International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 104 (2018) 64–70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

The b-value evolution of mining-induced seismicity and mainshock T

occurrences at hard-rock mines
⁎
Xu Maa, , Erik Westmana, Brent Slakera, Denis Thibodeaub, Dave Counterc
a
Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA
b
SRK Consulting, Sudbury, Ontario Canada P3E 5S1
c
Glencore Canada Corporation, Timmins, Ontario, Canada P4N 7K1

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:
Mining-induced seismicity
Mainshock
Seismic monitoring
B-value

1. Introduction seismicity at underground mines has much in common with observing

Using mining-induced seismicity to detect potential dangers and
mitigate hazards is a long-term quest for mine safety. Seismic mon-
itoring systems are widely used to monitor and record seismic activity
at mines, paving the way for increased safety across the mining in-
dustry.1–4 Used as an indicator of rock bursts, the average rate of
seismicity is of importance to forecast potential danger at underground
mines. More in-depth studies are needed because defining the absolute
rate of mining-induced seismicity as a threshold fails to forecast
mainshocks in many cases. This raises the question of how the mining
industry can make better use of mining-induced seismicity and detect
potential dangers. One answer is to recognize signals that indicate the
mainshocks, and identify the pattern of mining-induced seismicity
based on source mechanisms, especially how seismicity behaves before
and after mainshocks.5,6 Seismologists have devoted a significant effort
on seismic hazard analysis by applying statistical scaling methods in
mainshock and aftershock sequences.7–11 Further, frameworks from
crustal earthquake studies have proved that these methods can be
coupled with engineering applications in mining-induced seismicity to
improve safety at mines.12–16
It is well known that seismic events are associated with the nu-
cleation of microcracks in rocks. Nucleation of fractures is initiated
when the deviatoric stress is large enough. Mining greatly disturb the
stress regime, and fractures are generated once the local stress exceeds
the local strength.17 As a result of mine excavations, the rock mass in
the proximity of excavations loses its balanced state of stress and thus
stress concentration or stress deficit regions are formed. Monitoring
other subsurface phenomena such as crustal earthquakes. Techniques
deployed in crustal earthquakes have been applied to investigate
mining-induced seismicity. Seismic hazard analyses of mining-induced
seismicity are mainly based on earthquake frequency statistics on his-
torical catalogues of seismicity. It is well known that aftershocks of a
mainshock satisfy the Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude scaling
law, and seismic b-value is the slope of linear fit through the frequency
magnitude relationship.18 Several global and regional surveys were
performed to assess the empirical constant in validating the Gutenberg-
Richter law.19,20 Isacks and Oliver21 claimed that it is plausible to use
the hypothesis of constant b-value to predict the earthquakes by ex-
trapolating to higher magnitudes following Gutenberg-Richter law in
frequency magnitude relations. Examining the b-value before large
earthquakes in New Zealand, California and Venezuela indicated that
mainshocks were preceded by periods with a higher b-value.22 McGarr
and Green23 added evidence supporting the viewpoint that the seis-
micity and rock deformation are closely correlated in space and time. In
addition, it provides a new insight that the b-value can be used as an
indicator of failures in a lab-scale rock.22,24,25 Merged with under-
ground observations, seismic hazard analyses indicated that mining-
induced seismicity obeys the same magnitude-frequency relationship as
crustal earthquakes.26 Magnitude-frequency data for events over 1 year
at Harmony Gold Mine agreed very well with Gutenberg-Richter law.27
The b-value of mining-induced seismicity is revolutionary for efficiently
and rigorously assessing seismic hazards at underground mines.28,29
Although the b-value is likely to be the determinant of seismic ha-
zard analyses at multiple scales, simply providing an index of the b-

