Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.

Pergamon PII: S0148-9062(97)00313-6

Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1213-1228, 1997 1997 ElsevierScienceLtd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0148-9062/97 $17.00 + 020

Seismic: Parameters and Rockburst Hazard at Mt Charlotte Mine

R. F. POPLAWSKI Results of the first modern seismic monitoring program in Australia undertaken in an underground mine are presented. A new dimension to mining at Mt Charlotte underground gold mine commenced with the commissioning of a portable seismic system (PSS) in 1994. Since that time useful data have been collected, assisting mine planning in practical terms, providing data for scientific research and providing insight into the dynamic behaviour of rock in relation to local geology and mine production. Conventional data assessment involving one or two seismic parameters was found to have shortcomings for seismic hazard identification. A new method, "'departure indexing", is being developed to provide a robust tool for rockburst hazard evaluation, and possibly for rockburst prediction in the longer term. 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

INTRODUCTION In the early years of operation, seismic events at Mt Charlotte were recorded as written reports by shift bosses. These reports did not include seismic parameters and event location was doubtful. Later, a single geophone was installed enabling monitoring of "rock-noise". Basic seismic parameters such as event location or magnitude were still not known, and it was soon recognized that such monitoring was of limited value. Western Australian seismic events of Richter magnitude M > 2 are recorded by a global network of seismographs operated by Mundaring Observatory and designed to record tectonic earthquakes. During the last decade, six major seismic events of Richter Magnitude between 2.5 and 4.3 took place at Mt Charlotte. Damage from such events was often extensive. Several researchers made valuable progress towards better recognition of the seismic nature of Mt Charlotte mine [1-13]. This paper describes progress in the analysis of various seismic parameters and their relation to the mine geology, stress field and productivity. An attempt has been made towards rockburst prediction.
MT CHARLOTTE MINE

Description of the mine Mt Charlotte underground gold mine is located adjacent to the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder in Western Australia (Fig. 1). The mine extent is ca 1400 m north-south, 500 m east-west and 1200 m below the surface.
*The U n i v e r s i t y o f M e l b o u r n e , Department o f Civil E n v i r o n m e n t a l Engineering, Parkville, Vic, A u s t r a l i a . and

A longhole open stoping method is generally used. Open stopes are mined in a block along strike, and then rib/crown pillars are mass blasted with waste rock fill from above cascading onto the broken ore. Extraction is from drawpoints below, until waste rock dilution becomes excessive. Blocky waste rock fill is continually added at the surface Glory Pit (Fig. 2). Rock reinforcement installed in the mine comprises resin-anchored 2.4 m long rebars, 8-15 m long grouted cables, 4 m long rebars. In 1994 3 m long cone bolts were introduced to reinforce drawpoint pillars susceptible to rockburst. Reinforcement of backs is supplemented by extensive use of steel straps. Areas suspected to be vulnerable, or where old reinforcement is corroded, receive additional support. Some walls are reinforced with rock bolts, and pillars are reinforced with rock bolts and straps. Shotcrete and steel mesh is generally not used except at plats and crib rooms. Typical drive openings are approximately rectangular, 6 m wide by 5 m high. Arched backs were introduced in December 1995. The host rock mass is dolerite, with typical laboratory properties of UCS = 180 MPa, elastic modulus = 65 MPa and Poisson's ratio = 0.26. These properties vary from site to site, especially in fractured or fault zones where the in situ values might be considerably lower than the laboratory values. The major stress al is oriented approximately north-south, a2 is east-west and 0" 3 is subvertical. The magnitude of the north-south stress is approximately twice that of the east-west stress and approximately three times as large as the vertical stress at any given level below the surface. Representative stress values are as follows:

1213

1214

POPLAWSKI:SEISMIC PARAMETERS AND ROCKBURSTHAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE

Major mine areas

Seismic behaviour of several major mine areas were monitored for this study. The locations of these areas are shown in Fig. 2. Active stopes during the period of study were ROB-5, CDOB-I1, CDOB-I2 and ROB-3. SEISMIC MONITORING SYSTEM
21tm !

Justification for the seismic system installation

rl~N

Fig. 1. Location of Mt Charlotte mines.

At 600 m depth:

0"1 :

60,

0"2 :

30, 0"3 = 20 MPa.

=

At 1200 m depth: 0-1 : 80, 02

40, 0"3 ~--- 30 MPa.

An interesting phenomenon is that the direction of the major stress is coincidental with the direction of the orebody strike.

Geology

At Mt Charlotte the ore occurrence is associated with stockworks of quartz veins adjacent to major oblique faults, and generally restricted to a granophyric unit within .the Golden Mile Dolerite. Quartz veins in the stockwork average 80 mm thick [14-16]. There are two distinct ore bodies bounded by a series of three subvertical faults (Maritana, Reward and Charlotte). The Charlotte orebody (COB) which is separated from the Reward orebody (ROB) by the Reward fault is the larger of the two. Both orebodies dip nearly vertically and are on similar strike. The Golden Pike fault dipping at ca 70 forms the southern boundary of the mine. Displacement on these faults varies from 60 to 200 m. A second series of faults (Neptune, Flanagan and Shea) dip at ca 45 to the west and fault displacements vary between 10 and 150 m. There is a significant number of smaller faults within the mine. These fault structures together with mine openings play a significant role in mine seismic behaviour. There is evidence of ground water seepage into Mt Charlotte mine on the lowest levels only and generally, ground water is not a problem.

A major motivation for the installation of a modern seismic monitoring system at Mt Charlotte was the fact that more economical and safer mining was increasingly desirable. One of the practical benefits of having such a system installed on site is that if a seismic event takes place, its location can be found quickly and it is relatively easy to make a visual inspection for induced damage. This both helps to quantify the seismic hazard and assists mine personnel respond to an event. Time previously lost after a major event due to the need for total mine evacuation and laborious visual inspection (without the knowledge of event location) can now be saved. The precise location of a seismic event would also help in the case of a more serious emergency. Modern seismic systems can provide useful information regarding seismic parameters, their values and trends. This includes not only location and local PSS Richter magnitude, but also other important parameters such as seismic moment, seismic energy, stress drop and apparent volume. Knowledge of such parameters and their variability can give an important insight into rock mass behaviour. The decision to install a seismic system was probably also influenced by an increased environmental consciousness. The proximity of the mine to Kalgoorlie (dwellings within 200 m) created a situation in which the installation of a monitoring tool become important for liability reasons. This rather straightforward justification did not appear to be so simple prior to the system installation, and some serious doubts were cast by numerous persons regarding the necessity and the costs involved. Discussion "for and against" as well as a comparison with competitive instrumentation is given by Mikula [5]. The decision was eventually made to purchase a portable seismic system (PSS) from CSIR (South Africa). The system was commissioned at an expense of ca $220 000 and the break-even point was reached after 10 months of operation [5].
Portable seismic system hardware

