Hudyma M., Beneteau D. and Potvin Y.

(2012)

Ge otechnique Letters 2, 37, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geolett.11.00022

Evaluating seismic source mechanism with phasor analysis

M. HUDYMA*, D. BENETEAU* and Y. POTVIN { Phasor analysis is a means of identifying if there are a significant number of construction blasts with a population of natural earthquakes. The application of phasor analysis has been extended to mininginduced seismic data. With a subtle modification, it can be used to infer seismic source mechanism in a population of mining-induced seismic events. A statistically significant phasor sum is related to stress-driven rockmass fracturing. For mining-induced seismic events on geological features, the phasor sum is random. The analysis can potentially identify temporal changes in seismic source mechanism. In some cases, the results of phasor analysis are scale dependent, giving insight into the breakdown of self-similarity for some populations of seismic events.
KEYWORDS: mining; seismicity
ICE Publishing: all rights reserved

INTRODUCTION A seismic source mechanism is the mode of rockmass failure resulting in a seismic event. There are two predominant mechanisms of mining-induced seismicity: events related directly to mining activities and events associated with movement on large-scale geological discontinuities (Gibowicz, 1990). Frequently, these two mechanisms occur concurrently and in the same physical space, making determination of the seismic source mechanism difficult. Understanding the seismic source mechanism is important as it leads to an appreciation of the influence of the geological setting, induced stress conditions and mining practices on dynamic rockmass failure processes. There are two general categories of methodologies used to evaluate seismic source mechanisms: direct waveform techniques and indirect, inferred techniques. Direct waveform techniques involve analysis of individual ground motion seismograms, collected at a number of seismic receivers, for one seismic event. The seismic source mechanism is assessed from the energy radiation pattern for that seismic event. Frequently, the focal coverage and quality of data are insufficient for direct waveform techniques to be reliable and conclusive. The second approach infers the predominant seismic source mechanism of a population of many seismic events, using generalisations of seismic source parameters. The principal assumption is that the majority of seismic events have similar seismic source mechanisms and hence will have similar trends in seismic source parameters. Natural earthquake models imply a self-similar rupture process, regardless of the scale of the seismic event. However, many studies suggest that self-similar rupture processes do not apply to mining-induced seismicity (Gibowicz & Kijko, 1994) and investigations of mining-induced seismicity suggest a breakdown of self-similarity between large and small events (Gibowicz et al., 1990; Trifu et al., 1993; Finnie, 1999). Most of these studies conclude that a varying seismic source mechanism is the primary reason for the breakdown in
Manuscript received 17 March 2011; first decision 13 June 2011; accepted 9 January 2012. Published online at www.geotechniqueletters.com on 10 February 2012. *School of Engineering, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada {Australian Centre for Geomechanics, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

self-similarity. This paper proposes a technique to aid in determination of the seismic source mechanism and to test for self-similarity within a seismic dataset. PHASOR ANALYSIS Background The time of day of the occurrence of seismic events is a seismic source parameter that has the potential to infer the seismic source mechanism. The timing of seismic events can be analysed using the Schuster test (1897), a statistical test for investigating periodicities. In Schusters analysis, the time of each seismic event is plotted as a unit length phasor, in polar coordinates. Phasors for each of the events in a seismic catalogue are combined consecutively in chronological order to create a resultant, or phasor sum (Rydelek & Sacks, 1989). If the times of events are truly random, the trace of the phasor sum will be a random walk with a resultant of zero. If the time of events is not random, the trace of the phasor sum exhibits a directional trend, or walkout. Rydelek & Sacks (1989) noted that if a seismic record is random (for a confidence of 95%), the random walkout length R should not exceed 1?73N1/2, where N is the total number of events in the seismic record. Rydelek & Hass (1994) proposed the use of phasor diagrams to determine if significant numbers of blasts were contained within earthquake seismic catalogues. The time of day of natural earthquakes is random. However, blasts are commonly initiated at one (or a few) pre-determined times during the day, commonly at the end of a working shift in a quarry or mine. Rydelek & Hass (1994) concluded that if the trace of the phasor sum is random, it can be inferred that there are few blasts in the seismic record. If there is a significant population of blasts within the seismic record, the trace of the phasor sum will have a walkout towards the blast time. Applying phasor analysis to mining-induced seismicity Stress readjustments, induced by a mine blast, commonly trigger mining-induced seismic events in the few hours after the blast. Phasor analysis can be used to identify these temporal increases in seismic event occurrence. If a statistically significant phasor walkout occurs at the mine blast time, it can be inferred that the predominant seismic source mechanism is mining-induced stress rockmass 3

