Caving 2018 – Y Potvin and J Jakubec (eds)

© 2018 Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, ISBN 978-0-9924810-9-4

doi:10.36487/ACG_rep/1815_40_Chester

Development and implementation of the Short Term Activity

Tracker and Mine Control Trigger Response System

C Chester Newcrest Mining Limited, Australia

D Cuello Newcrest Mining Limited, Australia
G Basson Institute of Mine Seismology, Australia

Abstract
Seismic risk management at mining operations is predominately reliant on analysis and interpretation by ground
control engineers, who must also manage all other mine site geotechnical hazards. Seismic systems run in real
time collecting seismic parameters. However, the analysis, interpretation and resultant actions can be
intermittent depending on available resources. Stress-induced seismicity during cave initiation and propagation
is a constantly evolving hazard that requires a high level of continuous monitoring and examination. The authors
have assisted in the development of integrated seismic monitoring and trigger response software applications
within the Ticker3D seismic visualiser and analysis application, developed by the Institute of Mine Seismology
(IMS). The benefits of the integrated applications include real-time monitoring of key seismic parameters and
automatic trigger response, aiming to reduce workforce exposure to hazardous seismic conditions. Using
measured ground motion as a monitoring input enables an almost immediate trigger response to a threshold
breach via the Mine Control Trigger Response System. The continuity in seismic data interpretation and triggered
mitigation controls are also recognised advantages to the applications.
Keywords: seismic risk management, TARP, ground motion, Short Term Activity Tracker, seismicity,
mitigation controls, exposure

1 Introduction
Analysis, interpretation and response to seismic activity is an inherent part of geotechnical engineering for
deep and high-stress mines in Australia. Trigger Action Response Plans (TARPs) are often used to coordinate
proactive and reactive responses to seismic activity and large seismic events. Although TARPs provide a
response framework and trigger levels, it is often still the job of the geotechnical engineer to interrogate the
seismic database and determine if a trigger threshold has been breached. This human component results not
only in delays in response action initiation, but also inconsistencies in data interpretation and risk
categorisation. This reduces the value of TARPs as a risk management tool. Having dealt with seismic risk
management over a combined career span of 30 years, the authors, in conjunction with the Institute of Mine
Seismology (IMS), developed an integrated monitoring and response software application. The application is
designed for automatic tracking of seismic parameters and triggering responses following threshold
breaches. The key features of the applications are built upon existing features of the IMS Ticker3D software
package, and can be summarised as follows:
 Continuous and real-time monitoring of seismicity and system health.
 Rapid and automatic trigger response initiation.
 Multiple monitoring parameters, event activity rate, event magnitude, peak ground velocity (PGV)
and system health.
 Trigger response continuity through reduced human intervention.
 Electronic document management (TARP).

Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada 521

Development and implementation of the Short Term Activity Tracker C Chester et al.
and Mine Control Trigger Response System

 Alert confirmation and parameter change logs.

 Trigger threshold impact evaluation.
 Effective communication tool.
 Long-term seismic system monitoring.

2 Seismic risk management – historic approach

A qualitative or quantitative seismic risk assessment approach, used to assess the safety risk associated with
seismicity has previously been suggested by Heal et al. (2006), whereby:
𝑆𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 𝑆𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝐻𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑 × 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 × 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 (1)
Any reduction in one of the three factors will result in a direct reduction in seismic risk. The work undertaken
and detailed in this publication focuses primarily on reducing workforce exposure in caving operations
through the use of automatic software applications for monitoring of the seismic environment and to initiate
mitigation controls. Historically, there have been minimal adoptions of automation applied to seismic risk
management, with reliance on engineers to review and interpret seismic trends and enact any mitigating
controls. This process is often undertaken with the use of TARPs, used to categorise the level of risk and
outline mitigating controls.
TARPs are now common within the mining industry covering numerous aspects of both underground and open
pit mining. They are a useful communication tool that can be used to classify the risk condition and highlight
normal operating conditions, abnormal conditions where a risk may be emerging, or emergency conditions.
Although TARPs are fundamentally reactive in their management of hazards, whereby predefined response
actions are triggered as a reactive response to breached thresholds, for the purpose of this paper two
classifications, ‘proactive’ and ‘reactive’ TARPs have been used. This is to distinguish between TARPs that act
upon precursory event triggers (proactive TARPs) and those that are activated post an event’s occurrence
(reactive TARPs). The aim of proactive TARPs being hazard prevention or reduction in hazard probability
and/or hazard exposure. Whereas reactive TARPS, which are more common, deal with the aftermath of a
hazard’s occurrence. Here, the goal is to reduce further exposure to sympathetic hazards such as aftershocks
or delayed falls of ground.
TARPs are generally broken down into a number of levels for the identified hazard, which have set conditions
or thresholds that correspond to predetermined actions or mitigation controls. The primary purpose of a TARP
is to assist decision-makers implement response actions and minimise delay. Other benefits include the capture
of lessons learnt from previous occurrence and mock simulations, and standardised responses to risks. Although
the benefits of TARPs for risk management are well recognised, there are identified shortfalls with their
implementation and management, which are discussed in relation to seismic TARPs in the following sections.