The 32-channel PSS commissioned on 24 March 1994 at Mt Charlotte mine was the first m o d e m system of this kind in Australia. Regular data collection started in May 1994 and since that time much interesting information has been accumulated. The PSS comprises nine triaxial geophone sets installed at various locations underground, and for a short period there

POPLAWSKI:

SEISMIC PARAMETERS AND ROCKBURST HAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE

1215

|NOI~H
!-

SOU

(~

~'

"~'1

NOB

SL

9L

MOB 2

~L .r~OmA ft.
~4

17t

32L )O00~8.D.-

Q Seismic Monitoring Station

~;~] Sto~.d Blocks

39L

( ~ Resource Oufllne
Z

Fig. 2. Mt Charlotte mine showing studied areas and monitoring sites.

was also one triaxial geophone set mounted at the surface (Figs 2 and 3). Geophone locations were chosen so that orebodies and major geological features as well as mine development sites were generally enclosed within the geophone network. The ten operational seismic stations provide a total of 30 channels of full waveform data. Signals from the geophones are amplified and frequency modulated in the underground outstations, and then

sent via twisted pair telephone cable to the two data acquisition unit (DAU) computers installed in the surface office area. The signals are digitized in the D A U computers and then sent to an IBM-PC to be loaded onto hard disk. After this procedure, the collected data are viewed and assessed as required. The system enables relatively simple data manipulation and interpretation. The whole operation is controlled from the office area.

1216

POPLAWSKI: SEISMIC PARAMETERS AND ROCKBURSTHAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE location of seismic event (X, Y, Z coordinates); date and time; local PSS richter magnitude; seismic moment for P, S or P + S waves; seismic energy, for P, S or P + S waves; apparent volume, for P, S or P + S waves; seismic source radius for P, S or P + S waves; the P, S corner frequencies; the b values (to be defined and discussed later); moment tensor; static stress drop.

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF MT CHARLOTTE MINE

During the one and a half year monitoring period from 26 May 1994 to 26 November 1995 some interesting data were collected. The most interesting seismic phenomena collected within this selected period are briefly presented here. Seismic monitoring is a continuous process, and data collection as well as research is ongoing. Some earlier observations can be found in Mikula and Poplawski [10].

Seismic parameters for the whole mine Event magnitude and occurrence. The frequency and magnitude of seismic events monitored at Mt Charlotte indicate that seismically active and passive periods can be distinguished. For example, the period from 14 September 1994 to 7 April 1995 can be recognized as seismically active, and the period after 7 April 1995 as relatively quiet (Fig. 4). A controversial phenomenon discussed by Gregson [17] concerns the relationship between mine induced seismicity and regional tectonic seismicity in the Eastern Goldfields area. For this reason magnitude data from the PSS installed at Mt Charlotte and data collected at the Mundaring observatory were compared. Events with local PSS Richter magnitude of zero or greater were selected (Fig. 4). For several reasons, the local event magnitude recorded by the Mt Charlotte system differs from the Richter magnitude of the global monitoring system [10]. Data from other mines in the Eastern Goldfields area are not available. It is difficult to find a reliable relationship between these two sets of events at the present time, however, some suggestions can be made. Seismic events prior to 14 June 1994 formed a distinctive cluster recorded by both systems. Another cluster of global tectonic seismic events was recorded on 15 April 1995. About a week later this was followed by a rockburst (local PSS Richter magnitude + 0.1) at Mt Charlotte. Parameter b. The parameter b relating local PSS Richter magnitude and frequency of occurrence of a seismic event for a given cluster of events was established for the whole Mt Charlotte mine (Fig. 5) as well as for each major mine area. The parameter b may be considered an indicator o f seismic risk. A small b value suggests that seismic energy is being released in

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the PSS seismic monitoring hardware (after Ref. [24]).

PSS software
The PSS software is a combination of several subprograms and routines written in Fortran or Pascal for different tasks. The structure of the sub-programs facilitates communication between them, enabling the requested parameters or graphs to be displayed by the PC. The characteristics of the seismic waveforms can be quickly analysed using screen graphics. Such graphics make the analysis and interpretation of various seismic parameters such as seismic energy, seismic moment, stress drop or apparent volume, relatively straightforward. The PSS software is generally user friendly and relatively easy to operate.

Seismic parameters The first questions often asked regarding a seismic event in an underground mine concern location and magnitude of the event. The PSS seismic event location algorithm is based on the P- and S-arrival times, plus polarization if waveform clarity permits. Typical computed precision of location is 3 15 m. The average reliability of event location, by comparison with calibration blasts at known locations is 12m, with a range of 2-25 m. The most important parameters collected automatically by the PSS are:

POPLAWSKI: SEISMIC PARAMETERS AND ROCKBURST HAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE

1217

5.0 4.5 O) e: "~ 4.0 3.5 3.0

I ,,Western A~Uan~uaku~Undadng

~ichter M>:,O) I

F I
f/~N.-'." ~L 3 .

[ I

2.s
2.0

I J,_,'~ ,J&,r.'l'~ ~u/iiJ I,.t: ~ ;..g I.',;I .~ ~ .t, I.. i I.,,I., t ~ i tl.i,.~_,~ ,i. i

"-'0.6
0,0 -0,5 "~

i~
-'J

-1.6 -2.0
-2.5

! .... ! .... ! .......

.... !.......