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xuma@vt.edu (X. Ma).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.02.003
Received 1 June 2017; Received in revised form 5 December 2017; Accepted 3 February 2018
1365-1609/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Ma et al.
value cannot achieve the goal of providing underground mines a full
picture of seismic hazards. Restraints and uncertainties involved in
seismicity forecasting on historical data from multiple sites perhaps
yield imprecise results. Rock failures in the proximity of maximum
stress concentration are usually found surrounding the edges of mining
excavations. The length of cracks and stress both increase gradually
during the first regime and then develop faster to achieve the critical
stress. Seismic events are triggered when the rupture develops. Fracture
planes are formed parallel to the stope faces.30 The stress drop arises on
the fracture plane associated with seismic events, redistributing stress
to adjacent areas of the rock mass.31
The objective of this article is to present the change of b-value as-
sociated with mining-induced seismicity sequences, and to describe
relationships of b-value and mainshocks within hard-rock underground
mines. We found that mining-induced seismicity from two mine sites
agreed with the law of Gutenberg-Richter frequency-magnitude very
well. By comparing the temporal evolution of b-value for consistent
seismicity sequences of these two mines, a uniform pattern of b-value
change before the occurrence of mainshocks was recognized. The b-
value was computed using the seismicity within the same time scale for
each mine. The maximum likelihood method was used to describe the
regression between frequency and magnitude of mining-induced seis-
micity and evaluate the goodness of fit. We validated that the mining-
induced seismicity obeyed the Gutenberg-Richter law and the max-
imum likelihood estimation method could be applied to determine the
magnitude of completeness for computing b value. The correlation
between mainshocks and temporal variations of the b-value can be
potentially used to assess long-term mining-induced seismic hazards.
2. Data and methods
Several mainshocks sequences recorded in the seismic networks of
Creighton Mine and Kidd Mine were investigated to compute the b-
value temporal variations using each time period's optimal magnitude
of completeness, which was determined by evaluating the goodness of
fit on a series of magnitude values in this study. The data in Table 1 and
Table 2 illustrate the time, location, and magnitude of mainshocks from
Creighton Mine and Kidd Mine. The moment magnitude of micro-
seismic events approximately ranged from 2.5 to 1.0 at these mines.
The data presented were obtained from microseismic monitoring sys-
tems and strong ground motion systems. A microseismic monitoring
system is specifically designed for detecting the microseismic events,
the moment magnitude of which is less than zero. A strong ground
motion system is focused on recording mainshocks. About 40,000 mi-
croseismic events from April to September 2011 were recorded at
Creighton Mine, and this data set includes arrival time of waveforms at
corresponding stations, moment magnitude, locations of events, and
ratio of P and S wave energy ES/Ep. Fig. 1a demonstrates the temporal
distribution of magnitude of microsesimic events and mainshocks of
Creighton Mine. The spatial distribution of microseismic events,
mainshocks, and seismic monitoring stations of Creighton Mine is
shown in Fig. 1b as plan view and Fig. 1c as longitudinal view. They
also exhibit moment magnitudes and temporal distribution of micro-
seismic events. As shown in Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c, these two mainshocks at
Creighton Mine located at regions with the highest seismic densities.
Similarly, comprehensive information of seismicity at Kidd Mine was
collected by a microseismic monitoring system and a strong ground
motion system as well. The seismicity data at Kidd Mine include 17,858
Table 1
Times, locations, and magnitude of mainshocks at creighton mine.
Mainshocks Date Time North (m)
1 July 6, 2011 8:41 A.M. 1927
2 July 10, 2011 2:44 A.M. 1853
65
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 104 (2018) 64–70
microseismic events from July 2007 to March 2012, the temporal
magnitude distribution and cumulative number of which is shown in
Fig. 2a. In addition, Fig. 2b and Fig. 2c show the spatial distribution of
microsesimic events, mainshocks, and stations at Kidd Mine. Moment
magnitudes and temporal distributions of microseismic events are ex-
hibited as well. In addition, Fig. 3 shows the frequency of magnitude
distribution for the events of Creighton Mine and Kidd Mine. The cutoff
magnitude of seismic events for computing the b-value was assessed by
analyzing the magnitude of completeness, which is defined as the
lowest magnitude at which 100% of the events are detected in temporal
and spatial scales.32 By visualizing the frequency distribution of mag-
nitude, it was inferred that the magnitude of completeness for
Creighton Mine should be larger than −1.6 and that for Kidd Mine
should be over −1.9 according to their maximum frequency windows
of magnitude. Further, a rigorous method, originally used in crustal
earthquake studies, for obtaining the accurate magnitude of com-
pleteness was firstly used in mining-induced seismicity, validating that
it could be well applied to mining-induced seismicity for better un-
derstanding correlations between the b-value variations and main-
shocks. The computing process of determining the optimal magnitude
of completeness for mining-induced seismicity sequences is explained
below.
An important empirical observation on seismic events is the
Gutenberg-Richter law, which interprets the proportional relationship
between the magnitude M and the cumulative number of seismic events
with magnitude larger than M:
logN = a − bM (1)
where N is the cumulative number of events; M is the magnitude of
completeness. Goebel and Schorlemmer33 reported that seismic b-value
of induced seismicity from lab tests reflects the stress buildup and re-
lease on laboratory-created fault zones in rock samples. Further, they
revealed that the volume of b-value change is linked with fault-slip
events, implying the corresponding stress drop.33 Moreover, Schor-
lemmer and Wiemer34 expected that seismic b-value is an indicator of
stress and is positively proportional to deviatoric stress, σ1 – σ3. They
continued to claim that high b-values are correlated with slip events.
Since mainshocks for our case studies are fault-slip seismic events, we
initially inferred that b-value variations from mining-induced seismicity
are likely to be associated with these mainshocks. Accordingly, in-
vestigation on seismic b-value variations can indicate stress buildup and
drop process with mainshock occurrences in the proximity of fault
structures at underground mines, providing insights into time-depen-
dent seismic hazard assessment. To check whether a similar or uniform
pattern existed in these mining-induced seismicity sequences, we vali-
dated the Gutenberg-Richter relationship of mining-induced seismicity
at Creighton Mine (Fig. 4a) and Kidd Mine (Fig. 4b). As shown in Fig. 4,
the cumulative number of aftershocks and magnitude distribution sa-
tisfy power law relationships for Creighton Mine and Kidd Mine. Be-
cause the average rate of seismicity in Creighton Mine was nearly 6
times higher than Kidd Mine, we used data sets of seismic events di-
vided by different time scales to compute the b-value for every sub-
group seismicity. That is, we used events of each 14 days to produce a
b-value for Creighton Mine. In contrast, events in 90 days were included
to generate a b-value for Kidd Mine. These selected time periods
guaranteed that each period included at least 1000 microseismic
events, avoiding the low goodness of fit caused by scarcity of events in
studied periods. The process of selecting magnitude of completeness
East (m) Depth (m) Moment magnitude
1399 2332 3.1
1385 2392 1.4
X. Ma et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 104 (2018) 64–70

