Exploration of Measurement Methods of 3D In-Situ Stresses in Rock Masses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper gives an overview of the measurement methods for the 3D in-situ stresses. Rock masses in the Earth’s crust are stressed in a natural stress state, which has six components in three dimensions. They are called “in-situ stresses” or “field stresses” with three principal stress components. Reliable estimate of the in-situ stresses in the rock mass is essential and vital for proper planning and design, underground excavation, mineral resource exploitation and ground stability control in geotechnical, mining and petroleum engineering. The basic principles of the measurement methods, including overcoring, hydraulic fracturing, back analysis, borehole slotting, flat jack, geophysical, and borehole breakout, are introduced. The advantages and limitations are discussed and compared. Methods that measure borehole deformation and strains during overcoring appear most common and are the only methods for the complete 3D stresses. Other measurement methods generally provide results of the orientations and/or magnitudes of some components of the in-situ stresses, mostly the maximum and the minimum stresses in the plane perpendicular to the borehole. In some methods the vertical stress is assumed as a principal stress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it