!,,,,! .... !,..,!,,

Time
Fig. 4. Mt Charlotte events (PSS Richter magnitude) and Western Australia earthquakes (Richter magnitude).

bigger events. For example in the South African Blyvooruitzicht mine, if the b value drops below 0.65 continuously for 3 days in any production area, an assessment of seismic risk in that section of the mine is conducted. During the one and a half year period of monitoring at Mt Charlotte, a b value of ca 1.05 was recorded for the whole mine, suggesting that the seismic hazard at Mt Charlotte might be low. The most active areas of the mine in terms of development and production, such as ROB-5 stope and CDOB-I2 stope experienced

a b value in the range 0.8-1.5. The small number of events in total, means that b value calculations for other mine areas attract significant statistical error. Rock quality factor. Seismic monitoring can be used as a fast method to assess rock quality. A "rock quality factor" can be calculated for each event. The majority of seismic events at Mt Charlotte are characterized by rock quality factors of < 20, suggesting that most seismic events took place in the highly fractured rock in the vicinity of the stopes (Fig. 6). This can be verified by analysis of coordinates

3.0

~r &.
1 .m m

>

2,0

1,0

"x
Min.Ma b-value: 1.06 4--0,09(~o~. confidence) ~-~ ~
-0,50 -0,00

~,
i i i I I I t I I

0.0

n I i i ! I I n n ,I g I I n ! t i i i ! n i i i ! i g i i ! i IN.I i ! i

-2.50

-2.00

-1,50

-I,00

0,50

1,00

1.50

Magnitude

2.00

Fig. 5. Parameter b for the whole mine (PSS graph).

1218

POPLAWSKI:

SEISMIC P A R A M E T E R S A N D ROCKBURST H A Z A R D AT M O U N T CHARLOTTE MINE

60

..5o i
40
-n m

.. I

I
i
imnn

'

"

_:.'..

:, :
m,
m_ um,m

m[mm[

'" . )!;::
k=

i .
.
__

mm

~310
0

:| |*'~" I

p_ ] . . l11i ~ :_ _ _ m ~ . ~

'I

~i. a .

"a ",

..

~"

Time
Fig. 6. Rock quality factor Q.

of seismic events, and also by the fact that the majority of seismic events were associated with blasting activity and occurred within blast time windows. Proportion of seismic energy in P- and S-waves. Some seismic events are characterized by a relatively large content of seismic energy in the P-wave. It is suggested that these are events of implosional character close to the stopes. Other clusters of events with a large content of seismic energy in the S-wave are believed to be associated with slip on existing geological faults. These proportions of P- and S-wave energy contents form a distinctive family of events (Fig. 7). Source radius. The radius of a seismic source can be understood as the radius of an imaginary sphere enveloping a region of inelastically deformed or sheared rock due to the seismic event. At Mt Charlotte these radii varied between 2 and 48 m, with majority of events < 25 m. Seismic energy, moment and apparent volume compared with local Richter magnitude. Richter magnitude has been criticized for not being able to represent seismic events properly [18, 19]. It was found at Mt Charlotte that seismic energy for events with the same local PSS Richter magnitude varied significantly (Fig. 8). F o r example, seismic energy for typical events at Mt Charlotte with local PSS Richter magnitude o f - 1 . 5 varied from 20 to 30 000 J. A similar observation can be made for the seismic m o m e n t (which is related to the amount of slip on the geological fault) in comparison to the local PSS Richter magnitude (Fig. 9). For example, the seismic moment for events with a local PSS Richter magnitude of - 1 . 5 varied from 1.1E + 05 k N m to 3.0E + 09 kNm. Apparent volume

(volume of the rock mass undergoing inelastic deformation due to the seismic event) varied from 1 . 0 E - 11 m 3 to 1.7E + 01 m 3 for - 1 . 5 local PSS Richter magnitude events (Fig. 10). Currently, efforts are being made towards finding a more consistent and meaningful description of a seismic event. Seismic parameters for major mine areas. Seismic parameters were established for each major mine area. Comparison of various trends displayed by these parameters enabled better understanding of rock mass

1.00E+07

1.00E+06 t
o1 O

1.00E+05 1.00E+04
1.00E+03

>,

t
!

.~ "~) n'

1.00E+02 1.00E+01 1.00E+00

1.00E-0t : ........ ' ......................... : ....... : ........ ; ....... ~ .......

-, o

,t,
~
.

,,,
o q

.,
o =.

,,,
o o.

.,
o o.

,t,
o o.

,,,
o ~

,,,
c~ o.

=.

"

-S

sm FcEn ergy

{loglo}

"

"

Fig. 7. Proportion of seismic energy in S- and P-wave.

POPLAWSKI:

SEISMIC PARAMETERS A N D ROCKBURST HAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE

1219

1.00E+07

_o

O)

1,00E+06

, - ~ 1.00E+05 --) >~

1.00E+04

UJ 1.00E+03 l:: 1.00E+02

.~_
(/) (/) 4-

1.00E+01 1.00E+00 t.00E-01

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 ML - local Richter M a g n i t u d e (PSS)

Fig. 8. Seismic energy and PSS Richter magnitude.

1.0

1.5

behaviour and response to mining. The most interesting findings are presented as follows: Distribution of seismic events. Six hundred and twenty three seismic events were recorded at Mt Charlotte mine during the one and a half year study period (Fig. 11). The greatest numbers of seismic events (i.e. 179 and 152 events) were associated with mining of CDOB-I1 and ROB-5 stopes, respectively. During this time, CDOB-I1 was the largest mine production stope, while for ROB-5 stope, production was completed, but the stope was not yet backfilled. Seismic events in
,.,,
O

large numbers were expected to be associated with mining ROB-5 stope due to the geometry of the stope (large, only partially filled void) and due to the mine development. Cumulative seismic energy per cumulative apparent volume. The most seismically active mine areas, such as around the ROB-5 and CDOB-I1 stopes where the total number of seismic events was the greatest, displayed a relatively small average ratio of seismic energy per apparent volume (Fig. l 1). This phenomenon is probably due to the fact that the seismic events

1.00E+12 1.00E+11 1.00E+10

1.00E+09

~)

O E Z

Imml

-, 1.00E+08 1.00E+07

~ 1.00E+06
:~ 1.00E+05
lm

;: 1.00E+04

~Ns~SN!ge
= ...........................

"3 1.00E+03 U) 1.00E+02

(n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .=. . . . . .

+ n

1.00E+01 1.00E+00 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5

"~x t t
} : ~ 2 2 ~ : "== ' i ~ ' p k*~ : - : : ~ 2 :

"~

-1.0

~.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

ML - local Richter M a g n i t u d e (PSS)

Fig. 9. Seismic moment and PSS Richter magnitude.

1220

POPLAWSKI:

SEISMIC P A R A M E T E R S A N D ROCKBURST H A Z A R D AT M O U N T CHARLOTTE MINE

,.~ 1.00E+03 O ~.. 1.00E+02 O 1.00E+01 " " 1.00E+00 ~ " 1.00E-01 < ;= 1.00E-02
Iml,I

l i ' l

ml

I :

il

OI

I
i

,,_ i i l l s ~~_:Fl~i- - 0
i ~lil
i

I t ~i,m , , - i ~ r~.!
lli --,

It

, *

'

,7

~) t.00E-03

F: 1.00E-04

it.l,..,.
i 1' . . . . . . .