Table 2
Times, locations, and magnitude of mainshocks at kidd mine.

Mainshocks Date Time North (m) East (m) Depth (m) Moment magnitude

1 January 6, 2009 4:40 65,733 65,686 1150 3.8

2 June 15, 2009 19:01 65,861 65,737 1035 3.1
3 August 21, 2011 8:08 65,851 65,727 1040 3.2
4 September 13, 2011 7:59 65,756 65,743 1236 3.8

5 18000
Microseismic events
4 Mainshocks 16000
Cumulative number

Cumulative Number of Events

Moment Magnitude of Events
3 14000

2 12000

1 10000

0 8000

-1 6000

-2 4000

-3 2000

-4 0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)

(c)
Fig. 1. (a) Temporal distributions of microseismic events and mainshocks at Creighton
Mine. (b) Plan view and (c) longitudinal view of microseismic events, mainshocks, and
stations at Creighton Mine.
(c)
Fig. 2. (a) Temporal distributions of microseismic events and mainshocks at Kidd Mine.
(b) Plan view and (c) longitudinal view of microseismic events, mainshocks, and stations
at Kidd Mine.

66
X. Ma et al.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3. Frequency distribution with moment magnitude of seismic events at (a) Creighton
Mine (b) Kidd Mine.
using maximum likelihood method is interpreted in Fig. 5 and the
following descriptions.
We employed the estimation method, developed by Wiember and
Wyss35, that describes the self-similarity of seismicity processes and
implies a power-law distribution of seismicity. According to the im-
plication of power-law distribution of seismicity (Fig. 4), this method
considers the estimate of magnitude of completeness and its influence
on the b-value. We used the maximum likelihood method to determine
an optimal magnitude of completeness for each data set in a selected
period for both Creighton Mine and Kidd Mine. By evaluating the
goodness of fit of one time period, we picked an optimal magnitude of
completeness. First, we estimated the b- and a- value using filtered
events with M ≥ Mi based on Gutenberg-Richter law35,36. Mi represents
the selected magnitude for estimating the b- and the a- value. To con-
struct a perfect fit of Gutenberg-Richter law, a series of estimated b-
value, a value, and their corresponding Mi were used to construct a
synthetic distribution. Then, the absolute difference between the ob-
served and synthetic distribution in each magnitude bin (bin = 0.1 for
Creighton Mine and Kidd Mine) was calculated to estimate the goodness
of fit:
M
max
⎛ ∑Mi Bi − Si ⎞ Bolt36. The standard error of b is
R (a, b, Mi ) = 100 − ⎜ × 100⎟
∑i Bi
⎝ ⎠
where Bi and Si are the observed and synthetic cumulative number of
events in each magnitude bin. We randomly picked a data set of 14 days
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 104 (2018) 64–70
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4. Cumulative numbers of aftershocks are given as functions of magnitude for (a) the
first mainshock at Creighton Mine and (b) the first mainshock at Kidd Mine. Lines are the
best fit of Gutenberg-Ritcher relation.
from Creighton Mine and a data set of 90 days of Kidd Mine, respec-
tively. As shown in Fig. 6, the values of goodness of fit at Creighton
Mine and Kidd Mine increase first and achieve the peak around moment
magnitude of −1.5. They start dropping gradually once the moment
magnitude is over about −1.5. For this data set at Creighton Mine, the
optimal assumed Mc = −1.48 can explain 87% of the data variability
(Fig. 6). Similarly, the optimal assumed Mc = −1.47 can explain 92%
of the data variability for this picked data set of Kidd Mine (Fig. 6).
Consequently, we determined that the magnitude of completeness for
this randomly picked data set of Creighton Mine is −1.48 and −1.47
for this data set of Kidd Mine. Note that similar analyses of goodness of
fit have been conducted for all data sets and the magnitude of com-
pleteness for each data set are varied because each data set has its own
