ISRM International Symposium 2008

5th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium (ARMS5), 24-26 November 2008 Tehran, Iran

APPLICATION OF AE FOR DETERMINING IN SITU STRESS AT UG MINE

S. KRAMADIBRATA1, R.K. WATTIMENA1, I. KAMIL1, M.A. RAI1 and E. WIDIJANTO2

1
Department of Mining Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
(e-mail of corresponding author: susenok@mining.itb.ac.id)
2
PT. Freeport Indonesia

Abstract
The stability and safe operation of any underground excavations has been the prime concern of underground mine engineers. One
of the most important parameters to obtain for underground mine planning is the in-situ principal stresses determination. The
problems with the in-situ stress determination, particularly in Indonesia, so far have been associated with technology availability,
cost efficiency and complexity in performing the in-situ test in remote regions. However, an indirect method with less cost to
determine the in-situ principal stresses which is attributed to the use of Acoustic Emission (AE) method has been used by many
and proven to be reliable as experienced at an underground gold mine in Indonesia. This paper therefore emphasizes on the
technique development of AE test on 6 cored rock specimens retrieved from a reasonably large size core rock sample with
different directions encompassing three-component principal stresses. The large size core rock sample had orientation of N58OE/-
4O and was drilled from the AB Tunnel of the Underground copper mine of PT. Freeport Indonesia. Based on the stress level at
which the Kaiser effects were detected the in-situ stresses at the AB tunnel was subsequently predicted as follows σ1 =41.4 MPa;
σ2 = 18 MPa; σ3 = 3.1 MPa.
Keywords: in-situ stress, stress memory, acoustic emission, Kaiser Effect

1. Introduction creating induced stress, is to take advantage of

Underground mining engineers have been very
much concerned with the safe operation of any
underground excavations. Prior to making up
underground mine planning in-situ principal
stresses acting at the interest region should have
been obtained. However, the problems with the
in-situ stress determination, particularly in
Indonesia, so far have been associated with
technology availability, cost efficiency and
complexity in performing the in-situ test in
remote regions.
Underground excavation will obviously create
induced stress in its near field domain that will
be greater than the original in-situ stress, and
even will also alter the stress direction. In the last
three decades, in-situ stress measurements have
been very important issues in the rock mechanics
field in Indonesia, since the values obtained from
these measurements can help the rock mechanics
engineers to analyze the stability of an
underground excavation in a better confidence so
that safe operation can be achieved.
An alternative method for determining the
stress-state at depth, remote areas, and without
the so-called Kaiser Effect of acoustic emission
(AE). This phenomenon, termed Kaiser Effect
suggests that previously applied maximum stress
might be detected by stressing a rock specimen
to the stress level where there is a substantial
increase in AE activity. Based on the Kaiser
Effect, the previous stress can be estimated from
the curve of AE activity under monotonically
increasing stress, which is referred to the
Uniaxial Loading Method (ULM).
AE is concerned with a transient elastic wave
energy generated by rapid micro-crack growth
within a material. The micro-crack propagation
is a ubiquitous phenomenon associated with
brittle fracture, and has provided ample evidence
regarding the failure process in rock. It is also
well understood that micro-crack begins to occur
as the stress applied on a rock specimen exceeds
its bearing capacity.
The Kaiser effect in rocks were first
confirmed by [1] and followed by [2]. A decade
later this AE technique was first applied to
measure in-situ rock stress [3]. Application of
AE to predict in-situ stress has been done at the
Laboratory of Geomechanics & Mine Equipment