1:

I
i

1
i

1.00E~5
~>

1.00E-06 1.00E-07

1.00E-08 Q. Q. 1.00E-09 <I{ 1.00E-I0 (/) 1.00E-11 + 1.00E-12 n " - " 1.00E-13

I
i I t ! I

' i
, I I I

ill

-2.5

-2

-!.5 -1 -0.5 0 S~.5 ML local Richter Magnitude (PS

Fig. 10. Apparent volume and PSS Richter magnitude.

1.5

are situated closer to the openings where they are more likely to be implosional in character. In these areas the seismic energy is more efficient, producing large volumes of inelastically deformed rockmass. Cumulative number of events. The cumulative number of seismic events was plotted for each major mine area (Fig. 12). Several distinctive behavioural patterns were observed. Events associated with ROB-5 stope displayed several sharp step increases in the number of seismic events. The trend of events associated with CDOB-I1 stope follow a logarithmic shape, and events associated with CDOB-I2 stope follow an exponential

shape. These trends are due to stope geometry, mining history and geological influences.

glCumulntlve Seismic P+S Energy per Cumulative Apparent Volume [kJIm^3] [ IIObserved total number of seismic events [

623
t.00E+03

152

23

179

81

1.00E+01
1.00E-O1

"i - ~'

E t.00E415

oo .o,
1.00E-09
0

tu

t.00E-11 1.00E-13 1 2 3 4 5

Area

Fig. 11. Distribution of seismic events, and cumulative seismic energy per cumulative apparent volume for major mine areas.

Rockburst hazard evaluation Considerable computational effort was made to assess potential rockburst indicators for Mt Charlotte mine. One of the key questions often asked in mine seismology is, "what is a good indicator of an impending rockburst". Extensive work has been already done in this direction by a number of researchers [18, 20]. In this study, an assessment of rockburst predictability was made by investigating a relatively large rockburst with local PSS Richter magnitude +0.8, which occurred on 27 February 1996 adjacent to CDOB-I2 stope, well outside any blast window. Variation of seismic parameters before +0.8 local Richter magnitude rockburst. Various seismic parameters and ratios (such as: seismic energy to seismic moment ratio, energy to apparent volume ratio, seismic moment to static stress drop ratio and various departure indices as defined later in this work) were tested to see whether their changes might indicate an oncoming seismic event (Figs 13 and 14). Until 6 min before the + 0.8 rockburst, the majority of seismic parameters and ratios demonstrated increases (time between 19:15:00 and 0:10:30). A small seismic event occurring about three minutes before the +0.8 rockburst (Fig. 14) showed a drop in a majority of parameters. Only the ratio of seismic moment to static stress drop experienced a gentle increase. A second series of parameters (such as: PSS energy index, P-energy to S-energy ratio, P-moment to Smoment ratio, P + S kappa, RVMAx, F kappa, pRA,

POPLAWSKI: SEISMIC PARAMETERS AND ROCKBURST HAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE

1221

1.10E+02
>
1.00E+02

--e- ROB-5 - o - ROB-3

w 9.00E+01

~ 8.00E+01
'E 7.00E+01 6.00E+01 . M=+., i

CDOB-I1

I I I .J'I I 4

"-m- CDOB-12 ! I "U- CDOB-12-pillar i ~ Richter I Magnitude ROB.

E= ,oo .o1
Zonn,.+01 | ~n~ ~ ,.,,v,. + - 1 Jr I

9] S_(M>=0) / x ~.ch~r

E
O

-I Magnitude / CDOB-12 (M>=O) ,,, A Richter I Magnitude CDOB-I1(M>=0)

Time
Fig. 12. Cumulative number of events.

where: p is the density, R is the seismic source radius, A is the peak ground acceleration [21]) was analysed (Fig. 15) and found to have a similar trend, with most seismic parameters experiencing a rise until 6min before the rockburst, and then ca 3 min before the rockburst almost all the seismic parameters experi-

enced a drop as for the first series of parameters, except the ratio of P to S seismic energy and parameter pRA. This style of excitation (turbulence) in seismic parameters must be verified with more data. At the present time, efforts are focused on a reliable rockburst prediction algorithm.

~1.00E+06 1.00E+04

- m - Energy to Moment ratio [JINm] -E)- Energy to Moment Dep. Index --x--Energy Dep. Index

~ 1.00E+02 ~ 1.00E+00

tl--o- Energy to Apparent

Jl Vlume ratJ [Jim^3] Energy to Apparent Volume Dep. Index

="
O.

~11 - o z~/I
/!

1.00E-02 ~ 1.1~E4~ ~ t.00E4~6 0 0 ,,,,,,, 0 ,,,,,,; 0 ,e-

|l - e - Moment to StaUc Stress 11 Drop ratio [NmlPa]

?/I
'q

/I - o - Moment to Static Stress Drop Dep. Index Blast window (15 min.) -': PSS Richter Magnitude

~1

Time (hour, minute)

Fig. 13. CDOB-I2 stope, seismic parameters leading to the + 0.8 PSS Richter magnitude rockburst (logarithmic scale presentation).

222

POPLAWSKI:

SEISMIC PARAMETERS AND ROCKBURST HAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE

_o
(0

1.00E+06 I

,
.

="
;-

j'
:

II
8
h

-.a-- Energy to Moment ratio [J/Nm]

o 1.00E+04 E i
-

III
~,

Index
--x-- Energy Dep. Index - ~ - Energy to Apparent Volume ratio [J/m^3]

~ 1.00E+02
1

1.00E+O0

L~ ~h-~--~~,,'~

, ~ ~ ~

L r
~ i i "

~ ~ -~ ~__ Io I

~v--

E .~ 1.00E.02
m

--O- Energy to Apparent Volume Dep. Index - e - Moment to Static Stress Drop ratio [Nm/Pa] --o- Moment to Static Stress Drop Dep. Index

Q.