magnitude of completeness based on the goodness of fit analysis.
After determining the magnitude of completeness, we applied the
magnitude of completeness and computed the a-value and b-value, as
well as standard error and standard deviation, of each data set of
Creighton Mine and Kidd Mine using method developed by Shi and
(2) σ (b) = 2.30b2σ (M ) (3)
where b is the estimated b-value. σ (M ) represents the standard devia-
tion:
67
X. Ma et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 104 (2018) 64–70

Ensure statistical Use the optimal Mc to compute b-

Data request and significance, compare, and value for each data set and related
collection examine the b-value statistical parameter: standard error
evolution with mainshocks and standard deviation

Y
Mining-induced
seismicity

Obtain high
N quality goodness
of fit?

Evaluate the goodness

Divide the seismicity to of fit to determine the
multiple data sets optimal magnitude of
completeness Mc

Fig. 5. Flowchart illustrating the procedure of constructing data sets, determining the magnitude of completeness, computing b-value and related statistical parameters.

3. Results

By computing and evaluating the goodness of fit across all time

periods of Creighton Mine and Kidd Mine, we obtained an optimal
magnitude of completeness for each time period and then applied every
time period's optimal magnitude of completeness to the Gutenberg-
Richter law to generate the b-value of each time period. We recognized
that the b-value firstly decreased and then increased, which formed an
elbow point, before the occurrence of mainshocks for both mines. This
signature of the b-value variation could be a potential tool to be used as
an indicator for forecasting the occurrence of mainshocks.

3.1. The b-value evolution at Creighton Mine

We computed the temporal patterns of b-value change using

(a)
mining-induced seismicity of the entire mine and learned how to
forecast it. We evaluated the goodness of fit using maximum likelihood
method as described in the section of data and methods. A series of b-
value of seismicity from Creighton Mine for the period from March to
December 2011 were yielded after the magnitude of completeness was
identified. Fig. 7a exhibits the temporal variations of b-value along with
the occurrence of mainshocks. Preceding the mainshocks periods of
Creighton Mine, the b-value appeared to drop significantly, forming the
signature of an elbow point (Fig. 7a). We found that b-values of period
with the first mainshock is significantly higher than any other period.
The period with first mainshock experienced the b-value at peak 1.17:
the b-value increased 38% from last period to achieve this peak value.
Although the b-value decreased 12% from the first mainshock period to
the second mainshock period, the b-value of the second mainshock
period is larger than the b-value of most other periods. Overall, the b-
value initially dropped before the mainshocks and then grew to the
highest value within mainshocks period. Consequently, an apparent
(b)
elbow point of b-value evolution was formed before the mainshocks
Fig. 6. Goodness of fit for a variety of moment magnitude (a) The optimal magnitude of period. This significant change on b-value shows that the b-value was
completeness Mc = −1.48 and goodness of fit = 87% of a selected time period at strongly correlated with mainshocks and the elbow pattern of evolution
Creighton Mine (b) The optimal magnitude of completeness Mc = −1.47 and goodness of
could be potentially used as an indicator for mainshocks at Creighton
fit = 92% of a selected time period at Kidd Mine.
Mine. Having experienced two mainshock periods, the b-value drops
gradually to around 0.8 in the last period.
n
(Mi − M )2
σ 2 (M ) = ∑ n (n − 1)
i=1 (4) 3.2. The b-value evolution at Kidd Mine