379
of the Department of Mining Engineering
(DME) of the Faculty of Mining Engineering
and Petroleum Engineering (FMEPE) of Institute
Technology of Bandung (ITB) since 2001 [4, 5,
6]. The investigations demonstrated that AE
could be used to reasonably well predict the in-
situ stress of an underground opening as long as
retention time is taken into account. Thus, a
study was then conducted to determine the
magnitude and orientation of in-situ stresses at
AB Tunnel of PT Freeport Indonesia, Papua
Indonesia.
2. In-Situ Stress
Rock at depth is subjected to stresses resulting
from the weight of the overlying strata and from
locked in stresses of tectonic origin. As
implicitly explained earlier, that when an
opening is excavated in this rock, the stress field
is locally disrupted and a new set of stresses are
induced in the rock surrounding the opening.
Knowledge of the magnitudes and directions of
these in-situ and induced stresses is an essential
component of underground excavation design as,
in many cases, the strength of the rock is
exceeded and the resulting instability can have
serious consequences on the behavior of the
excavations.
Consider an element of rock at a depth of H
below the surface. The weight of the vertical
column of rock resting on this element is the
product of the depth (H) and the unit weight (γ =
ρg) of the overlying rock mass. Hence, the
gravitational or vertical stress (σv) on the
element is estimated from the simple
relationship:
σv = γH (1)
The horizontal stresses (σH) acting on an
element of rock at a depth H below the surface
are much more difficult to estimate than the
vertical stresses. Normally, the ratio of the
average horizontal stress to the vertical stress is
denoted by the letter k such that:
σH = k.σv = k.γH (2)
380
A gravitationally loaded rock mass in which
no lateral strain was permitted during formation
of the overlying strata, the value of k is
independent of depth and is given by [ν/(1-ν)],
where ν is the Poisson's ratio of the rock mass.
This relationship was widely used in the early
days of rock mechanics but it proved to be
inaccurate and is seldom used today [7].
A state of stress at a particular point on a
principal plane can be expressed in the following
matrix:
⎡σ1 0 0⎤
[σP] = ⎢⎢ 0 σ 2 0 ⎥⎥ (3)
⎢⎣ 0 0 σ 3 ⎥⎦
where,
σ1: Major Principal Stress;
σ2: Intermediate Principal Stress;
σ3: Minor Principal Stress
Determination of the magnitude and direction
of principal stress can be done using the
Invariant theory and especially their directions
are estimated based on the direction cosine of
each principal stress. The direction cosine of axis
x, y and z for each principal stress σi (i = 1, 2, 3)
must then accordingly satisfy the orthogonal
requirements.
In order to determine the stress level at which
the Kaiser effect is detected during the test (σKE),
equation (4) is then applied.
⎧σx ⎫
⎪σ ⎪
⎪ y⎪
⎪⎪ σ z ⎪⎪
[σKE] = [ lx2 ly2 lz2 2lxly 2lxlz 2lylz] ⎨ ⎬ (4)
⎪τ xy ⎪
⎪ τ xz ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎩⎪ τ yz ⎭⎪
Calculation of the in-situ stress of the rock
mass [σ] is completed based on six equations of
(5) resulted from the acoustic emission test.
 ⎡2
⎧ σ x ⎫ ⎢ l x1 l2y1 l2z1 2l x1l y1 2l x1lz1 2l y1lz1 ⎤ ⎧σ as the stress applied on a rock specimen exceeds
⎥ KE1 ⎫
⎪ σ ⎪ ⎢l 2 l2y2 l2z2 2l x2l y2 2l x2lz2 2l y2lz2 ⎥ ⎪σ KE2 ⎪ its bearing capacity.
⎪ y ⎪ ⎢ x2 ⎥⎪ ⎪
⎪⎪ σ z ⎪⎪ ⎢l2x3 l2y3 l2z3 2l x3l y3 2l x3lz3 2l y3lz3 ⎥ ⎪⎪σ KE3 ⎪⎪ Determination of the in-situ stresses is
⎨ ⎬=⎢2 ⎨ ⎬ (5)
⎪τ xy ⎪ ⎢l x4 l2y4 l2z4 2l x4l y4 2l x4lz4 2l y4lz4 ⎥ ⎪σ KE4 ⎪ analogous to cyclic pressure vessel testing in the
⎥
⎪ τ xz ⎪ ⎢l2 l2y5 l2z5 2l x5l y5 2l x5lz5 2l y5lz5 ⎥ ⎪⎪σ KE5 ⎪⎪ mechanical/metallurgical field. Pressure vessels
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ x5 ⎥
⎪⎩ τ yz ⎪⎭ ⎢l2
⎣ x6 l2y6 l2z6 2l x6l y6 2l x6lz6 2l y6lz6 ⎥⎦ ⎪⎩σ KE6 ⎪⎭ only emit AE after the previously applied
pressure is exceeded (Figure 2). This
Transformation of the direction cosine of the phenomenon is termed the Kaiser Effect and is
principal stress into the dip direction and dip can defined in ASTM E 610-77 as follows; “Kaiser
be made using the equations (6), (7) and (8) of Effect – the absence of detectable acoustic
the spherical coordinate system (Figure 1). emission until previously applied stress levels
are exceeded.”
λx = λ cosθ cosΦ (6)
λy = λ cosθ sinΦ (7)
λz = λ cos(90-θ) (8)
where Φ = dip direction and θ = Dip.