,2 E 1.00E-04 ._~ u) 1.00E-06

o
' I I I ~ I I I I

I,

';

-D

It)

~-D

%1
D

In r4
D

Blast window (15 rain.) :: PSS Richter Magnitude

Date & Time (Month, Day, Year, hour, minute)

Fig. 14. CDOB-I2 stope, seismic parameters shortly before the +0.8 PSS Richter magnitude rockburst (logarithmic scale presentation).

el
C
In

'~) O v

3.50E+01 3.00E+01

--a- [PS$ Energy Index]*5 - a - PIS Energy ratio

' .m= ~ ~ 2.50E01

tm 1e~ 2 . 0 0 E 0 1
i

_=

__

wmoow

blast _~__~_...__

--x-- [PIS Moment ratio]*3 - ~ - [P+S kappa]*4000 --o- [R Vmax]*30 z [Fo kappa]*20 -D-[rho R A]*10

e." ~ O

1.50E01

~" > 5.00E00

E .w_

-al- Blast window (15 min.) :: Richter Magnitude

O

0.00E00 g
D

Time (hour, minute)

Fig. 15. CDOB-I2 stope, seismic parameters leading to the +0.8 PSS Richter magnitude rockburst (enhanced data values presentation).

POPLAWSKI: SEISMICPARAMETERSAND ROCKBURSTHAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTEMINE

3.50 3.00 - A 0
~= .= o')
m

1223

i
! ! ! I I

2.50 2.00 1.50

+ Blasts (Production)PSS Richter Magnitude x Blasts (Development)PSS Richter Magnitude c; Seismic Events PSS Richter Magnitude

I
i

'

i
ii

I
,.,
,'4" 4,,i "9

J i
I

"~: 1,00 m 0.50

Ii J

.]

o.oo
"

. 4, J,Jl- ~ ' ~ ,'I"

+'++' '

i ++

-I+

j+ + i +

+D

J
El i X 0 El El

.ca .0.50
-1.00 o. -1.50 .,-,

++i

.x.

Ix s
I..,

'< _-,0

o
[]

I L l
i

i ~

x ~
.,,

<

'
El E "

it
~]''
, i i

-2.00 -2.50

I
::........ !.... ! .... , ........

~
i .....

oi,~
I

:~
I I i i[i i i i

d d I ~ I I I

kl a I I

Date (Day, Month, Year)

Fig. 16. ROB-3, PSS Richter magnitudeof developmentand production blasts and seismiceventsvs time. When blasts with magnitude ca -0.5, minimalseismicresponse followed,when blasts were stronger, they led to a good seismicresponse.

Analysis of blasting activity and seismic response for several areas of the mine Seismic activity at Mt Charlotte mine was assessed from the perspective of possible links between production blasts and recorded seismic activity. Hypothetically, in the mining environment, there is a relationship between the blasting activity and the characteristics of a subsequent seismic response. An aim of this study was to search for this relationship. This analysis was undertaken to look for any reliable relationship between the magnitudes and the density of production blasts, and the corresponding parameters of the seismic events. Blasting activity and seismic response were analysed for several important mine areas (CDOB-I2, CDOB-I1, ROB-5, ROB-4, ROB-3, MOB-4). (An example for ROB-3 stope is presented in Fig. 16). This analysis also included variation of local PSS Richter magnitude values established for both blasts and seismic events. Various important trends were observed, and relationships between blasting and seismic response were proposed. The following observations were made: . The vast majority of the seismic events can probably be classified as mining induced as they are likely to be the product of blasting activity. e The magnitude, rather than the density of blasts (number of blasts per given time) is considered to be critical. Even dense blast operations (with relatively high number of blasts per given time period) did not cause observable seismic response if the Magnitude of blasts was relatively small (i.e. average around -0.5 value). The situation changed when the

Magnitude of blasts increased (ie. oscillated around 0.0 value). As a consequence, a moderate seismic response was observed. The mining induced seismic events became larger and more dense when associated with production blasts, of +0.5 magnitude values. The analysis of seismic events and their relationship with blasts highlighted important aspects of triggering mechanisms. The critical magnitude values for blasts recognized as potential triggers of seismic events varied from area to area. For example, around stopes where the geometry was already a source of significant problems (such as in ROB-5 stope), the critical Magnitude value for blasts is much lower and is ca -0.5. These "critical magnitude values for blasts" must be assessed individually for each major mine area.

Data processing techniques During the data collection and assessment process, the following observations were made regarding visual presentation of results: . The appearance of plotted data can be either regular or chaotic (compressed and scattered data points) depending on the scale and range adopted.The choice of scales is important. Linear scales give a good visual indication of how far parameters for particular events depart from the main population of events. Logarithmic scales give a better idea about the true parameter values for any given cluster of events, as well as identification of shape and

1224

POPLAWSKI:SEISMIC PARAMETERS AND ROCKBURSTHAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE

NEW DEPARTURE INDEXING METHOD PROPOSED FOR MINE SEISMIC STUDIES

character of a population. This is important if several populations of events have to be compared, and a trend in seismic behaviour detected. Regular patterns of some seismic parameters often are of limited value in terms of rockburst prediction analysis or seismic event mechanism identification. When two or more lines representing changes of parameters (or their cumulative values) in time are plotted on the same graph (e.g. X-coordinate representing time passage, and Y-coordinate representing trends displayed by selected parameters), it is possible to achieve a crossing of these lines at any desired point by appropriate scale adjustment. This can be a serious problem if the crossing of two lines or curves is believed to indicate a rockburst condition [18, 20]. If the collected data are analysed in such a way that cumulative seismic parameters are avoided as much as possible, and instead, other parameters and methods are used, the analysis can be more robust. This is especially true if some events are not picked up by the system, for example due to weak signal, overflow of data, small sampling rate or power interruption. If a linear scale is used for plotting of cumulative values o f seismic parameters, then parameters with small absolute values are shown as a flat line positioned close to zero. However, if a logarithmic scale is adopted, after a short while all new values, even if large, merge with accumulated data producing no visual effect. If the data cannot be presented successfully with the linear or logarithmic scale, an alternative is to plot "enhanced data values", defined as parameter values multiplied by appropriate factors adopted to bring all parameters up to the same threshold. This provides the opportunity to easily detect increasing or decreasing trends of several parameters simultaneously. The magnitude of any given seismic event expressed by any single parameter (e.g. Richter magnitude, seismic energy or seismic moment) was found to be inadequate, and an array of more than three parameters or ratios of parameters is considered better. A rockburst hazard identification function based on only one or two seismic parameters would appear to be very unreliable. It is suggested that at least five seismic parameters, ratios or departure indices (as explained as follows) should be considered in the formulation of any such function.

Departure indexing method

A new "departure indexing method" for robust analysis of seismic characteristics is presented here. The full description of the method is given in Ref, [13]. This method is being further developed and tested, and if successful, it will provide a tool for rockburst hazard evaluation and possibly rockburst prediction as well.