where M is the mean value of all magnitude values that are satisfied We analyzed the b-value change with mainshocks for Kidd Mine and
with Mi > Mc, and n is the number of these magnitude values. The found a similar pattern of temporal evolution of b-value as Creighton
standard error and standard deviation of each data set are important to Mine using mining-induced seismicity of the entire mine. The first
evaluate the data variability and confidence level of calculation signature of an elbow point (Fig. 7b) forecasting mainshocks appeared

68
X. Ma et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 104 (2018) 64–70

1.2 4. Discussion
2nd mainshock period
1.1 1st mainshock period According to the case studies of these two underground mines, we
found that b-value increased to a peak value up to the occurrence of
1 mainshocks caused by mining-induced seismicity within a certain
period. The b-value initially declined to a relative low level in a certain
b-value

0.9
period before mainshocks and grew to higher values with approaching
the mainshocks periods. This provides critical information for seismic
hazards forecasting and mitigation. According to these case studies, we
0.8
found an elbow point of the b-value evolution, which was caused by the
The elbow point of the decrease and return of the b-value, near the occurrence of mainshocks.
0.7 b-value variations at These studies validated inherent similarities of mining-induced seis-
Creighton Mine
micity and crustal earthquakes in terms of source mechanism, although
0.6 the triggered mechanism and regions of influence are on different
04/2011 05/2011 06/2011 07/2011 08/2011 09/2011 10/2011
Date scales.
(a) Given the evidence of the temporal variation of b-value in crustal
earthquakes, there are mainly two patterns of b-value change asso-
1.6
ciated with mainshocks.22 First, the b-value increases to a peak and
2nd mainshock period
1.5 1st mainshock period then drops preceding aftershocks. Aftershocks occur during the de-
1.4 crease. Second, a high b-value appears prior to the mainshock. Overall,
the b-value is influenced by either the previous mainshock or the
1.3
mainshock after the peak of b-value. The investigation of b-value
b-value

