4.7 Article

Investigation of coseismic and postseismic processes using in situ measurements of seismic velocity variations in an underground mine

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 42, Issue 21, Pages 9261-9269

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015GL065975

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Russian Science Foundation [14-47-00002]
  2. Russian Science Foundation [14-47-00002] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The in situ mechanical response of a rock mass to a sudden dynamic and static stress change is still poorly known. To tackle this question, we conducted an experiment in an underground mine to examine (1) the influence of dynamic and static stress perturbations on seismic velocities, (2) elastic static stress changes, and (3) induced earthquake activity associated with the blast and removal of a portion of hard rock. We accurately (0.01%) measured seismic velocity variations with ambient seismic noise correlations, located aftershock activity, and performed elastic static stress modeling. Overall, we observe that the blast induced a sudden decrease in seismic velocities over the entire studied area, which we interpreted as the damage due to the passing of strong seismic waves. This sudden process is followed by a slow relaxation lasting up to 5 days, while seismic activity returns to its background level after 2 days. In some locations, after the short-term effects of the blast have subsided, the seismic velocities converge to new baseline levels and permanent changes in seismic velocity become visible. After comparing the spatial pattern of permanent seismic velocity changes with elastic static stress modeling, we infer that the permanent seismic velocity changes are due to the change in the static volumetric stress induced by the removal of a solid portion of rock by the blast. To our knowledge, this is the first observation of noise-based permanent seismic velocity changes associated with static stress changes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available