Departure index
The departure index is defined as the ratio of the actual value (of a parameter or ratio of parameters) measured for a given single seismic event to the average value calculated within an adopted period of time. This ratio can be expressed as follows:

ID(Pi/Pj) = [(Pi/Pj)msd][(Pi/Pj)aver(T= t)]

(1)

where: ID(Pi/Pj) is the departure index of a given ratio of parameters Pi and Pfi Pi, Pj are seismic parameters adopted in the analysis (e.g. seismic energy, apparent volume); Pi/Pj is the ratio of seismic parameters (if only a single seismic parameter is used then P j = 1); (Pi/Pj)msd is the ratio of seismic parameters calculated for a given seismic event; (Pi/Pj)aver(T = t) is the ratio of seismic parameters averaged for the given subset of events collected within a selected period of time T = t, where

(Pi/Pj)aver(r= t) =

{Z(PdPj)m/M}

(1.1)

m is a given seismic event, m = 1,2 . . . . . M and M is the number of seismic events in the adopted period of time T. An example of a departure index is given in Fig. 17 where energy departure index, and for comparison, ordinary seismic energy values, are plotted in respect to the local PSS Richter magnitude. Various benefits of such data presentation are described later in this paper (see Section 5.4).

Rockburst hazard indication

Rockburst hazard indication can be described using the following formula:

R~I = Y~{ADI[(Pi/Pj)I] + A~2[(Pi/Ps)2] + . . .

q- ADn[(Pi/Pj)n] }< Ralcrit (2)

The analysis of graphs presented so far in this paper have the various shortcomings and problems just listed. It was in order to overcome these difficulties, that a new "departure indexing method" was developed.

where: Rm is the Rockburst hazard indication; and AD(Pi/Pj) function with value 1 or 0 depending on the value of the departure index. If the departure index rises above or is equal to the experimentally selected critical local value, then

AD(Pi/Pj) = 1, if below then AD(Pi/Pj) = 0

POPLAWSKI: SEISMIC PARAMETERS AND ROCKBURST HAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE

1225

,,:, .l.OO,:.os
~'_1.00E+04

>, )

1.00E+07 1.00E+06

N I.o*Eo3
:~ ~ 1.00E+02 tU "~ 1.00E+00 .~ ~ 1.00E-01
_m
/~ 4.

l.oo,:.oa

,g a ,.ooE-,
a_ 1.00E-04 1.00E-05 1.00E-06 -2.5

-2.0

-1.5 -1.0 4).5 0.0 0.5 ML - local Richter Magnitude (PSS)

1.0

1.5

Fig. 17. Energy departure index and plain seismic energy vs PSS Richter magnitude.

AD(Pi/Pj) = { 1 iflD(Pi/Pj)k > iDc(Pi/Py)k (seismic risk)

and {0 if ID(Pi/POk < iDc(ei/Pj)k (no seismic risk)

where:iDc(PffPj)k is the critical local value adopted experimentally :for a given departure index; k = 1,2..... n; n is the number of departure indices taken into the analysis and selected by local experience; RHlcrit is the critical rockburst hazard value established empirically. Equation (2) can also be written in the following form with distinct components (a), (b) and (c):

Rai = Z{ak *Aok[(PdPj)k]}

(a) + z {[b~*AD~[(L,/Lj)~]]-'} (b)

-t-Z{ck*ADk[(eiDi -- ejDj)k]}<RnIerit
(3)

When RHI > RHIcrit this indicates that a rockburst is imminent. Empirical parameter RHIerit indicating a critical state of the rockmass can be found by the application of the algorithm defined in Poplawski [13]. Briefly, for each mine area recognized as seismically active [13], parameter RHIcrit is initially established as RHierit=RHi, where value of Rni is computed according to Equation (3) by application of parameters associated with a given critical tremor (e.g. producing excessive damage to the mine openings). If the parameter RHlerit has to be established properly, it must be individually "tuned" [13] for various mine areas, as adopted undesired seismic event might be associated with different values of the given set of parameters (e.g. a different value of local PSS Richter magnitude). A simple arbitrary example showing basic principles of the departure indexing method as well as the method of obtaining RHIcrit value is given in Appendix A.

(c)
where: ak, bk and ck are importance coefficients selected empirically for each departure index; k -- 1,2.... n; ei and ej are adjustment coefficients; part (a) is a provision for seismic parameters or ratios where increase of their departure index indicates an impending seismic hazard; part (b) is as above, but where reduction in the departure index indicates seismic hazard; and part (c) is a provision for intersection of two parameters at a given point recognized as important.
RMMS 34/8---G

Advantages of the departure indexing approach

In the mining environment at Mt Charlotte and perhaps elsewhere, an indication of a seismic event or a rockburst is often manifested by a turbulence in seismic and static parameters prior to the event. The departure indexing concept is based on assessing turbulence and emphasizes that careful selection of criteria involving several seismic parameters can lead to a better rock seismic behaviour prediction. A number of advantages of the proposed departure indexing approach can be forecast:

1226

POPLAWSKI:SEISMICPARAMETERS AND ROCKBURST HAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE the size of a given seismic event was dependent on the size of wedge released by a given blast [10]. Seismic monitoring also assisted mine planning in such a way that identified seismically active areas were supported by "cone bolts" [22, 23] prior to mining [10].

1. It allows simultaneous analysis of several seismic parameters and ratios, giving an advantage over approaches where only one or two often questionable parameters are used. 2. It has greater robustness, because instead of true values which might be of questionable accuracy (i.e. large systematic error), unitless ratios are used. 3. It has the ability to incorporate into the analysis as m a n y seismic parameters and ratios as desired. 4. Should the importance of any given parameter in terms of seismic hazard indication be questionable, it can be compensated for by other parameters present in the equation, because the value of the unreliable parameter can be statistically "melted" with numerous more reliable parameters. Likewise any random error made during the data collection and processing can be similarly compensated. 5. For various parameters it is possible to set different criteria, for example, for the seismic energy, a departure index of 30 might be adopted as critical, while for the seismic energy to apparent volume departure index the critical value might be ten. 6. Various Departure Indices can be shown simultaneously on a written graph, and compared for trends because they usually occupy a similar range. 7. A trend or a shape of a given cluster of events displayed graphically is very similar for both the absolute values and the departure indices, therefore the data is presented in the familiar fashion, where a cluster of seismic events is plotted in X- and Ysystem of coordinates. 8. The indexing method can include "finding an intersection of two parameters" and this might indicate an incoming seismic event. 9. Static parameters (e.g. static stress changes) can be easily incorporated into the analysis. 10. The indexing system provides a flexible tool where indices of greater importance can be kept, new indices added, and those recognized as insignificant abandoned. This can be achieved as more data and knowledge are accumulated, or as mine development progresses, and the nature of seismicity changes. 11. The indexing concept is relatively clear and easy to understand.

