Identification of Stress Change Within a Rock Mass Through Apparent Stress of Local Seismic Events

Brown, L. G.; Hudyma, Marty

doi:10.1007/s00603-016-1092-z

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Brown and Hudyma (2017) proposed to use the differences between experimental E S estimates and theoretical E S values derived from a scaling model such as Equation , where the input is the seismic moment M 0 from recorded earthquakes, as an indicator of the stress around mining sites. Similarly, we define the Energy Index (EI) as the difference between the observed E S and the values associated with the median E S ‐to‐M 0 scaling model (Equation ; hereinafter referred to as the reference model, E S‐R )

\mathrm{E}\mathrm{I}=\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left({\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{S}-\mathrm{o}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}}\right)-\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left({\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{S}-\mathrm{R}}\right)=\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left({\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{S}-\mathrm{o}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}}\right)-\left[\mathrm{a}\,\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left({\mathrm{M}}_{0-\mathrm{o}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}}\right)+\mathrm{b}\right]

…”

Section: Energy‐to‐moment Scaling and Energy Indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal Evolution of Radiated Energy to Seismic Moment Scaling During the Preparatory Phase of the Mw 6.1, 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake (Italy)

Picozzi

Spallarossa

Iaccarino

et al. 2022

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the preparatory phase of the 2009, Mw 6.1 L’Aquila earthquake in central Italy by analyzing the temporal evolution and spatial distribution of the seismic moment, M0, to radiated energy, ES. Our approach focuses on monitoring the deviations of the scaling between M0 and ES with respect to a model calibrated for the background seismicity. The temporal evolution of these deviations, defined as Energy Index (EI), identifies the onset of the activation phase 1 week before the mainshock. We show that foreshocks are characterized by a progressive increase in slip per unit stress, in agreement with the diffusion of highly pressurized fluids before the L’Aquila earthquake proposed by previous studies. Our results suggest that the largest events occur where energy index (EI) is highest, in agreement with the existing link between energy index (EI) and the mean loading stress.

show abstract

\mathrm{E}\mathrm{I}=\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left({\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{S}-\mathrm{o}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}}\right)-\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left({\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{S}-\mathrm{R}}\right)=\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left({\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{S}-\mathrm{o}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}}\right)-\left[\mathrm{a}\,\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left({\mathrm{M}}_{0-\mathrm{o}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}}\right)+\mathrm{b}\right]

…”

Section: Energy‐to‐moment Scaling and Energy Indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal Evolution of Radiated Energy to Seismic Moment Scaling During the Preparatory Phase of the Mw 6.1, 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake (Italy)

Picozzi

Spallarossa

Iaccarino

et al. 2022

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The seismic monitoring system localises and provides a series of quantitative assessments on seismic events, such as magnitude, moment, and energy ratio. Since its installation, the seismic system has become an essential tool to capture the evolution of the seismic risk as mining progresses (Brown & Hudyma 2017) and to assess and mitigate seismic hazards by limiting exposure during times of increased hazard through the application of re-entry protocols (Vallejos & McKinnon 2011).…”

Section: Seismic Monitoring At the Mine Sitementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In practice, seismic events are typically used to infer information about the local rock mass failure based on parameters such as event magnitude. Regions within the rock mass that produce larger magnitude events typically correlate well with competent rock capable of storing large quantities of energy prior to failure (Brown & Hudyma 2017). The energy released by the failure determines the size or intensity of a seismic event (Potvin 2009).…”

Section: Local Magnitudementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the contribution of seismicity to the demand on ground support elements at LaRonde mine

Sasseville¹,

Grenon²,

Morissette³

2019

Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic activity is known to affect the short-and long-term behaviour of mining ground support, yet the influence of seismicity on ground support demand is not fully understood. This paper quantitatively assesses the influence of various seismic parameters on the performance and degradation of ground support elements. A large database was created using the LaRonde mine (Quebec, Canada) as a case study, which consolidates information on the history of the rock support of an entire mine sector comprising 18.5 km of drifts: type, installation date, and behaviour over time. This database was linked with the seismic event database available at the mine. Analyses identified various seismic parameters (i.e. large seismic events, number of seismic events, increase in apparent stress, b-value from the Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude relationship, peak particle velocity, and energy radiated from the event) as precursory trends that may influence the performance and degradation of ground support elements. A key finding is that the number of seismic events and their magnitude are contributing factors in controlling the demand on ground support. A high number of seismic events and high local magnitude event have frequently been recorded before observing degradation on ground support elements. Another important finding is that the demand on ground support cannot be explained entirely by seismicity; it is also controlled by other site factors.

show abstract

“…Increasing stress conditions store more energy while simultaneously increasing confining forces and reducing deformation (seismic moment). This enables apparent stress to be used as a proxy for increasing stress conditions in a rock mass (Brown & Hudyma 2017). Other studies have drawn similar conclusions regarding apparent stress and rock mass stress (e.g.…”

Section: E = Seismic Energy (J)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying a migrating stress front using apparent stress for an unplanned rock mass cave

Brown¹,

Hudyma²

2018

Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Block and Sublevel Caving

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Throughout a mining environment, variations in geotechnical and stress conditions can lead to unplanned rock mass failure. For operations with microseismic monitoring capabilities, seismic event locations and source parameters can often provide significant insight into rock mass failure processes. This paper presents observed variations in the seismic source parameter, apparent stress, during an unplanned rock mass cave in a deep Canadian mine. Over the course of six months, the rock mass cave propagates upwards more than 75 m, at more than 1,000 m depth below surface. Emphasis is placed on identifying zones of relatively high rock mass stress as the cave propagates upwards over time.

show abstract

Identification of Stress Change Within a Rock Mass Through Apparent Stress of Local Seismic Events

Cited by 19 publications

References 4 publications

Temporal Evolution of Radiated Energy to Seismic Moment Scaling During the Preparatory Phase of the Mw 6.1, 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake (Italy)

Temporal Evolution of Radiated Energy to Seismic Moment Scaling During the Preparatory Phase of the Mw 6.1, 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake (Italy)

Assessing the contribution of seismicity to the demand on ground support elements at LaRonde mine

Identifying a migrating stress front using apparent stress for an unplanned rock mass cave

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About