El Porvinier Note-November 2012

G. van Aswegen

Introduction
We analyse seismic data and modelling results to find patterns that may relate to the 31 October seismic
events in the South. For the seismic data we created three polygons, the first covering the mining over the
past year for the whole of the South. We name the poly SUR. We then subdivide this into a northern and
southern part, thus SUR-North and SUR-South see Fig. 1. The first large event of 31 October occurred in
SUR-North and the second in SUR-South.
We have a reasonable model of the South with several mining steps: end-2011, and for 2012, end-March,
end-June and end-October. We have done some analysis of the models and I show a some results below.
The events processing is just about finished. We'll do quality checks and when that is complete we can copy
the events files back.
I notice a fair number of blasts accepted by the processors as events. We may look at 'blast discrimination' to
filter them out.
The production data is interesting and there may be a subtle, but important trend there

Temporalpatterns
I defined two polygons to separate the data into North and South sub-sets of the South (Fig. 1). The time
histories of seismicity parameters and production are shown in the figures below.
Fig. 2 is a standard Time-History (TH) plot for the whole of the South showing the variation over time of
median Energy Index (EI), Cumulative Seismic Displacement, time variation of Seismic Schmidt number and
Production for the period September and October 2012. Here we used a moving time window of 5 days for
EI and 10 days for Schmidt Number. The most prominent pattern here is the significant drop in EI before 31
October.
Figures 3 and 4 are also TH plots for SUR, but zoomed in to October only, using 2 days moving windows for
EI and Schmidt Number and adding Activity Rate and the ratio E_S/E_P. The latter two parameters drop
significantly before 31 October.
Figures 5 and 6 are standard TH plots for SUR-South and SUR-North note the drop in EI before 31
October in both cases, but more strongly so in the case of SUR-South.
Figures 7 and 8 show the TH patterns of Activity Rate and the ratio E_S/E_P for SUR.-South and SUR North
respectively. The very significant drop in the ratio E_S/E_P for SUR-South is noted. In Figs. 17 and 18, which
are E-M plots for the calculation of Apparent Stress Level, we colour the events according the the E_S/E_P
ratios and confirm that the ratio is higher when the Energy for given Moment (i.e. EI) is higher.
Fig. 9 are PvS plots (also called 'proper graphs) which are plots of cumulative cube root of Volume Mined vs.
cumulative seismic displacement (a fraction of the cube root of Seismic Potency) for SUR, SUR-South and
SUR-North. We note a subtle, but unmistakable flattening off of the graphs before 31 October. Figs. 10 and
11 are PvS graphs for SUR-South and SUR-North respectively, the graphs coloured by time.
Fig.s 12 and 13 are the same, but the graphs are coloured by production rate. Here we simply rune a 10 day
window over the PvS graph and calculate the ratio of volume mined over time, normalised for each graph
note that the colours in Fig. 13 do not reflect the same absolute values for production rate as the same
colours in the case of Fig. 12. We note at more than one ocassion an increase in production rate prior to a
larger event.
ELPinterimreportNov2012 2 InstituteofMineSeismology

SUR-S

SUR-N

Fig. 1. The two polygons of ELP-SUR.

Fig. 2. Time histories of EI, Cum. Seismic Displacement, Seismic Schmidt number and production for all
ELP-SUR for the period September and October 2012. EI moving time window is 5 days, 10 for Schmidt
Number
ELPinterimreportNov2012 3 InstituteofMineSeismology

Fig. 3. A zoom in on Fig. 2 with the moving window for media EI and for Schmidt number 2 days.

Fig. 4. Similar to Fig. 3, but with the ratio Activity Rate and the ratio Es/Ep, both in 2 days moving windows.
ELPinterimreportNov2012 4 InstituteofMineSeismology

Fig. 5. Time histories of EI, Cum. Seismic Displacement, Seismic Schmidt number and production for SUR-
South for the period September and October 2012. EI and Schmidt Number moving time windows are 5
days long.

Fig. 6. Time histories of EI, Cum. Seismic Displacement, Seismic Schmidt number and production for SUR-
North for the period September and October 2012. EI and Schmidt Number moving time windows are 5 days
long.
ELPinterimreportNov2012 5 InstituteofMineSeismology

Fig. 7. Time histories of Activity rate and E_S/E ratio for SUR-South for the period September and October
2012. The moving windows are five days

Fig. 8. Time histories of Activity rate and E_S/E ratio for SUR-North for the period September and October
2012. The moving windows are five days
ELPinterimreportNov2012 6 InstituteofMineSeismology

Fig. 9. Production vs seismicity (PvS) graphs for SUR, SUR-South and SUR-North.
ELPinterimreportNov2012 7 InstituteofMineSeismology

Fig. 10. PvS graph for SUR,-South the colours depict weeks

Fig. 11. Same as Fig. 9, but for SUR-North

ELPinterimreportNov2012 8 InstituteofMineSeismology

Fig. 12. PvS graph for SUR,-South the colour depicts relative production rate

Fig. 13. Same as Fig. 12, but for SUR-North. Note that the colours depict relative production rate and the
colours of the graph here cannot do not reflect the same values as the equivalent colours in Fig. 12.
ELPinterimreportNov2012 9 InstituteofMineSeismology