CONCLUSIONS 1. The seismic system installed at Mt Charlotte has proved very useful, in terms of seismic event location and magnitude, and m a n y other important seismic parameters. 2. During the first one and a half year period of the monitoring program, significant progress has been made towards better understanding of the rock mass response to mining. 3. It was found that the variation of one or two seismic parameters alone was unlikely to be helpful for seismic hazard prediction. The problems and shortcomings of conventional analysis of seismic parameters became obvious during the research. 4. A new "departure indexing" concept has been proposed. It offers promise as a robust reliable method for evaluation of rockburst hazard.

Acknowledgements--Special thanks are due to the following persons and organizations for their substantial support and encouragement: Dr Peter Mikula, (KCGM) for various forms of support, assistance with data collection and valuable comments; Dr Bill Bamford (The Melbourne University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) for various forms of support. Special thanks are due to the management of KCGM for permission to publish this paper. Accepted for publication 31 July 1997

REFERENCES

N e w strategy adopted at M t Charlotte aimed at mitigation o f rockburst hazard

Results o f seismic monitoring performed at Mt Charlotte mine combined with stress measurements and visual observations led to adoption of a new strategy aimed at rockburst hazard active and passive mitigation. This strategy involved proper pillar preconditioning [10], and in an other case keeping an orepass full as this was recognized as the best way of controlling a breakout [10]. It was also observed that

1. Fotakis, D. M. Mount Charlotte Seismic Event--3.13 p.m., 28th March 1990. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines, memorandum to I. Grljusich, 3 May 1990. 2. Fotakis, D. M. Mining and rock mechanics history 1893-1991. Internal Report of Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd, Mount Charlotte Mine, August 1993. 3. Hugh, R. L. Mount Charlotte Earth tremor, GMK Memorandum, KLV files, 21 February 1972. 4. Lee, M. F., Beer, G. and Windsor, C. R. Interaction of stopes, stresses and geologic structure at the Mount Charlotte Mine, Western Australia. In Rockburst and Seismicity in Mines, pp. 337-343. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1990. 5. Mikula, P. A. Seismic monitoring system---capital expenditure request (CER)--year 1993/94, Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd, (KCGH) Mt Charlotte Operations, Kalgoorlie, W. Australia, 1994. 6. Mikula, P. A. The introduction of continuous seismicmonitoring at Mt Charlotte gold mine. In proceedings 3rd Canadian
Conference on Computer Applications in the Mineral Industry,

(CAMI) Montreal, 3 October 1995, pp. 483-491. 7. Mikula, P. A., Seismic monitoring at Mt Charlotte Gold Mine, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia. ACG Newsletter, 1995, 4, 1-2. 8. Mikula, P. A. Seismic monitoring of a hard rock pillar at Mt Charlotte Gold Mine. Lecture presented at the Seminar: Applied Geomechanics in Underground Mining, Western Australian School of Mines, (WASH) Curtin University of Technology, Kalgoorlie, W. Australia, Seminar notes issued by WASH, 1112 November, 1995.

POPLAWSKI:

SEISMIC PARAMETERS AND ROCKBURST HAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE

1227

9. Mikula, P. A., Lee, M. and McNabb, K. The preconditioning and yielding of a hard rock pillar at Mt Charlotte. In proceedings 8th International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Tokyo, pp. 1289-1293, Balkama, Rotterdam, 1995. 10. Mikula, P. A. and Poplawski, R. F. The seismic monitoring decision at Mt Charlotte gold mine. In Proceedings 6th Underground Operators" Conference, pp. 79-86. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Curl*on, Victoria, 1995. 11. Poplawski, R. F. Seismicity underground with particular reference to rockburst problems. In Proceedings First Australia-New Zealand Young Geotechnical Professionals Conference, pp. 167175. University of New South Wales, Sydney, 9-12 February, 1994. 12. Poplawski, R. F. Seismic Research Report at Mt Charlotte Mine, September-December 1994. KCGM Internal Report, April. KCGM, Kalgoorlie, W. Australia, University of Melbourne, 1995. 13. Poplawski, R. F. Seismicity underground with particular reference to rockburst problems at Mt Charlotte mine. PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne. 14. Bischoff, K. and Morley, C. Geology, resources definition and reserve estimation at Mount Charlotte, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia. In Proceedings of the International Mining Geology Conference, Vol. 5/93, pp. 1-17. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, 1993. 15. Clark, M. Localisation of gold, Mount Charlotte, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia. Bsc (Hons) thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth, 1980. 16. Elevatorski, E. A. World gold. In Mines-Deposits-Discoveries, Vol. II, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Australia, pp. 1-9 and 88-141. Minobras Mining Services, Fallbrook, 1988. 17. Gregson, P. J. Monitoring seismic events, Eastern Goldfields, Western Australia. In Proceedings Australian Conference on

Table 2. Departure indexing method (example): calculation of departure indices ID(Pi/Pj) for various parameters Parameter No. 1 Moment to static stress drop departure index 0.50 0.23 0.06 0.05 0.65 0.17 0.24 10.83 2 Energy to moment departure index 0.23 0.36 0.62 0.33 0.24 3 4 Energy to apparent volume departure index 0.033 0.096 0.140 0.075 0.017

Parameter name Event A Event B Event C Event D Event E Event F Event G Event H* (No. 27993)

Energy departure index 0.050 0.067 0.026 0.011 0.034

1.19
0.47 0.96

0.268
0.024 46.960

0.513
0.034 1.425

Seismic Event 27933, ref. to Figs 13-15. *Event H (No. 27993) was + 0.8 local PSS Richter magnitude rockburst, producing an unacceptable level of seismic damage. Note, that in this example the event F is questioned if the departure indices associated with it displayed their critical values or not, because the majority of parameters associated with this event dis-

