Authors: Prahastudhi, S; William, R; Bailey, E; de Beer, W

Open access courtesy of:

DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2645_61

Cite As:
Prahastudhi, S, William, R, Bailey, E & de Beer, W 2026, 'A study of seismic tomography for cave shape model estimation', in A van As, D Cumming-Potvin & J Wesseloo (eds), Caving 2026: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Block and Sublevel Caving, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1-11, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2645_61

Download citation as:   ris   bibtex   endnote   text   Zotero


Abstract:
In block caving operations, knowing the shape and the evolution of the cave is critical since these factors influence local and regional ground stability, and impact operational strategy. While open hole logging using a borehole camera is one of the most accurate methods for delineating the cave shape, drilling near the cave is challenging and largely impractical due to operational, economic and physical constraints. Operators therefore need indirect methods such as subsurface imaging. In seismology, passive tomography has several applications: it is used in studying the Earth’s structure, in mining, in the geothermal energy industry and in hydrocarbons extraction. Passive tomography uses seismic waves recorded by seismic arrays. A key advantage is that tomography is not dependent on the number of events, but instead relies on the relative distribution of sensors and events and on the density of ray paths. Tomographic inversion requires an initial velocity model. In applications which aim to track stress evolution around large voids, this seed model is usually a 3D (heterogeneous) velocity model derived from the estimated cave shape. This cave shape is informed by limited open hole measurements and/or height of draw (HOD) estimates that are subject to biases introduced by, for example, the flow model assumed. The use of such a model can lead to the inversion result being driven excessively by the 3D velocity model rather than by actual cave growth. In this study, we investigate time lapse passive tomography imaging in two different producing block caving mines and compare the results obtained with and without the seed 3D velocity model. This allows an assessment of the dependence of results on a priori assumptions and allows for comparison with open hole and HOD estimates.

References:
Afrouz, S & Westman, E 2018, ‘Review and simulation of passive seismic tomography in block cave mining’, in Y Potvin & J Jakubec (eds), Caving 2018, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 223–230,
1815_14_Afrouz
Chao, J, Ward, ES & Ober, RJ 2016, ‘Fisher information theory for parameter estimation in single molecule microscopy: tutorial’, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. B36–B57.
Crowley, J, Baig, A & Urbancic, T 2015, ‘4D tomography and deformation from microseismic data’, 85th Annual Meeting of the Society of Exploration Geophysics, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa.
Collins, D, Toya, Y, Pinnock, I, Shumila, V & Hosseini, Z 2014, ‘3D velocity model with complex geology and void for Microseismic location and mechanism’, in M Hudyma & Y Potvin (eds), Deep Mining 2014, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 681–689,
Dawn, T 2019, ‘Technologies of ground support monitoring in block caving operations’, in J Hadjigeorgiou & M Hudyma (eds), Ground Support 2019: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 109–122,
de Beer, W, William, R, Prahastudhi, S & Braim, M 2024, ‘Advanced analysis of seismic data to validate critical assumptions’, in P Andrieux & D Cumming-Potvin (eds), Deep Mining 2024: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 981–994, 
Grand, SP, van der Hilst, RD & Widiyantoro, S 1997, ‘Global seismic tomography: a snapshot of convection in the Earth’, GSA Today, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1–7.
Setiadi, H, Bagus, BEB, Nurhandoko, Wely, W, Riyanto, E 2015, ‘Prediction of subsurface fracture in mining zone of Papua using passive seismic tomography based on Fresnel zone’,  The 5th Asian Physics Symposium, AIP Publishing,
Kamp, C, Conley, A, Collins, DS, Preiksaitis, M, Butler, T & Shumila, V 2022, ‘Use of seismic tomography to aid rock mechanics interpretation at New Afton B3 block cave mine’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Caving 2022: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Block and Sublevel Caving, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 461–472, 
ACG_repo/2205_31
Melati, S, Wattimena, R, Sahara, D, Simangunsong, G, Wibowo, A, Hidayat, W & Riyanto, E 2025, ‘Modelling cave propagation in deep block caving by incorporating the fracture zone inferred from seismic tomography’, Mining of Mineral Deposits, vol. 19, no. 87–97,
Muttaqy, F, Nugraha, AD, Mori, J, Puspito, NT, Supendi, P & Rohadi, S 2022, ‘Seismic imaging of lithospheric structure beneath CentralEast Java Region, Indonesia: relation to recent earthquakes’, Frontiers in Earth Science, vol. 10, article 756806,
Rahman, A, Fransisco, L & Wahyudi, W 2013, ‘Application of passive seismic to minimize subsurface uncertainties in exploration, a case history of Selong and Akatara prospect, Jambi sub-basin’, HAGI-IAGI Joint Convention 2013.
Sainsbury, BL & Sainsbury, DP & Pierce, ME 2011, ‘A historical review of the development of numerical cave propagation simulations’, Proceedings of the 2nd International FLAC/DEM Symposium, ITASCA Consulting Group.
van der Weiden, R, Nayak, P & Swinburn, P 2012, ‘Seismic technology supporting reserves determinations: Gorgon Field, Australia’, The Leading Edge, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1050–1057.




© Copyright 2026, 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