 33:41 ðMPaÞ ð11Þ
According to the WSM (available online at http://
www.world-stress-map.org) dominated stress regime
in at the Canadian shied is reverse faulting regime.
Also, rewritten form of relationships presented by
Baumgartner et al. (1991) for horizontal stress profiles
at the KTB pilot hole are:
Sh ¼ 0:39SV þ 16 ðMPaÞ ð12Þ
SH ¼ 0:82SV þ 30:4 ðMPaÞ ð13Þ
Equations (12) and (13) indicated that the stress
regime change from reverse to strike-slip in depth
0.94 km and it changed to normal faulting at a depth of
6.03 km in the KTB hole. Based on the WSM the
reverse to strike-slip faulting regimes are dominated in
the adjacent area of the KTB pilot hole.
Based on relationships presented by Haimson et al.
(2003) for horizontal and vertical stress changes with
depth in South Korea, the horizontal stresses can be
calculated in term of SV using bellow equations:
Sh ¼ 0:34SV þ 3:65 ðMPaÞ ð14Þ
SH ¼ 0:6SV þ 6:16 ðMPaÞ ð15Þ
Based on Eqs. 14 and 15 the stress regime changes
from reverse to strike-slip and strike-slip to normal
faulting are occurred in depths of 0.21 km and
0.58 km, respectively. Earthquake focal mechanism
solutions indicate a dominant strike-slip faulting
regime in the stress measurement area (Jun et al.
1999).
As is mentioned above, with increasing depth there
is a decrease in the relative importance of the
additional tectonic stress (DSTec), thus the stress
regime changes from reverse dominant to normal
Normal and strike slip faulting
9 4
28
2 30
0 13
K
0 0.32 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.5
1
Depht (km)
1.5
2
2.5
3
Fig. 5 Variations of K value with depth in a deep oil well in the
southeast Asia with normal faulting regime and a deep hole in
the Ohio in east united states with reverse faulting regime, [data
selected from Zoback (2010)]
faulting dominant. Values of the lateral stress coeffi-
cient become more constant with an increase in depth
and change the stress regime, from magnitudes of
greater than unity, which are characteristics of a
reverse stress regime at shallow depth, shifting to
magnitudes less than unity, corresponding to a normal
stress regime at great depth. Variations in the value of
K in the reverse and normal faulting regimes are
shown in Fig. 5.
As is shown in Fig. 5, the values of K in the normal
faulting regime almost remain constant at all depths as a
result of the insignificant (almost negligible)
123

contribution of the additional tectonic stress component
for the normal faulting regime. For example, based on
presented data by Valley and Evans (2007) from stress
measurement in depths of 1.5 to 5 km of a deep well at
Soultz, France, the K value changed only 0.01 in the
3.5 km interval of stress measurement (Kd=1.5km = 0.75
amd Kd=5km = 0.76). Based on the WSM the strike-slip
to normal faulting regimes are dominated in Soultz,
France.
By contrast, as mentioned in the previous section,
the contribution of the additional tectonic stress is
significant in the reverse faulting regime, but its
relative importance decreases with increasing depth.
Hence, the value of K in a reverse faulting regime is
not constant, decreasing nonlinearly with depth
(Fig. 5).
5 Conclusions
Realistic estimation of the lateral stress coefficient in
any region can be approached by consideration of the
tectonic regime. In a reverse faulting regime the two
horizontal stresses (SH and Sh) are larger than the
vertical stress (SV), and therefore, the K value is [1.
However, in a normal faulting regime, the vertical
stress (SV) is larger than the two horizontal stresses
(SH and Sh), and therefore the K value is \1. Also,
based on frictional faulting theory and assuming a
frictional coefficient of 0.6, the upper and lower bound
of K can be calculated as equal to 3.12 and 0.32,
respectively.
Generally, horizontal stresses in the earth’s crust
have been induced by vertical stress due to topography
plus the effects of additional tectonic stresses. The part
of horizontal stresses resulting from the vertical stress
are proportional with depth, however, the part due to
tectonic stress will remain almost constant at different
depths. Therefore, with increasing depth and reduction
of the relative additional tectonic stresses, the tectonic
regime will change from reverse at shallow depth to
strike-slip and eventually to a normal faulting regime
at greater depths. Variations of K value with increas-
ing depth in the normal and reverse tectonic regimes
indicated that value of K in the reverse faulting regime
will decrease nonlinearly with increasing depth, while
in the normal faulting regime its value will remain
almost constant irrespective of depth. Accordingly,
assuming one value for K at different depths in a
123
Geotech Geol Eng
reverse faulting regime can lead to a significant errors
in evaluation of in situ horizontal stresses. However, a
constant K value with depth can be considered realistic
in a normal faulting regime.
References
Amadei B, Stephansson O (1997) Rock stress and its measure-
ment. Springer, New York
Anderson E (1951) The dynamics of faulting and dyke forma-
tion with application to britain, 2nd edn. Oliver and Boyd,
Edinburgh
Ask D, Stephansson O (2003) Hydraulic stress measurements in
borehole BJO01, Björkö impact structure, Lake Mälaren,
Sweden. In: International symposium rock stress, RS
Kumamoto, pp 115–121
Baumgartner J, Healy J, Rummel F, Zoback M (1991) Deep
hydraulic fracturing stress measurements in the KTB
(Germany) and CAJON, PASS (USA) scientific drilling
projects—a summary. In: 7th ISRM congress, 1991.