APPENDIX A

Departure Indexing Method, An Example

A simple example has been selected to illustrate the application of the departure indexing method (see Figs 13-15). First of all, let a given mine area "CDOB-I2" be classified as seismically active. The following seismic parameters have been selected to illustrate the example: ratio of P + S seismic moment to static stress drop, ratio of P + S seismic energy to P + S seismic moment, P + S seismic energy, and ratio of P + S seismic energy to apparent volume (Table 1). As mentioned earlier, several parameters and ratios have been selected, as a study based on only one or two parameters would be inadequate. As the next step, cumulative average values of these parameters collected within ca 21 month period (i.e. from May 1994 till January 1996) have been calculated (Table 1). The average values (Pi/Pj)aver(T = t) shown in Table 1 are calculated by application of Equation (1.1). Now it is possible to calculate departure indices ID(Pi/Pj) for each parameter according to Equation (1). Summary of these calculations is presented in Table 2. From Table 2 it can be seen that prior to the +0.8 local PSS Richter magnitude rockburst (event H), two seismic events occurred (event F and G) and the parameters associated with event F demonstrated unusual departures from their average values. It has been observed at Mt Charlotte that these departures (upwards or downwards) are noticeable for some pre-rockburst events. It must be established, whether the parameters associated with the event F or G are in their critical values or not, despite the fact that the largest

Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring in Open Pit and Underground Mining, pp. 175-181. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1993.
18. Mendecki, A. J. Monitoring rock mass response to mining. In

Proceedings Australian Conference on Geotechnical Instrumentation and Monitoring in Open Pit and Underground Mining,
pp 357-364. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1993. 19. Mendecki, A. J. Personal communication, June, 1993. 20. Mendecki A. J., Van Aswegen G., Niewiadomski J., Stankiewicz T., Dzhafarov A. H., Kijko A., Sciocatti M., Funk C., Mountfort P., Hewlett P., Green R. W. E., Brink A. Van Z. and Finnie G. Seismology for rockburst prevention, control and prediction. In Proceedings of Safety in Mines Research Advisory Committee Symposia SIMRAC Symposium, pp. 1-13, 1995. 21. Spottiswoode, S. lVl. Seismic attenuation in deep-level mines. In Rockburst and Seismicity in Mines, pp 409-414. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1993. 22. The Cone Bolt. Technical booklet issued by the Rock Engineering, Division of Mining Technology, CSIR, Auckland Park, South Africa. 23, Technical information on the yielding cone bolts included in the letter written by S. G. Dawe from Strata Control Systems Pry Ltd (South Africa) and addressed to James Askew and Associates Pty Ltd, (Perth, Western Australia) (20 August 1991). 24. PSS Users Manual-Portable Seismic System Software Solutions Pty Ltd, COMRO/CSIR, South Africa, 1993.

Table 3. Departure indexing method (example): adoption of local critical values iDc(Pi/Pj)kfor various parameters Table 1. Departure indexing method (example): cumulative* average values for various parameters Parameter No. Parameter name Average* 1 Moment to static stress drop, 1.27E + 04 2 Energy to moment 4.76E-06 3 4 Energy to apparent volume 4.63 Parameter No. Parameter name Local critical values* Delta parameter
1 2 3 4

Moment to static stress drop -0

Energy to moment

Energy

Energy to apparent volume

1.2
1

0.25
1

0.5
1

Energy 19.4E + 03

Seismic event 27933, reference to Figs 13-15. *Cumulative average values calculated for a given seismic parameter over the period of ca 21 months (i.e. since May 1994 till January 1996).

ADxi(P,/Pj)k]
Seismic event 27933, reference to Figs 13-15. *Adopted "local critical values" iDc(Pi/Pj) k (i.e. pre-rockburst values associated with seismic F).

1228

POPLAWSKI:

SEISMIC PARAMETERS AND ROCKBURST HAZARD AT MOUNT CHARLOTTE MINE tures from its average value for seven seismic events prior to the rockburst (events A to G). All importance coefficients (as 64 ek) are taken here for simplicity to be equal to 1. Rockburst hazard level Rm can now be computed according to Equation (3);

departures from the average values are associated with the actual rockburst (event H). The justification for such approach lies in the fact that the main aim of the study is to search for a rockburst hazard warning algorithm, therefore the fluctuations (turbulences) of parameters prior to a given rockburst possess high significance. In other words, the "local critical values" iDc(Pi/Pj)k should be understood as critical pre-rockburst values (such as those associated with event F), and therefore these values are adopted as critical in this study. However, in cases supported by experience, the "local critical values" iDc(Pi/Pj)t, might be slightly inclined towards "local rockburst critical values" (such as those associated with event H). In the example presented, only seven seismic events prior to rockburst are shown in Table 2 (events A to G), however, the number of events taken into consideration is usually dependent upon the amount of seismic events occurring within the selected time frame, or length of the adopted time frame. For example, during the initial calibration process, when the back analysis of a given rockburst is involved, a warning time window must be selected (e.g. 12 h-time window) incorporating events prior to the actual rockburst, and then the extreme values displayed by the calculated departure indices can be taken as local critical values. In this way, local critical values iDc(Pi/Pj)k a r e assigned for each parameter and they are shown in Table 3. Following this procedure, delta parameters ADk[(PdPj)1] are adopted:

RHI =ZIADI[(Pi/Pj)I] 4-AD2[(pi/Pj)2] -~-...

+aD.[(e,/ej).]} = 0 + i

+ 1 + l = 3.

This rockburst hazard level R H I = 3 and at this stage this is equal to the rockburst hazard critical value RHierit , therefore
RHlerit = RHI 1 = 3.

In this example, this initial critical value RHlerit = 3 is calculated for event F, and it is associated with the +0.8 local PSS Richter magnitude rockburst (event H) producing undesired damage to mine workings. If for a new set of seismic events, the calculated R H I --> RHlerit = 3, than the rockburst hazard must be declared. The critical value RHIerit c a n be optionally expressed further as a ratio of number of parameters which already displayed local critical values to the total number of parameters used in the analysis. In this
case:

ADI[(Pi/Pj)I] = O, AD2[(Pi/Pj)2] = 1, AD3[(Pi/Pj)3] = 1, AD4[(Pi/Pj)4] = 1.

AS can be seen from Table 3, the value of the parameter ADI was assigned as zero for the first parameter (i.e. ratio of P + S seismic moment to static stress drop), as there are no visible trends in depar-

Rrllcrit = 3/4 = 0.75. As mentioned earlier the algorithm requires "tuning" what would also involve proper selection of importance coefficients (ak b~ ek), and also the most suitable method for obtaining average values (e.g. moving averages).