Fig. 2. Kaiser Effect

The AE activity is detected by use of a sensor

that is sensitive to the “sounds” (actually
transient elastic waves) emitted by material or
rock as it is being stressed. This sensor converts
the mechanical signal into an electrical signal,
which is the pre-amplified, filtered, post
amplified and counted. The typical end result is
what ASTM E 610-77 defines as the “acoustic
emission count” that is the number of times the
AE signal amplitudes exceeds a present
Fig. 1. Spherical coordinate system (r, Φ, θ). threshold during any selected portion of a test.
There are three elementary microscopic
3. Acoustic Emission mechanisms taking place during rock
deformation whereby the origin of AE can be
AE is concerned with a transient elastic wave identified [8] such as plastic deformation of
energy generated by rapid micro-crack growth constituent materials due to dislocation motions
within a material. The micro-crack propagation such as glides and climbs; sliding along pre-
is a ubiquitous phenomenon associated with existing crack surfaces and sudden advances of
brittle fracture, and has provided ample evidence crack tip.
regarding the failure process in rock. It is also
Based on this model Kaiser Effect is
well understood that micro-crack begins to occur
interpreted as follows; in elastic stage a crack,

381
pre-existing or newly formed, grows to an transmitting elastic wave and be well detected by
equilibrium configuration corresponding to the the two AE piezoelectric tranducers.
applied stress and this stress would be
memorized in the rock through the crack
configuration. The opened crack would be closed
after unloading, but not healed in an atomic
sense until the next loading. The growth process
of cracks is only responsible for AE; hence no
AE should be expected below the highest stress
in the former loading cycles. Recovery process
would correspond to the healing of pre-existing
cracks. It is therefore appropriate to define that,
the stress at which the laboratory Kaiser Effect is
observed is the previous peak stress.

4. Experimentation and Test Results

4.1. Core Rock Sample

The AE tests were performed at the Laboratory
of Geomechanics & Mine Equipment of the
DME of the FMEPE of ITB. Prior to the tests,
orientation core drilling and sample preparation
were done and followed by determination of
physical and mechanical properties of the rock
samples.
A reasonably big size of fine Diorite core rock
sample was obtained from AB Tunnel of PT Fig. 3. Core drilling orientation grip device, orientated core
Freeport Indonesia, Papua. The sample was drilling and orientation of cored rock samples for AE tests
subsequently drilled at various orientations in Table 1. Physical properties of AE rock samples.
order to avail 6 samples representing three
Sample Natural Water Porosity Void
component directions and the orientation of each Code density content % Ratio
sample is depicted in Figure 3. gr/cc %
The orientated drilling was facilitated with a Average 2.71 0.86 2.99 0.03
tool so called core drilling orientation grip Std Dev 0.08 0.08 0.22 0.00
device which was designed and manufactured in-
house (see Figure 4) and the rock sample UCS tests on 3 rock samples which were not
preparation was carried out in compliance with intended for the AE test were carried out to
the ASTM D.3967-86 and or ISRM (1985). obtain the values of UCS, elastic limit, stress
level of closing crack, Young’s Modulus and
4.2. Physical and Mechanical Properties Poisson’s Ratio. The average of those values is
The average values of the physical properties as follows: σc = 127.39 MPa; σE = 100.32 MPa;
tests of 4 (four) rock samples reveal that they can σcc = 27.07 MPa; E = 15.56 GPa and ν = 0.18. It
be considered as average solid rock type as can then be said that the rock samples are
indicated in Table 1. It is therefore not unusual to classified as medium strength [9] and have
expect that the AE test would reveal good relatively consistent stiffness.