4
06:00

Hudyma, Beneteau and Potvin information for meaningful phasor analysis results. In most cases, blasts occur in one or two short time periods at the end of a work shift. The number of blast times per day can be quickly and easily determined using diurnal, or time of day, analysis (Cook, 1976). Figure 3 shows an hourly diurnal histogram of the data used in the examples in Figs 2(a) and 2(b). Figure 3 shows two anomalous periods of events at approximately 06:00 and 18:00, identifying the two blast times at the mine. If the number of mine blasts per day is unknown, phasor analysis may potentially give misleading results. Scale dependence and self-similarity of seismic events Phasor analysis offers the opportunity to test whether the inferred mechanism is consistent for an entire population of seismic events or whether there are different mechanisms for large events and small events. Figure 4(a) shows the phasor sum for a population of more than 1300 mininginduced seismic events located on a group of stiff porphyry dykes. There is a clear walkout in the 12 h phasor diagram, corresponding to blast times of approximately 06:00 and 18:00. However, when the data are filtered for event magnitude, there is a marked change in the trend of the phasor trace. For the 269 events with a magnitude M greater than 21?0 (Fig. 4(b)), the phasor sum no longer shows a distinct walkout trend towards the mine central blast time. For events larger than magnitude 20?5 and magnitude 0?0, there is no longer a statistically significant walkout (Figs 4(c) and 4(d) respectively). It could be inferred that the smaller events (less than magnitude 21?0) are induced directly by mining processes (mine blasting) whereas the larger events (greater than magnitude 20?5) occur randomly in time, suggesting a different seismic source mechanism. This example suggests that scale dependence of phasor analysis is a potential test for the presence of multiple seismic source mechanisms within a population of events. This has been identified as one of the prevailing causes for a breakdown in self-similarity in mining-induced seismicity (Gibowicz, 1990). Chronological considerations Each event in the population is added to the phasor sum chronologically. If the seismic source mechanism of the mining-induced seismicity changes, this may be reflected in the chronological trend of the phasor sum. Figure 5 shows the phasor trend of a population of seismic events on a mine fault. Early on in the seismic record there is active development mining through the mine fault. It is presumed that the events induced by the development mining should predominantly occur at blast time, as was found in the example in Fig. 2(b). Correspondingly, there is a clear walkout early in the seismic data between points A (April
(b) 03:00 15:00

00:00 12:00

18:00

Fig. 1. Phasor diagram for a population of mining-induced seismic events on a distant geological feature

fracturing. If the phasor sum for a population of seismic events has a small resultant, the events occurred randomly in time. This is a widely observed generalisation of the time of occurrence of seismic events associated with movement on geological discontinuities. This generalisation is tested, in this paper, against a population of mining-induced seismic events that occurred on a regional fault near a sublevel caving mine. The fault is located approximately 500 m into the footwall of the mine and the seismic activity is assumed to be related to shear movement on the fault. Figure 1 shows the phasor sum for 1510 events, with the 95% confidence walkout limit (R) represented as a circle. The events occur randomly in time, suggesting no influence of mine blasting on the occurrence of seismic events. Figure 2(a) shows the phasor sum for a population of 24 000 mining-induced seismic events in close proximity to the orebody (less than 100 m). Although there is a statistically significant walkout, it is not towards the blast times of the mine of 06:00 and 18:00. When there are two end-of-shift blast times in the mine, the phasor analysis needs to be modified. Two blast times may potentially cause the phasor trace to oscillate between the two times, giving a small resultant. Figure 2(b) shows the phasor sum of the population using a 12 h time period for the phasor plot rather than a 24 h time period. The 12 h phasor shows a dramatic walkout at blast time, suggesting that this seismic event population is strongly influenced by mine blasting. These examples demonstrate that phasor analysis can differentiate between structurally related seismic source mechanisms and seismic source mechanisms directly triggered by blasting-induced stress changes. Figure 2(b) also demonstrates that knowledge of the number of potential blast times per day is essential a priori
(a) 06:00

12:00 00:00

06:00/18:00 00:00/12:00

18:00

09:00 21:00

Fig. 2. Phasor sum for 24 000 mining-induced seismic events using (a) a 24 h period and (b) a 12 h period

Evaluating seismic source mechanism with phasor analysis

14

12

Proportion of total number of events: %

10

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour of day

Fig. 3. Diurnal analysis shows two daily time periods of significantly high rates of seismicity, identifying two blast times at a mine

2000) and B (December 2000). Chronologically, at point B, development mining ceased and the phasor no longer exhibited the walkout trend towards the 06:00 and 18:00 blast time. The events recorded after point B (December 2000) do not exhibit a significant directional trend in the phasor sum. This result is consistent with the occurrence of events on mine faults, which are commonly found to be temporally unrelated to blasting. For the same data, Fig. 6 shows the phasor trend for all of the events of magnitude greater than 0. There is no

phasor walkout and the events are presumed to be random in time. The occurrence of mining-induced events, related to stress change rockmass failure mechanisms, coincides with blast times. It can be inferred that the mechanism of the smaller events is predominantly due to a mininginduced seismic source mechanism, while the larger events are predominantly due to a geological seismic source mechanism. A breakdown in self-similarity of seismic source mechanisms can thus be identified with phasor analysis.