1.2 change in Creighton Mine demonstrates that b-value evolving with the
The elbow point of the b-value
1.1 variations before mainshocks occurrence of mainshock agrees with the trend in the crustal earth-
in 2009 at Kidd Mine quakes study discussed above.
1
The elbow point of the b-value A previous study claimed that research on b-value spatial change is
0.9 variations before mainshocks
in 2011 at Kidd Mine more important because b-value change spatially could indicate stress
0.8 drops in the spatial analyses.28 The hypothesis is that b-value variation
3rd & 4th mainshocks period
0.7
is conversely correlated with stress change and mainshocks occur where
07 08 08 09 09 10 10 11 11 12 the largest gradient in b-value exists. In order to ensure accurate b-
20 n 20 c 20 n 20 c 20 n 20 c 20 n 20 c 20 n 20
ec u e u e u e u e u value estimate, analyzing spatial change in the b-value requires con-
ct-D pr-J ct-D pr-J ct-D pr-J ct-D pr-J ct-D pr-J
O A O A O A O A O A
siderable available induced seismicity to fully measure the spatial b-
Date
(b) value change, as induced seismicity needs to be spatially divided into
multiple zones or volumes. To accumulate enough energy release in
Fig. 7. Temporal change of the b-values with standard error at (a) Creighton Mine (b)
Kidd Mine. Continuous line with unfilled circles: b-values through all time periods; circles
different regions, probably a longer duration is required to satisfy the
filled red: the specific time period with occurrence of mainshocks. needed amount of induced seismicity in each region. Thus, temporal
analyses on b-value change would still play an important role because it
allows an investigation of the seismic hazard even if induced seismic
during the period from late 2008 to early 2009, which was prior to the
data acquired over short time period is available. If significant b-value
first mainshock period and the second mainshock period. The second
change can be identified for underground mines, patterns of which can
one (Fig. 7b) exhibited during the period from 2010 to 2011, which was
reflect potential locations such as faults and ongoing excavations, so as
prior to the third and the fourth mainshocks. As shown in Fig. 7b, the
to filter out potential mainshocks and enhance the mining safety. More
first and the second periods with mainshocks experienced the largest
analysis is required with multiple mainshocks over time to confirm the
and the second largest b-value. There was a decline of b-value prior to
pattern obtained with these case studies, so as to ensure that this
soaring to the highest level so that an elbow point of b-value evolution
methodology is robust and can be reliably applied to underground
was formed. The b-value increased by 21% from the previous period
mines.
before mainshock and surged to nearly 1.52 at the period when the first
mainshock occurred. It slightly dropped to 1.49 at the next period when
5. Conclusion
the second mainshock was triggered. After the b-value continuously
experienced a high level with mainshocks, it reduced gradually to about
Through computing and examining the b-value variations by using
1.2 through 6 months and fluctuated at this level during the following
the optimal magnitude of completeness, we identified significant
periods until approaching the period with the mainshocks occurring in
changes of the b-value associated with mainshocks. The b-value tends
2011. Before the occurrence of mainshocks in 2011, the b-value
to drop before the occurrence of mainshocks and then significantly
dropped to 0.9 within 6 months. Then, it grew to over 1.0 in the period
grows to a higher level near or within the mainshocks period. Likewise,
with mainshocks in 2011. Due to the initial drop before the occurrence
an elbow point appears during the b-value change prior to the period
of mainshocks and following increase of b-value within the mainshock
with mainshocks. The appearance of an elbow point in the b-value vs
periods, an elbow point of the b-value change appeared before main-
time plot could be used as an indicator of the increasing probability of
shocks period in 2011. While we used seismicity within 14 days as a
incurring a mainshock. These findings confirm the implication that b-
unit to yield a b-value for Creighton Mine, seismicity within a quarter
value can be used to forecast potential mainshocks and mitigate
was used to produce a b-value for Kidd Mine, as the average seismic
mining-induced seismic hazards. The comparison between observed
rate at Creighton Mine was nearly 6 times higher than Kidd Mine. At
and predicted cumulative number of seismic events could be applied to
least a thousand seismic events need to be used to enable yielding a
examine the goodness of fit, ensuring statistical significance for de-
statistically reliable b-value from previous investigations.
termining the magnitude of completeness of mining-induced seismicity.
A reasonable examination of magnitude of completeness ensures
accurate regression between cumulative number of seismic events and
the distribution of magnitudes. According to our case studies, every