382
4.3. Experimentation of AE Test Having the AE tests carried out, the Kaiser
Effect for each sample was detected at various
Equipment used for the AE test includes
cycles and from which the stress level was
universal compression testing machine and AE
recorded (σKE). This stress level corresponds
hardware such as two AE piezoelectric
with the stress history or in-situ stress at which
tranducers, Pre-Amplifier and software program
the sample was retrieved from. The
MISTRAS 2001. The AE test was performed by
representative σKE is obtained from taking
applying ULM on a rock sample. The load was
average of different cycles for each sample. The
given within 8-10 cycles and varied depending
values of the average in-situ stress σKE for each
on the rock strength. However, it should be
sample including their orientation are given in
borne in mind that each load or stress should not
Table 2.
exceed the average value of UCS and supposedly
within the elastic range namely between closing Table 2. The average values of σKE and their orientation
of each rock sample
cracks and yield point in which area permanent
deformation does not occur should the load is Sample
DD/D
σKE Sample
DD/D
σKE
released back to zero. The test results were code MPa code MPa
AE-01 329/00 32.24 AE-04 282/32 31.98
recorded as curves of AE activity (hits) vs. stress
AE-02 59/05 17.50 AE-05 107/39 12.65
(MPa). AE-03 239/85 12.81 AE-06 11/39 31.45
The MISTRAS 2001 AE detection and Note :DD: Dip Direction, D: Dip
analysis computer software was used to log the
stress and AE signals transmited by a load cell 5. Determination of Magnitude and
incorporated to the UCS test frame, and two Orientation of the In-Situ Stress
piezoelectric tranducers respectively. Two pre- The direction cosine for each axes of stresses on
amplifiers were hooked up between the two Cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z) for each
piezoelectrics and computer. The two tranducers rock sample are given in Table 3.
were glued at the middle of the long sides,
opposite each other, of the test specimen. The Table 3. Direction cosines of orientated rock sample
gains of preamplifier and the computer software Direction Direction
Sample Sample
were at 40 dB, whereas the the threshold gain at Cosines Cosines
the computer software was set at 45 dB. Range x 0.8571 x 0.1763
AE-01 y -0.5150 AE-04 y -0.8295
of 100-1200 kHz was used for the frequency z 0 z 0.5299
filter. Illustration of the arrangement of the x 0.5131 x -0.2272
acoustic emission test is depicted in Figure 4. AE-02 y 0.8539 AE-05 y 0.7432
z 0.0872 z 0.6293
x -0.0449 x 0.7629
AE-03 y -0.0747 AE-06 y 0.1483
z 0.9962 z 0.6293
Note: all (x2+y2+z2) = 1

Having used the data obtained from Table 3

into the equation [5] and [3] with a further
mathematical exercise the matrix tensor for the
in-situ stress can subsequently be predicted as
follows,

