Acta Geophysica

, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp 837–847

# Simple GMPE for underground mines

• Aleksander J. Mendecki
Research Article - Anthropogenic Hazard

## Abstract

A simple ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) is developed for peak ground velocity, PGV, and for cumulative absolute displacement, CAD, for underground mines. Assuming the ground velocity at source, $$\text{PGV}_{0}=0.63 v_{S} \Delta \epsilon$$ where $$v_{S}$$ is S-wave velocity and $$\Delta \epsilon$$ is the average strain change at seismic sources (Brune in J Geophys Res 75(26):4997–5009, 1970; Kanamori in Phys Earth Planet Inter 5:426–434, 1972), is independent of seismic potency, P, then $$\overline{\text{PGV}}\left( P,R\right) = \text{PGV}_{0} \cdot B$$, where $$B = \left[ c_{L}P^{1/3}/\left( R+c_{L}P^{1/3}\right) \right] ^{c_{R}}$$ and R is distance. Assuming after Eshelby that at source $$\text{CAD}_{0} = q_{0}$$$$\Delta \epsilon ^{2/3} P^{1/3}$$, then $$\overline{\text{CAD}}\left( P,R\right) = \text{CAD}_{0} \cdot B$$, where $$q_{0}=0.828494$$. The S-wave velocity and the strain drop are strongly constrained by the type of rock and can be assumed, therefore both GMPE have only two parameters to be inverted from ground motion data: $$c_{L}$$ and $$c_{R}$$. There is no provision made for site effect since in mines almost all sensors are placed in boreholes away from excavations. The basic outcome of ground motion hazard analysis for a given site is a seismic hazard curve that shows the annual rate, or probability, at which a specific ground motion level will be exceeded. It is expected that CAD that includes both the peak and the duration of ground motion may be a better indicator of damage potential than PGV alone, being a single measurement over the whole waveform. Two simple applications are presented. (1) A graphical trigger for damage inspection when the PGV predicted for an event at selected sites exceeds a predetermined level. (2) The cumulative CAD plot that may be a useful tool to monitor the consumption of the deformation capacity of the support due to seismicity.

## Keywords

Ground motion prediction Near-source ground motion Cumulative absolute displacement

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

I thank Peter Mountfort for discussion on seismic sensor characteristics and for assistance with testing the quality of data. Peter Hills assisted in data collection from the BCF mine. I would like to thank Peter Kaiser for motivating me to develop GMPE for CAD. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewer whose comments and recommendations improved the text.

## References

1. Abrahamson NA, Youngs RR (1992) A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82(1):505–510Google Scholar
2. Ambraseys NN (1969) Maximum intensity of ground movements caused by faulting. In: Proceedings of the 4th world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, A2, pp 154–171Google Scholar
3. Atkinson GM (2015) Ground motion prediction equation for small to moderate events at short hypocentral distances, with application to induced seismicity hazards. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(2A):981–992.
4. Ben-Menahem A, Singh SJ (1981) Seismic waves and sources. Springer, New York
5. Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Alarcon JE (2009) Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(6):3217–3233.
6. Brune JN (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75(26):4997–5009
7. Burridge R (1969) The numerical solution of certain integral equations with non-integrable kernels arising in the theory of crack propagation and elastic wave diffraction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 265:353–381
8. Campbell KW (1981) Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(6):2039–2070Google Scholar
9. Cichowicz A (2008) Near-field pulse-type motion of small events in deep gold mines: observations, response spectra and drift spectra. In: 14th World conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
10. Cuello D, Mendecki AJ (2017) Ground motion amplification at the skin of excavations. In: Vallejos J (ed) Proceedings 9th international symposium on rockbursts and seismicity in mines, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
11. Dineva S, Mihaylov D, Hansen-Haug J, Nystrom A, Woldemedhin B (2016) Local seismic systems for study of the effect of seismic waveson rock mass and ground support in Swedish underground mines Zinkgruvan, Garpenberg, Kiruna. Ground Support 2016. Lulea, Sweden, pp 1–11Google Scholar
12. Douglas J (2018) Ground motion prediction equations 1964–2018. Review, University of Strathclyde, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
13. EPRI (1988) A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake. Technical report EPRI NP-5930, Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
14. Eshelby JD (1957) The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion and related problems. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Sci 241(1226):376–396
15. Esteva L (1970) Seismic risk and seismic design decisions. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic risk and seismic design criteria for nuclear power plants. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 142–182Google Scholar
16. Hanks TC, Kanamori H (1979) A moment magnitude scale. J Geophys Res 84:2348–2350
17. Ida Y (1973) The maximum acceleration of seismic ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 63(3):959–968Google Scholar
18. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1993) Methods for regression analysis of strong motion data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83(2):469–487Google Scholar
19. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1994) Methods for regression analysis of strong motion data: errata. Bull Seismol Soc America 84(3):955–956Google Scholar
20. Kaiser PK, Maloney SM (1997) Scaling laws for the design of rock support. Pure Appl Geophys 150(3–4):415–434
21. Kanamori H (1972) Determination of effective tectonic stress associated with earthquake faulting. The Tottori earthquake of 1943. Phys Earth Planet Inter 5:426–434
22. Madariaga R (1979) On the relation between seismic moment and stress drop in the presence of stress and strength heterogeneity. J Geophys Res 84(B5):2243–2250
23. McGarr A, Fletcher JB (2001) A method for mapping apparent stress and energy radiation applied to the 1994 Northridge earthquake fault zone: revisited. Geophys Res Lett 28(18):3529–3532.
24. McGarr A, Fletcher JB (2003) Maximum slip in earthquake fault zones, apparent stress, and stick-slip friction. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(6):2355–2362
25. McGarr A, Fletcher JB (2005) Development of ground-motion prediction equations relevant to shallow mining induced seismicity in the Trail Mountain area. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(1):31–47.
26. McGarr A, Green RWE, Spottiswoode SM (1981) Strong ground motion of mine tremors: some implications for near-source ground motion parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(1):295–319Google Scholar
27. Mendecki AJ (2008) Forecasting seismic hazard in mines. In: Potvin Y, Carter J, Diskin A, Jeffrey R (eds) Proceedings 1st Southern Hemisphere international rock mechanics symposium. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp 55–69Google Scholar
28. Mendecki AJ (2013) Characteristics of seismic hazard in mines: keynote lecture. In: Malovichko A, Malovichko DA (eds) Proceedings 8th international symposium on rockbursts and seismicity in mines. St Petersburg, Moscow, pp 275–292. ISBN 978-5-903258-28-4Google Scholar
29. Mendecki AJ (2016) Mine seismology reference book: seismic hazard, 1st edn. Institute of Mine Seismology, St. Petersburg. ISBN 978-0-9942943-0-2Google Scholar
30. Mendecki AJ (2017) Mapping seismic ground motion hazard: keynote lecture. In: Vallejos J (ed) Proceedings 9th international symposium on rockbursts and seismicity in mines, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
31. Mendecki AJ (2018) Ground motion prediction equations for DMLZ. Technical PTFI-REP-GMPE-201801-AJMv1, Institute of Mine SeismologyGoogle Scholar
32. Milev AM, Spottiswood SM (2005) Strong ground motion and site response in deep South African mines. J S Afr Inst Min Metall 105:1–10Google Scholar
33. Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(3):581–626Google Scholar