International Society for Rock Mechanics
Blanton TL, Olson JE (1999) Stress magnitudes from logs:
effects of tectonic strains and temperature. Paper presented
at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas
Brady BHG, Brown ET (2004) Rock mechanics: for under-
ground mining. Springer, Berlin
Brown E, Hoek E (1978) Trends in relationships between
measured in situ stresses and depth. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci Geomech Abstr 15:211–215
Eaton BA (1969) Fracture gradient prediction and its application
in oilfield operations JPT 21:1, 353–351, 360
Einarsson P (1991) Earthquakes and present-day tectonism in
Iceland. Tectonophysics 189:261–279
Fangquan L, Yingnan Q (1990) Variation of crustal stresses with
depth in China. Phys Chem Earth 17:191–198
Fjær E, Holt R, Horsrud P, Raaen A, Risnes R (2008) Petroleum
related rock mechanics. Development in Petroleum Sci-
ence, vol 33. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V, Amsterdam
Haimson B (1977) Recent in situ stress measurement using the
hydrofracturing technique. In: The 18th US symposium on
rock mechanics (USRMS), 1977. American Rock
Mechanics Association
Haimson BC, Voight B (1977) Crustal stress in Iceland.
Springer, Berlin
Haimson BC, Lee MY, Song I (2003) Shallow hydraulic frac-
turing measurements in Korea support tectonic and seismic
indicators of regional stress. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
40:1243–1256
Herget G (1974) Ground stress determinations in Canada. Rock
Mech 6:53–64. doi:10.1007/bf01238053
Herget G (1987) Stress assumptions for underground excava-
tions in the Canadian Shield. In: International journal of
rock mechanics and mining sciences and geomechanics
abstracts. Elsevier, vol 1, pp 95–97
Herget G (1993) Rock stresses and rock stress monitoring in
Canada. In: Hudson JA (ed) Comprehensive rock
Geotech Geol Eng
engineering: rock testing and site characterization, vol 3.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 473–496
Jaeger JC, Cook NGW (1979) Fundamentals of rock mechanics.
Chapman and Hall, London
Jamison DB, Cook NG (1978) An analysis of the measured
values for the state of stress in the earth’s crust. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley
Jun M, Jeon J, Che I (1999) Earthquake mechanism of Korean
Peninsula Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea.
J Earthq Eng Soc Korea 3:58–63
Kang H, Zhang X, Si L, Wu Y, Gao F (2010) In-situ stress
measurements and stress distribution characteristics in
underground coal mines in China. Eng Geol 116:333–345.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.09.015
Plumb R (1994) Variations of the least horizontal stress mag-
nitude in sedimentary rocks. In: 1st North american rock
mechanics symposium, 1994. American Rock Mechanics
Association
Rummel F, Möhring-Erdmann G, Baumgärtner J (1986) Stress
constraints and hydrofracturing stress data for the conti-
nental crust. Pure Appl Geophys 124:875–895. doi:10.
1007/bf00879616
Sone H, Zoback MD (2014) Viscous relaxation model for pre-
dicting least principal stress magnitudes in sedimentary
rocks. J Petrol Sci Eng. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2014.09.022
Stein S, Cloetingh S, Sleep NH, Wortel R (1989) Passive margin
earthquakes, stresses and rheology. In: Earthquakes at
north-atlantic passive margins: neotectonics and post-
glacial rebound. Springer, pp 231–259
Stephansson O (1988) Ridge push and glacial rebound as rock
stress generators in Fennoscandia Bulletin of the Geolog-
ical Institutions of the University of Uppsala
Stephansson O (1993) Rock stress in the Fennoscandian shield.
In: Hudson JA (ed) Comprehensive rock engineering, vol
3, pp 445–459
Stephansson O, Zang A (2012) ISRM suggested methods for
rock stress estimation—part 5: establishing a model for the
in situ stress at a given site. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:955–
969
Talobre J (1957) La mécanique des roches: appliqueé aux tra-
vaux publics. Dunod
Townend J, Zoback MD (2000) How faulting keeps the crust
strong. Geology 28:399–402
Valley B, Evans KF (2007) Stress state at Soultz-sous-Forêts to
5 km depth from wellbore failure and hydraulic observa-
tions. In: Proceedings, 32nd workshop on geothermal
reservoir engineering, pp 17481–17469
World Stress Map http://www.world-stress-map.org
Zang AHW, Stephansson OJ (2008) Stress field of the earth’s
crust. Springer, Netherlands
Zang A, Stephansson O (2009) Stress field of the earth’s crust.
Springer, Dordrecht
Zang A, Stephansson O, Heidbach O, Janouschkowetz S (2012)
World stress map database as a resource for rock mechanics
and rock engineering. Geotech Geol Eng 30:625–646
Zoback MD (2010) Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Zoback M, Healy J (1984) Friction, faulting and in situ stress. In:
Annales geophysicae, vol 6. Gauthier-Villars, pp 689–698
Zoback MD, Zoback ML (2002) 34 State of stress in the earth’s
lithosphere. Int Geophys 81:559–XII
Zoback M et al (2003) Determination of stress orientation and
magnitude in deep wellsb. Int J Rock Mech Mining Sci
40:1049–1076
123