Fig. 4. The arrangement of the acoustic emission test

383
 ⎡ 25.0 − 8.4 14.8 ⎤
[σ] = ⎢⎢ − 8.4 24.3 − 6.3⎥⎥ MPa
⎢⎣ 14.8 − 6.3 13.2 ⎥⎦
The invariant stresses can be calculated based
on the in-situ stress [σ] data and afterwards
checking process to satisfy the criteria given by
equation (8) is performed and the final in-situ
principal stresses are given as follow,
σ1 = 41.4 MPa; σ2 = 18.0 MPa ; σ3 = 3.1 MPa.
The in-situ principal stresses can be written in
matrix form as given in equation (10):
⎡41.4 0 0⎤
[σprincipal] = ⎢⎢ 0 18.0 0 ⎥⎥ MPa
⎢⎣ 0 0 3.1⎥⎦
The dip direction of each principal stress is
determined and the final form of the principal
stresses is given in Table 4.
Table 4. Principal stresses and their orientation
Dip
Principal Stress
Direction
Stress (MPa)
(N …°E)
Maximum 41.4 323.4°
Intermediate 18 62.2°
Minimum 3.1 356.9°
Requirement of the orthogonal system for the
three component principal stresses is clearly
conducted and having done this exercise the
requirements are satisfied.
6. Discussion
As explained earlier that the fine grain diorite
rock sample was obtained from AB Tunnel of
PT. Freeport Indonesia Papua at depth of 751 m.
Taking account the average density of the rock
mass above of 2.71 t/m3, the theoretical vertical
stress at this point would be 20.352 MPa. On the
other hand, the vertical stress (σz - see Eq. (9))
obtained from the calculation is 13.2 MPa, which
is only about 65% of the theoretical one. This
difference apparently is not uncommon as some
(9) factors influencing the difference, particularly in
the area of PT Freeport mine would be
geological structures which may have affected
the in-situ gravitational (vertical) stress.
Using the equation from [7], the k value in
Eq. (2) for depth less than 1000 m, can be
estimated as
100 1500
+ 0.3 < k < + 0.5 (11)
z z
which gives 0.43 < k < 2.5.
If the rock mass condition is deemed elastic
(Eq. (2)), the σH will be in the range of 8.72 MPa
– 50.69 MPa. Meanwhile the horizontal stresses
(10)
obtained from Eq. (9) are 25.0 MPa and 24.3
MPa. It is therefore obvious that the horizontal
stresses obtained from the calculation are within
the range that of theoretical approach.
Referring to [10], the ratio of (σHaverage/σv) at
depth of 751 m would be 1.606 and that of
estimated from acoustic emission is 1.876
meaning that the horizontal stress is always
greater than that of vertical stress.
Dip
Other influence factors which actually could
28.9° have been avoided would be the absence of
15.5° servo control in the AE tests that led to the
imprecise constant loads, noises produced during
56.5° the tests were high which made the Kaiser Effect
could not be observed clearly and waiting time
between sample collecting and the AE tests is
defined as retention time. The retention time is a
period during which the disappearance of stress
memories in the samples may takes place and
this would depend on the rock type, grain size
isotropic, homogeneity and elasticity.
Some rock types apparently do not appear to
possess significant relationship between
retention time against the occurrence of the
Kaiser Effect. The occurrence of the Kaiser
Effect of fine texture sandstone remains the same
for 7 year retention time [11], whereas the
influence of retention time on the occurrence of
the Kaiser Effect on very fine sandstone and coal
is only obvious if the retention times are less
than a year (12] and 2 year respectively [11].
384
Granite which is much coarser than sandstone
and coal has only good retention time of 50 days
[13]. Tuff breccias and lythic tuff which are
obtained from the Pongkor underground gold
mine have very short retention time – less than a
week [5].
Having learned from the foregoing evidences
that the AE test would reveal good transmitting
elastic wave and the rock samples are classified
as medium strength and have relatively
consistent stiffness, the influence of retention
time on the Kaiser Effect occurrence for the fine
grain Diorite core rock sample can therefore be
deemed the same to that of the fine texture
sandstone meaning that the in-situ stresses
determined from AE test could have been