69
X. Ma et al. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 104 (2018) 64–70

magnitude of completeness could be estimated for each data set based wave splitting analysis: an example from a mining setting. Geophys J Int.
on the goodness of fit using maximum likelihood method. It is re- 2011;187:848–860.
14. Young R, Collins D, Reyes-Montes J. Quantification and interpretation of seismicity.
commended that standard error and standard deviation should be Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2004;41:1317–1327.
evaluated after determining the magnitude of completeness of mining- 15. Lu C, Dou L, Zhang N, Xue J, Wang X. Microseismic frequency-spectrum evolutionary
induced seismicity. rule of rockburst triggered by roof fall. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2013;64:6–16.
16. Ma X, Westman EC, Fahrman BP, Thibodeau D. Imaging of temporal stress redis-
tribution due to triggered seismicity at a deep nickel mine. Geomech Energy Environ.
Acknowledgements 2016;5:55–64.
17. Kranz R. Microcracks in rocks: a review. Tectonophysics. 1983;100:449–480.
18. Gutenberg B, Richter C. Magnitude and energy of earthquakes. Ann di Geofis.
The authors would like to acknowledge the Canadian Mining 1956;9:1–15.
Industry Research Organization for providing data and financial sup- 19. Wesnousky S. Crustal deformation processes and the stability of the Gutenberg-
port for this study. We thank Vale and Glencore for their overall in- Richter relationship. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1999;89:1131–1137.
20. Shcherbakov R, Turcotte DL, Rundle JB. Aftershock Statistics. Pure Appl Geophys.
volvement and contributions to this study. This work is also supported
2005;162(6–7):1051–1076.
by NIOSH (contract 200-2011-40313) through the Capacity Building 21. Isacks B, Oliver J. Seismic waves with frequencies from 1 to 100 cycles per second
and Ground Control Research for the Mining Industry program. recorded in a deep mine in northern new Jersey. Bull Seismol Soc Am.
1964;54:1941–1979.
22. Smith W. The b-value as an earthquake precursor. Nature. 1981;289:136–139.
References 23. McGarr A, Green R. Measurement of tilt in a deep‐level gold mine and its relationship
to mining and seismicity. Geophys J Int. 1975;43:327–345.
1. Urbancic T, Trifu C, Young R. Microseismicity derived fault‐Planes and their re- 24. Mogi K. Magnitude-frequency relation for elastic shocks accompanying fractures of
lationship to focal mechanism, stress inversion, and geologic data. Geophys Res Lett. various materials and some related problems in earthquakes (2nd paper). Bull Earthq
1993;20:2475–2478. Res Inst. 1962;40:831–853.
2. Urbancic T, Trifu C. Recent advances in seismic monitoring technology at Canadian 25. Lockner D. The role of acoustic emission in the study of rock fracture. Int J Rock Mech
mines. J Appl Geophys. 2000;45:225–237. Min Sci. 1993;30:883–899.
3. Malek F, Espley S, Yao M, Trifu C. Management of high stress and seismicity at Vale 26. Boettcher M, McGarr A. Extension of Gutenberg‐Richter distribution to Mw− 1.3, no
Inco Creighton Mine. 42nd US Rock Mech Symp. Paper ARMA-08-386. lower limit in sight. Geophys Res. 2009;36:L10307.
4. Hudyma M, Potvin Y. An engineering approach to seismic risk management in 27. McGarr A. Violent deformation of rock near deep-level, tabular excavations—seismic
hardrock mines. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2010;43:891–906. events. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1971;61:1453–1466.
5. Brady B, Leighton F. Seismicity anomaly prior to a moderate rock burst: a case study. 28. Urbancic T, Trifu C, Long J, Young R. Space-time correlations of b values with stress
Int J Rock Mech. 1977;14:127–132. release. Pure Appl Geophys. 1992;139:449–462.
6. Abdul-Wahed M, Heib M Al, Senfaute G. Mining-induced seismicity: seismic mea- 29. Vallejos J, McKinnon S. Correlations between mining and seismicity for re-entry
surement using multiplet approach and numerical modeling. Int J Coal Geol. protocol development. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2011;48:616–625.
2006;66:137–147. 30. Cook NGW. Seismicity associated with mining. Eng Geol. 1976;10(2):99–122.
7. Convertito V, Maercklin N, Sharma N. From induced seismicity to direct time‐- 31. Shaw B. Generalized Omori law for aftershocks and foreshocks from a simple dy-
dependent seismic hazard. Bull Seism Soc Am. 2012;102(6):2563–2573. namics. Geophys Res Lett. 1993;20:907–910.
8. Bourne S, Oates S, Elk J. A seismological model for earthquakes induced by fluid 32. Woessner J, Wiemer S. Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogues: estimating the
extraction from a subsurface reservoir. J Geophys Res. 2014;119:8991–9015. magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty. Bull Seismol Soc Am.
9. Bommer J, Crowley H, Pinho R. A risk-mitigation approach to the management of 2005;95(2):684–698.
induced seismicity. J Seismol. 2015;19:623–646. 33. W. Goebel TH, Schorlemmer D, Becker TW, Dresen G, Sammis CG. Acoustic emis-
10. Bourne S, Oates S, Bommer J, Dost B. A Monte Carlo method for probabilistic hazard sions document stress changes over many seismic cycles in stick-slip experiments.
assessment of induced seismicity due to conventional natural gas production. Bull Geophys Res Lett. 2013;40(10):2049–2054.
Seism Soc Am. 2015;105:1721–1738. 34. Schorlemmer D, Wiemer S, Wyss M. Variations in earthquake-size distribution across
11. Baker J, Gupta A. Bayesian treatment of induced seismicity in probabilistic seismi- different stress regimes. Nature. 2005;437:539–542.
c‐hazard analysis. Bull Seism Soc Am. 2016;106:860–870. 35. Wiemer S. Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: examples
12. Young R, Maxwell S. Seismic characterization of a highly stressed rock mass using from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am.
tomographic imaging and induced seismicity. J Geophys Res. 2000;90(4):859–869.
1992;97:12,361–12,373. 36. Shi Y, Bolt BA. The standard error of the magnitude-frequency b value. Bull Seismol
13. Wuestefeld A, Kendall J, Verdon J. In situ monitoring of rock fracturing using shear Soc Am. 1982;72:1677–1687.

70