4.6 Article

Dynamic triggering of microseismicity in a mine setting

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL
Volume 202, Issue 2, Pages 728-737

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggv159

Keywords

Time-series analysis; Downhole methods; Earthquake dynamics; Early warning; Computational seismology

Funding

  1. Microseismic Industry Consortium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examine spatio-temporal patterns of microseismicity recorded during one month in an underground mine by addressing three key questions: (1) where does the seismicity occur? (2) Why does it occur in these locations? and (3) what triggers it? To obtain accurate locations, we perform a multiplet analysis and use a modified version of the double-difference (DD) relocation method. This approach leads to highly accurate relative event locations and requires groups of multiplets only. Most of the 281 relocated events are close to the main shaft and tunnels; thus we postulate seismicity is facilitated by stresses associated with the potential for subsidence in addition to the hoop stresses acting on the two vertical shafts. Most events occurred during certain hours of the day and there is a 68 per cent correlation with reported rock removal; therefore, it is likely they were triggered by static and dynamic stress perturbations caused by the transportation of debris along tunnels instead of our initial guess that blasting was the principal causative mechanism. Given that seismicity is present around the main shaft but absent close to the second one, we conclude that for seismicity to occur both a favourable stress state and additional external perturbing forces must exist, thus leading to dynamic event triggering in an initially stable stress situation. This analysis provides more insight into anthropogenic processes that might trigger seismicity, thereby facilitating identification of hazardous and potential damage areas in mine settings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available