Compression is always positive.

Mathematically, stress is defined as a second rank tensor with 9 components

which are 9 magnitudes that describe the stress acting on different planes.
Here we're using cartesian coordinate system of arbitrary orientation, and
those 9 components define the direction of the force and the face that
it's acting on. One traction (example S21 force) is acting perpendicular
to the two axis and it's acting in one direction. So there are 9 magnitudes and
3 directions to define this coordinate system.
Because of equilibrium conditions, only 6 of these components are independent,
so S12 = S21, etc.
The stress field in the earth have a property that makes describing the stress
field in a quantitative way, and that one can define a principal coordinate
sytem, which is more practical.
Principal coordinate system is one in which the tractions disappear, and we're
left with the stresses acting normal to our three planes. The only three stresses
we have to define are S1, acting perpendicularly to the plane that is perpendicular
to the one axis. S2 and S3 are the prime coordinate system, but it is a principal
coordinate system too.
This principal coordinate system is particularly good for describing the state of
stress in the earth. Why? Because in the Earth, we have a solid, which is overlain
by a fluid (at land the fluid is air, under the sea the fluid is water). Fluid
can support no shear. A principal coordinate system is a plane with the shear
stresses vanish (the plane: the surface of the earth or the bottom of the sea).
So we describe the three principal stresses with three numbers: the two horizontal
stresses and the vertical stress, with one orientation. Instead of going from six
magnitudes and three angles, we go to three magnitudes and one angle.
There is another really important attribute of the stress field, that is, if we
know the stress in one coordinate system, we can mathematically compute the state
of stress in any other coordinate system as long as we know the angles that define
one coordinate system with respect to another, and we call those angles the
directions cosines in a matrix.This coordinate transformation, which requires only
knowledge of the initial stress state, and the angles that define, the two
coordinate systems with respect to each other.For example we know the initial
stress field perfectly, then we want to compute the stresses in the coordinate
system around a well in case of wellbore stability, or we want to compute the
stresses in the coordinate system defined by the orientation of a fault, in case
of whether or not the fault will slip (if we know the orientation of the well with
respect to the initial coordinate system, or if we know the orientation of the
fault
with respect to the initial coordinate system).
One can convert from the coordinate system in which you know the stress, to the
coordinate system in which you want to know the stress. In the Earth, one principal
stress is vertical and two are horizontal, and the we're going to transform in this
direction to calculate the stresses that we want to know in the coordinate system
that
the problem we are working on defines, like the wellbore, the fault, etc.
So there are three properties of the stress field:
There's always a principle coordinate system.
If we know the state of stress in that coordinate system, we can calculate the
state of
stress in any other coordinate system.
In the Earth, one principle stress is vertical, and two are horizontal.
We only need one angle when we find the principle stresses. Why is there only one
angle?
The reason is: the assumption that we're using is that one principle stress is
vertical
and the other two are acting in the horizontal plane (there is only 1 angle between
the
axis of vertical stress and the axis of the horizontal plane). But there are
exceptions
to those principles that you have to keep in mind.
On this diagram, we are describing a making of the geomechanical model of the
earth.
It's these 3 principle stresses, Sv for overburden, Shmax for the maximum
horizontal
stress, and Shmin for the minimum horizontal stress. The stress part of the model
is
defined by those 3 numbers and their orientation.
To map the stress state, we had to establish criteria for looking at the tectonic
stress field. One of those criteria: depth. We don't consider the stress in the
very near
surface because of the topography and there are many processes other than geologic
processes affecting the stress field. So we're going to talk about stress at depths
greater than 100m, and also we're working at depths even below that topography. The
other
criteria is we restricted the kinds of data that we actually considered as a
reliable
indicator of the regional tectonic stress (for example we're not doing the stress
measurement in a mine or a tunnel because the stress field is affected by these
near
surface effects). And therefore the high quality data are shown and we can see
these
regionally consistent patterns whether we're sampling in a well at 1-5 km depth or
in the
upper crust at 5-15km depth. These consistent regional patterns are independent of
provenance as we change from one geological terrane to another (the stress patterns
are
consistent through the different terranes, so the stresses are explainable in terms
of
regional tectonic processes).

Like I've said before, principal stress is vertical and two being horizontal,
there's an
exception.If we go deeper and deeper than near the Earth's surface (topography is
absent),
like 5km below, is that assumption still reasonable? The only way we had to defend
that
assumption is from earthquake focal plane mechanisms. When an earthquake occurs,
the
radiated seismic energy allows us to calculate whether it's normal faulting, strike
slip
faulting, or reverse faulting; and give you the sense of orientation of the fault,
on which
the slip occured; but it does not give us the precise stress orientation and no
knowledge
of the stress magnitude. It gives you the sense of orientation and a sense of
relative
magnitude. And we could show that from the compiled intraplate earthquake data from
various
regions of the world where good data was available that almost always, it did seem
as if
one stress is vertical and the other two were about horizontal (but it wasn't a
precise
argument).
We can test the question: are the principal stresses acting in a vertical and
horizontal
planes; by observe the wellbore failures from deviated wells, as the principle of a
wellbore failure allow us to say something about the orientation of the stresses.
And the
answer in every case that we've tested it, in general, has been Yes. So throughout
all
these years, the assumption is still good, but it's not going to bee true everyday.