Advertisement

Stress Redistribution Monitoring Using Passive Seismic Tomography at a Deep Nickel Mine

  • Xu MaEmail author
  • Erik Westman
  • Farid Malek
  • Mike Yao
Original Paper
  • 93 Downloads

Abstract

High magnitude seismic events (HMSE), also called major events, triggered at underground mines can severely threaten safety and structures in mines. The aims of this work are to assess stress evolution with the occurrence of them and identify patterns in stress change. Several methods were used to help understand the stress redistribution and rock mass behavior related to two HMSE with moment magnitude greater than 1.0 in a deep nickel mine. Approximately 46,500 seismic events were compiled with 2 HMSE at this mine and used seismic tomography to obtain high-resolution images and temporal-spatial velocity changes before and after these events. This work exhibited surrounding stress evolution and geological structures. Seismic imaging results show that velocity increased in the nearby regions of HMSE before they were triggered. Stress subsequently reduced in the relaxation process after the occurrence of HMSE. Conversely, regions predominantly occupied by low-velocity anomalies increased to higher stress levels after HMSE. Overall, the stress redistributed toward an equilibrium state following HMSE. This study highlights the value of utilizing seismic tomography for estimating stress evolution associated with HMSE. The findings illuminate the applications of seismic imaging around HMSE of hard-rock mines, providing insights into seismic hazard mitigation for deep mining.

Keywords

Mining-induced seismicity Seismic imaging High magnitude seismic events (HMSE) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Vale Canada Limited provided the field data for this study. Support for this project came from the Canadian Mining Industry Research Organization and a NIOSH Ground Control Capacity Building grant (contract 200-2011-40313).

References

  1. Baig AM, Bosman K, Urbancic TI (2017) Temporal changes in stress state imaged through seismic tomography. In: proceedings of the eighth international conference on deep and high stress mining. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp. 269–274Google Scholar
  2. Beck DA, Brady BHG (2002) Evaluation and application and controlling parameters for seismic events in hard-rock mines. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:633–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady BHG, Brown ET (2013) Rock mechanics: for underground mining. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  4. Eberhart-Phillips D (1986) Three-dimensional velocity structure in northern California Coast Ranges from inversion of local earthquake arrival times. Bull Seismol Soc Am 76(4):1025–1052Google Scholar
  5. Friedel MJ, Scott DF, Williams TJ (1997) Temporal imaging of mine-induced stress change using seismic tomography. Eng Geol 46:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hudyma M, Potvin YH (2010) An engineering approach to seismic risk management in hardrock mines. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43(6):891–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Inbal A, Clayton RW, Ampuero JP (2015) Imaging widespread seismicity at midlower crustal depths beneath Long Beach, CA, with a dense seismic array: evidence for a depth-dependent earthquake size distribution. Geophys Res Lett 42:6314–6323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krauß F, Giese R, Alexandrakis C, Buske S (2014) Seismic travel-time and attenuation tomography to characterize the excavation damaged zone and the surrounding rock mass of a newly excavated ramp and chamber. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 70:524–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leake MR, Conrad WJ, Westman EC et al (2017) Microseismic monitoring and analysis of induced seismicity source mechanisms in a retreating room and pillar coal mine in the Eastern United States. Undergr Sp 2:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Luxbacher K, Westman E, Swanson P, Karfakis M (2008) Three-dimensional time-lapse velocity tomography of an underground longwall panel. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:478–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ma X, Westman EC, Fahrman BP, Thibodeau D (2016) Imaging of temporal stress redistribution due to triggered seismicity at a deep nickel mine. Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment 5:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malek F, Espley S, Yao M, Trifu C (2008) Management of high stress and seismicity at Vale Inco Creighton Mine. In: the 42nd US rock mechanics symposium (USRMS). American rock mechanics associationGoogle Scholar
  13. Malek F, Suorineni FT, Vasak P (2009) Geomechanics strategies for rockburst management at vale inco creighton mine. In: ROCKENG09: proceedings of the 3rd Canada-US rock mechanics symposium, vol 4234. p 12Google Scholar
  14. Mansurov VA (2001) Prediction of rockbursts by analysis of induced seismicity data. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:893–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Omi T, Ogata Y, Hirata Y, Aihara K (2013) Forecasting large aftershocks within one day after the main shock. Sci Rep 3:2218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sakaguchi K, Yokoyama T (2017) Changes in in situ rock stress before and after the major 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Procedia Eng 191:768–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sakaguchi K, Yokoyama T, Lin W, Watanabe N (2017) Stress buildup and drop in inland shallow crust caused by the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake events. Sci Rep 7:10242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seebold I, Lehmann B, Arribas A et al (1999) Development of tomographic systems for mining, mineral exploration and environmental purposes. Trans Inst Min Metall Sect B Applied Earth Sci 108:105–118Google Scholar
  19. Šílený J, Milev A (2008) Source mechanism of mining induced seismic events—resolution of double couple and non double couple models. Tectonophysics 456:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Snelling PE, Godin L, McKinnon SD (2013) The role of geologic structure and stress in triggering remote seismicity in Creighton Mine, Sudbury, Canada. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 58:166–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sweby G, Trifu C, Goodchild D, Morris L (2006) High resolution seismic monitoring at Mt Keith open pit mine. In: Golden rocks 2006, The 41st US symposium on rock mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar
  22. Trifu CI, Urbancic TI, Young RP (1995) Source parameters of mining-induced seismic events: an evaluation of homogeneous and inhomogeneous faulting models for assessing damage potential. Pure Appl Geophys 145:3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Urbancic T, Trifu C (2000) Recent advances in seismic monitoring technology at Canadian mines. J Appl Geophys 45(4):225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vallejos J, McKinnon S (2010) Omori’s law applied to mining-induced seismicity and re-entry protocol development. Pure Appl Geophys 167(1–2):91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vallejos J, McKinnon S (2011) Correlations between mining and seismicity for re-entry protocol development. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:616–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Westman EC, Luxbacher K, Schafrik S (2012) Passive seismic tomography for three-dimensional time-lapse imaging of mining-induced rock mass changes. Lead Edge 31(3):338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Westman EC, Molka RJ, Conrad WJ (2017) Ground control monitoring of retreat room–and–pillar mine in Central Appalachia. Int J Min Sci Technol 27:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. White JA, Foxall W (2016) Assessing induced seismicity risk at CO2 storage projects: recent progress and remaining challenges. Int J Greenh Gas Control 49:413–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Young RP, Maxwell SC (1992) Seismic characterization of a highly stressed rock mass using tomographic imaging and induced seismicity. J Geophys Res Earth 97:12361–12373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Young R, Collins D, Reyes-Montes J (2004) Quantification and interpretation of seismicity. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:1317–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang H, Thurber C (2003a) User’s manual for tomoDD1. 1 (double-difference tomography) for determining event locations and velocity structure from local earthquakes and explosions. Department of geology and geophysics. University of Wisconsin–Madison, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang H, Thurber CH (2003b) Double-difference tomography: the method and its application to the Hayward fault, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(5):1875–1889CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mining and Minerals EngineeringVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Division of Mining and Geotechnical EngineeringLuleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden
  3. 3.Creighton Mine, Vale Canada LimitedSudburyCanada
  4. 4.Mining and Mineral Processing TECVale Canada LimitedSudburyCanada

Personalised recommendations