03:00 15:00

03:00 15:00

06:00 18:00 (a) All events N = 1383 R = 64.3

00:00 12:00

06:00 18:00 (b) M > 1.0 N = 269 R = 28.4

00:00 12:00

09:00 21:00 03:00 15:00

09:00 21:00 03:00 15:00

06:00 18:00 (c) M > 0.5 N = 67 R = 14.2

00:00 12:00

06:00 18:00 (d) M > 0.0 N = 14 R = 6.5

00:00 12:00

09:00 21:00

09:00 21:00

Fig. 4. Scale dependence of phasor sums: as the magnitude increases, there ceases to be a statistically significant walkout

Hudyma, Beneteau and Potvin

03:00 15:00

B A

06:00 18:00

00:00 12:00

09:00 21:00

Fig. 5. Changes in walkout over time. Between points A and B there is a strong walkout at blast time; after point B, the phasor sum is non-directional

03:00 15:00

06:00 18:00

00:00 12:00

Phasor results for common seismic source mechanisms in mines An investigation into common sources of mining-induced seismic events, seismic source mechanisms and phasor analysis was conducted by Hudyma (2009). Table 1 presents a generalisation of typical phasor sums for common seismic sources in mines, based on a number of case studies of mining-induced seismicity in Canadian and Australian mines. Seismic events induced by stress change from mine blasting, either near development headings or in stope abutments, typically have a phasor sum with a strong walkout. Mining-induced seismic events on geological features or associated with rockmass caving typically do not exhibit a statistically significant walkout. Mininginduced seismicity on stiff dykes and in mine pillars often has a scale-dependent walkout, with smaller events having a significant walkout at the mine blast time, but the larger events occurring randomly over time. SUMMARY The application of phasor analysis has been extended to mining-induced seismicity to gain an insight into seismic source mechanisms. By investigating the scale dependence of phasor sums, it can be shown that seismic source mechanisms of small events may be different from those of large events. In addition, phasor analysis offers an

09:00 21:00

Fig. 6. For events greater than magnitude 0, there is no phasor sum walkout

Table 1. Phasor walkouts for common seismic sources in mines (Hudyma, 2009) Seismic source Stress change from mine blasting in development headings Stope abutments Uncontrolled rockmass caving Mine faults Stiff dykes and intrusions Mine pillars Predominant rockmass failure mechanism Stress-driven rockmass fracturing Stress-driven rockmass fracturing Stress-driven rockmass fracturing or shear along rockmass discontinuities Shear along the fault Stress-driven rockmass fracturing or shear along the dyke contacts Stress-driven rockmass fracturing Largest expected event (moment magnitude) Less than 0 0 to +1 Less than 0 +1 to +4 +1 to +2 +1 to +3 Phasor walkout Yes Yes No No Scale dependent Scale dependent

Evaluating seismic source mechanism with phasor analysis opportunity to investigate temporal changes in seismic source mechanisms. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere thanks to two anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments substantially improved this article. The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Deep Mining Research Consortium and the project sponsors of the Mine Seismicity and Rockburst Risk Management research project at the Australian Centre for Geomechanics. REFERENCES
Cook, N. G. W. (1976). Seismicity associated with mining. Engng Geol. 10, 99122. Finnie, G. J. (1999). Some statistical aspects of mining induced seismic events. Proceedings of SARES99, 2nd South African Rock Engineering Symposium, Johannesburg (Hagan T. O. (ed.)). Johannesburg: South African National Institute of Rock Engineering, pp. 132139.

Gibowicz, S. J. (1990). The mechanism of seismic events induced by mining a review. Proceedings of Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Minneapolis (Fairhurst C. (ed.)). Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 327. Gibowicz, S. J. & Kijko, A. (1994). An introduction to mining seismology, 1st edn. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Gibowicz, S. J., Harges, H.-P. & Schafer, M. (1990). Source parameters of seismic events at Heinrich Robert Mine, Ruhr Basin, Federal Republic of Germany: evidence for non-double couple events. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 80, No. 1, 88109. Hudyma, M. R. (2009). Analysis and interpretation of clusters of seismic events in mines. PhD thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth. Rydelek, P. A. & Hass, L. (1994). On estimating the amount of blasts in seismic catalogs. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, No. 4, 12561259. Rydelek, P. A. & Sacks, I. S. (1989). Testing the completeness of earthquake catalogues and the hypothesis of self-similarity. Nature 337, 251253. Schuster, A. (1897). On lunar and solar periodicities of earthquakes. Proc. Roy. Soc. 61, 455465. Trifu, C.-I., Urbancic, T. I. & Young, R. P. (1993). Non-similar frequency-magnitude distribution for M , 1 seismicity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 20, No. 6, 427430.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a discussion.