appropriately accepted. Nevertheless, it is
therefore appropriate to note at this point in time
that the outcome from the AE method warrants
further clarification should this method is applied
to any rock samples which are obviously not
very fine grain, heterogeneous and plastic
materials.
7. Closing Remarks
The retention time apparently does not apply to
the Diorite core rock sample or in another word;
the in-situ stresses determined from AE test
could have been appropriately accepted.
The stress levels that have been experienced
by the intact rock samples obtained from the
following boreholes N 329° E / 0°; N 59° E / 5°;
N 239° E / 85°; N 282° E / 32°; N 107° E / 39°;
and N 11° E / 39° are 32.24 MPa, 17.5 MPa,
12.81 MPa, 31.98 MPa, 12.65 MPa, and 31.45
MPa respectively
The in-situ stress tensor matrix of the rock
mass is expressed as follow,
⎡ 25.0 − 8.4 14.8 ⎤
[σ] = ⎢⎢ − 8.4 24.3 − 6.3⎥⎥ MPa
⎢⎣ 14.8 − 6.3 13.2 ⎥⎦
The magnitude and direction of the in-situ
principal stresses at which the rock samples were
obtained are as follow, σ1 = 41.4 MPa, N
385
323.38° E/28.93°; σ2 = 18 MPa, N 62.18° E/
15.47°; σ3 = 3.1 MPa, N356.86° E/ 56.5°.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgements are due to students who did
the serial tests of the acoustic emission and Mr.
Sudibyo, Mr. Iwan and Mr. Suparman the
technicians of the Laboratory of Geomechanics
& Mine Equipment of the DME of the FMEPE
of ITB who were heavily involved in this
research project.
The authors would also like to thank Prof. K.
Matsui from Kyushu University Japan and his
colleagues for their donation of the acoustic
emission equipment set and MISTRAS 2001 to
the Laboratory of Geomechanics & Mine
Equipment of the DME of the FMEPE of ITB.
References
1. Mogi, K. 1962. Study of the elastic shocks
caused by the fracture of heterogeneous
materials and its relation to earthquake
phenomenon. Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst., Univ.
Tokyo, 40, 125-173.
2. Goodman, R. 1963. Subaudible noise during
compression of rocks. Geological Society of
American Bulletin, 74, 487-490.
3. Kanagawa, T., M. Hayashi, and H. Nakasa.
1976. Estimation of spatial geostress components
in rock samples using the Kaiser effect of
acoustic emission. Rep. No. 375017, Central
Res. Inst. Of Electrical Power Industry, Abiko,
Japan.
4. Kramadibrata, S., H. Timbul, and M.A. Rai.
2001. Study of in-situ stress determination by
means of acoustic emission of uniaxial
compression test. Proc. 3rd Asian Symposium on
Engineering Geology and the Environment -
Natural Resources Manage-ment for Regional
Development in Tropical Area, Jogjakarta,
Indonesia.
5. Kramadibrata S., R. Bastiawarman, and K.
Matsui. 2004. The influence of retention time on
AE test of intact rock sample for determination
in-situ stress. Proc. 2nd International Workshop
on Earth Science and Technology, Kyushu,
Japan.
6. Kramadibrata, S. 2007. Development of
geomechanics research in Indonesia with
particular reference to time dependent behavior.
Proc. 3rd Colloquium on Postgraduate Research,
National Post-graduate Colloquium on
Materials, Minerals and Polymers, Penang,
Malaysia.
7. Hoek, E. and E. T. Brown. 1980.
Underground excavations in rock. London: Inst.
Min. Metall.
8. Kurita, K. and N. Fujii. 1979. Stress memory
of crystalline rocks in acoustic emission.
American Geophysical Union, Paper no.
8L1275, 6(1), 9-12.
9. Bieniawaski, Z.T. 1974. Estimating the
strength of rock materials. J. South African Inst.
Min. Met., March, 312 - 320.
10. Herget, G. 1988. Stresses in Rock.
Rotterdam: Balkema.
11. Seto, M., D.K. Nag, and V.S. Vutukuri.
1999. In-situ rock stress measurement from rock
cores using the acoustic emission method and
deformation rate analysis. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 17.
12. Jingen, D., W. Kangping, and H.R. Zun.
1995. In-situ stress determination at great depth
by using acoustic emission technique. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Rock Mechanics (Ed. Daeman and
Schlutz), 245 – 250.
13. Li, C., and F. Nordlund. 1993. Experimental
verification of the Kaiser Effecting rocks. Rock
Mechanics & Rock Engineering, 26(4), 333-351.

386