Assessment and testing of seismic hazard for planned mining sequences
|
Authors: Malovichko, DA Open access courtesy of:
|
DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_rep/1704_02_Malovichko
Cite As:
Malovichko, DA 2017, 'Assessment and testing of seismic hazard for planned mining sequences', in J Wesseloo (ed.), Deep Mining 2017: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 61-77, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_rep/1704_02_Malovichko
Abstract:
An approach to assess seismic and ground motion hazard associated with scenario(s) of future mining is suggested. The key element of the approach is the modelling of expected seismicity using the Salamon–Linkov method (Malovichko & Basson 2014) and combining the catalogues of modelled and observed seismic events. The modelling domain is discretised and it is assumed that the potency frequency distribution in each grid point can be described by the Upper Truncated model. The upper cutoff potency Pmax and slope β are presumed the same for all grid points. Pmax is estimated from the combined (observed and modelled) seismic catalogue using record theory (Section 3.4 of Mendecki 2016) and the slope β is evaluated from observed data. The parameter α of the Upper Truncated model is inferred from cumulative potency, which is calculated for each grid point using the combined catalogue of events. The probabilities of occurrence of events exceeding a specific potency are derived for each grid point, assuming that the temporal occurrence of events follows a Poisson distribution. The assessment of ground motion hazard is based on Monte Carlo simulation of ground motion accounting for uncertainties in the Ground Motion Prediction Equation and variation of expected seismicity according to the described above estimate of seismic hazard. There are two utilities of assessment of seismic and ground motion hazard in mines. Firstly, the calculated probabilities can be categorised in terms of the hazard likelihoods specified in the risk assessment matrix established at the mine. This can guide a geotechnical engineer in the required actions. Secondly, the evaluated seismic and ground motion hazard can be rigorously tested after the period of forecast is expired and the actual seismic response to planned mining is recorded. The testing procedures established in crustal seismology can be adopted. The poor performance of the forecast needs to be explained in geomechanical terms and corresponding settings of the modelling of seismicity have to be updated. The suggested approach of forecasting the seismic and ground motion hazard, as well as retrospective testing of the seismic hazard, are illustrated using planned mining sequence and seismic data from Renison mine, Australia.
Keywords: seismicity, modelling, seismic hazard, ground motion hazard
References:
Arndt, S, Louchnikov, V, Weller, S & O’Hare, A 2013, ‘Forecasting mining induced seismicity from modelled energy release in high stress stope extraction’, in A Malovichko & D Malovichko (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Geophysical Survey of Russian Academy of Sciences, Obninsk, and Mining Institute of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Perm, pp. 267–272.
Beck, DA & Brady, BHG 2002, ‘Evaluation and application of controlling parameters for seismic events in hard-rock mines’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 633–642.
Beck, D, Reusch, F & Arndt, S 2007, ‘Estimating the probability of mining-induced seismic events using mine-scale, inelastic numerical models’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 31–42.
Bird, P & Kagan, YY 2004, ‘Plate-tectonic analysis of shallow seismicity: Apparent boundary width, beta, corner magnitude, coupled lithosphere thickness, and coupling in seven tectonic settings’, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 2380–2399.
Board, MP 1994, Numerical examination of mining-induced seismicity, PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pp. 480.
Field, EH 2007, ‘Overview of the working group for the development of regional earthquake likelihood models (RELM)’, Seismological Research Letters, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 7–16.
Kagan, YY, Jackson, DD & Rong, Y 2007, ‘A testable five-year forecast of moderate and large earthquakes in Southern California based on smoothed seismicity’, Seismological Research Letters, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 94–98.
Levkovitch, V, Beck, D & Reusch, F 2013, ‘Numerical simulation of the released energy in strain-softening rock materials and its application in estimating seismic hazards in mines’, in A Malovichko & D Malovichko (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Geophysical Survey of Russian Academy of Sciences, Obninsk, and Mining Institute of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Perm, pp. 259–266.
Linkov, AM 2005, ‘Numerical modeling of seismic and aseismic events in geomechanics’, Journal of Mining Sciences, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 14–26.
Linkov, AM 2013, ‘Keynote lecture: Numerical modelling of seismicity: Theory and applications’, in A Malovichko & D Malovichko (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Geophysical Survey of Russian Academy of Sciences, Obninsk, and Mining Institute of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Perm, pp. 197–218.
Linkov, AM, Rybarska-Rusinek, L & Zoubkov, VV 2016, ‘Reasonable sets of input parameters and output distributions for simulation of seismicity’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 84, pp. 87–94.
Malovichko, D & Basson, G 2014, ‘Simulation of mining induced seismicity using Salamon–Linkov method’, in M Hudyma & Y Potvin (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 667–680.
Mendecki, AJ 2016, Mine Seismology Reference Book: Seismic Hazard, Institute of Mine Seismology, pp. 88.
Mendecki, AJ & Lötter, EC 2011, ‘Modelling seismic hazard for mines’, Proceedings of the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2011 Conference, 18–20 November 2011, Barossa Valley, viewed 6 November 2016,
Salamon, MDG 1993, ‘Keynote address: Some applications of geomechanical modelling in rockburst and related research’, in P Young (ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 297–309.
Schorlemmer, D, Gerstenberger, MC, Wiemer, S, Jackson, DD & Rhoades, DA 2007, ‘Earthquake likelihood model testing’, Seismological Research Letters, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 17–29.
Schorlemmer, D, Zechar, JD, Werner, MJ, Jackson, DD, Field, EH, Jordan, TH & the RELM Working Group 2010, ‘First results of the Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models experiment’, Pure and Applied Geophysics, vol. 167, no. 8/9, pp. 859–876.
Sellers, EJ & Napier, JAL 2001, ‘A point kernel representation of large-scale seismic activity in mining’, in G van Aswegen, RJ Durrheim & WD Ortlepp (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, pp. 405–411.
Spottiswoode, S 2001, ‘Keynote address: Synthetic seismicity mimics observed seismicity in deep tabular mines’, in G van Aswegen, RJ Durrheim & WD Ortlepp (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, pp. 371–377.
Spottiswoode, SM & Drummond, M 2014, ‘Pillar behaviour and seismicity in platinum mines’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 14, pp. 801–809.
Wesseloo, J 2013, ‘Towards real-time probabilistic hazard assessment of the current hazard state for mines’, in A Malovichko & D Malovichko (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Geophysical Survey of Russian Academy of Sciences, Obninsk, and Mining Institute of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Perm, pp. 307–312.
Wiemer, S & Schorlemmer, D 2007, ‘ALM: An asperity-based likelihood model for California’, Seismological Research Letters, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 134–140.
Zechar, JD, 2010, ‘Evaluating earthquake predictions and earthquake forecasts: a guide for students and new researchers’, Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis, viewed 6 November 2016,
Zechar, JD & Jordan, TH 2008, ‘Testing alarm-based earthquake predictions’, Geophysical Journal International, vol. 172,
pp. 715–724.
Zechar, JD, Schorlemmer, D, Liukis, M, Yu, J, Euchner, F, Maechling, PJ & Jordan, TH 2010, ‘The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability perspective on computational earthquake science’, Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, vol. 22, pp. 1836–1847.
© Copyright 2024, Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG), The University of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
View copyright/legal information
Please direct any queries or error reports to repository-acg@uwa.edu.au
View copyright/legal information
Please direct any queries or error reports to repository-acg@uwa.edu.au