Modellingresults.
Themodellingleavesuswithalotofdatathatwestillhavetodigest.Belowweshowsomeresultsthatmayberelevant.
Wearepuzzledbythemaximum31Octoberdamagenotbeingclosetoeitherofthetwolargeevents.Wearealsopuzzledbythe
locationofthefistslargeeventof31October.Welookatsomemodellingresultsthatmayberelevant.
Fig.14showsaplanviewofthreesectionsalongwhichwecalculatedelasticdisplacement.Section1isthroughtheareaofthefirst
largeeventof31October.Section2throughtheareaofmaximumdamage.Section3isthroughtheareaofthesecondlargeevent
of31October.Fig.15showcolourcontoursofthetotalmodelledelasticdisplacementasatendOctober.Itisclearthattheareaof
maximumdamageisalsotheareawheremaximumtotaldisplacementwasmodelled.
Fig.16showsacollectionofthreesectionplotsofadifferentkind.Weutilizetheaxisallignedgridofourmodeltomakethe
calculationsmoreefficient.Wethenchooseaview(inthiscasealongtheXgridline,i.e.lookingNorth.Foreachminingstepwe
searchforthegridpointalongeachofthe3DelementsalongeachXgridline.Wethenplotthispointandcolourcodeitaccordingto
thevalueofthechangeinstress.WhenviewingthedataalongtheXdirectionyougeta2Dviewof3Dinformation,inthiscase
allowingustoseewhere(inaviewlookingNorth)themaximumincreasesinstressoccurredbetweenminingsteps.Weagainplot
theseismiceventsappropriateforeachstepand,inthecaseoftheendOctoberstep,wehighlightwithcirclesthetwolarge31
Octobereventsandthethemaximumdamagewithanellipse.
Wenoteingeneralintheareaofinteresthere,thelargereventsappearattractedtoareasofmaximumincreaseinstress.Wedonot
analysethestresschangesaboveandbelowtheareaof2012activeminingsowecannotjudgethisrelationintheareasoutsidethe
areaofinteresthere.Wenotethatforthethreeminingstepsforwhichwecalculatedthedifferencesinstress,clearlythelargest
increaseinstressoccurredbetweenendJuneandendOctober.NOTEthatwedidnothavethecorrectmineplaninformationtodo
thisanalysiscorrectlyattheendof2011,beginning2012.
Wecheckwhethertheseismicdataagreeswiththestressvariationsshown.WeconsideronlyeventsprocessedinStellenbosch
SeptemberandOctober)andapplyappropriateEMfilterstoexcludedblasts(althoughaproperblastdiscriminatorshouldstillbe
developed).WethencomparetheApparentStressLevelforSURNorthandSURSouth(Figs.17and18)andfindittobe1.6times
higherfortheSURSouth.ThisisconsistentthethehigherincreaseinstressfortheSURSouthareacomparedtothatoftheSUR
NorthareaasshowninthetopofFig.16.
ELPinterimreportNov2012 10 InstituteofMineSeismology

Fig. 14. Plan view of the sections shown below. The red arrow points South. The red arrow points South.
The 'eye' show direction of the direction of view for the sections, i.e. towards the South-West. The pink
rectangles are the cutting boxes for information display in the sections.

1 2 3

Fig. 15 Section views of the sections shown in Fig. 14. Colour contours reflect absolute maximum modelled
elastic displacement.. The spheres are those end October events within the cutting boxes of Fig. 14. The
ellipse demarcate area of maximum 31 October damage and the two circles the locations of the two 31
October large events.
ELPinterimreportNov2012 11 InstituteofMineSeismology

Fig. 16. Section view looking North showing colour contours of the change in maximum principle stress. The
plot thus shows the difference in stress between modelled mining steps. The legend shows the differences in
MPa. The event symbols are for those events that occurred during the mining step.
ELPinterimreportNov2012 12 InstituteofMineSeismology

Fig. 17. E-M plot for events at SUR-North. The colours depict the event E_S/E_M ratio.

Fig. 18. Same as Fig. 17, but for SUR-South.

ELPinterimreportNov2012 13 InstituteofMineSeismology

PreliminaryConclusions
Wehavealotofworktodotostudythedetailsofthemodellingresults.Meanwhilewecanstatesomeconclusionsbasedonour
currentinformation,withtheunderstandingthat,astheprojectworkcontinue,differentconclusionsmaybeapprppriate..

Thesecondofthe31Octobereventsisspatiallyassociatedwithanincreaseinstress.
Theoriginoffirstofthe31Octobereventsisstillunclear
Verysignificanttemporalseismicitypatterns(EIandE_S/E_P)suggestachangeinthenatureoftheseismiceventsprior
to31October,especiallyintheSURSouthpoly.Possiblemoresmallpillarsstartedtofail,softeningthearea.
PvSgraphssuggestthatanincreaseinproductionrateleadstoahigherlikelihoodoflargeevents.Itmaybeimportantto
establishanappropriaterateofproductionfortheSouth(verylow,mostlikely)andneverincreasethisrate.