2.1 Seismic TARPs

The TARP framework lends itself to seismic risk management at mining operations, with mining regulatory
bodies considering their use as ‘good practice’. The effectiveness of the TARP platform and its associated
controls are limited by seismic monitoring technology, lack of automation, and the requirement for human
intervention. The following section discusses some of the ways in which a TARP can be applied to seismic risk
management and the associated shortfalls.

2.1.1 Proactive seismic TARPs

One of the more challenging aspects of seismic risk management is the development of an effective proactive
seismic TARP, whereby seismic parameter(s) are monitored in a way so as to determine the onset of
increased seismic risk and potential for more adverse seismic conditions. Proactive seismic TARPs have
threshold triggers aimed at implementing mitigation controls before the large event occurs. One example of

522 Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada

 Seismicity – tools to manage seismic risk

a proactive seismic risk management approach is to monitor seismic event activity rate to provide an
indication of the seismic hazard state. An increase in seismic activity rate is considered by Mendecki (2016a)
as an indicator of an elevated seismic hazard state.
However, the application of an event activity rate-based TARP often relies on the subjective interpretation
of individual engineers and is typically undertaken intermittently throughout the day and during working
hours. As the induced-stress conditions at a caving operation, especially during the early stages of cave
undercutting, initiation and propagation, are constantly evolving, the seismic environment and associated
hazard also adjust constantly. Under an intermittent review approach, any rapid change in seismic activity
outside of a review period has the potential to be overlooked or identified only after a period of increased
seismic risk exposure.

2.1.2 Reactive seismic TARPs

Reactive seismic TARPs deal with the aftermath of a large seismic event, which includes the potential for
aftershocks and other sympathetic hazards such as rockfall. The aim of the TARP is to rapidly and safely
reduce personnel exposure to the current hazard state and any cascading hazards, which may have elevated
states as a result of the initial event(s). Reactive seismic trigger thresholds are often based on an event’s
magnitude and proximity to excavations, being major components of seismic hazard definition. There is
inherently a delay between event occurrence and response initiation, as events must first be manually
processed, either onsite or remotely, to ensure authenticity and accurate event location and magnitude.
Once processed and a threshold breach realised, an automated alert can be generated either via an
automated voice message, SMS or e-mail. This identified delay leaves the workforce unnecessarily exposed
to potential sympathetic hazards such as damaging aftershocks or unstable ground conditions resulting from
an initiating event. In addition to the delays associated with event processing, there can be further delays
associated with data interpretation and communication of required mitigation controls; again adding to the
exposure time of the workforce to a possibly heightened seismic hazard.
The management and implementation of reactive TARPs require good administration and document version
controls to ensure all stakeholders have an up-to-date version of the TARP and can implement it when required.
Any failure in these administration controls can lead to unnecessary exposure of the workforce.

3 Short Term Activity Tracker

In response to the recognised shortfalls detailed above, a Short Term Activity Tracker (STAT) and Mine
Control Trigger Response System (MCTRS) have been developed to form an integrated monitoring and alert
system that aims to reduce workforce exposure to seismic hazards. The following sections detail the two
applications and provide design criteria for their implementation.
The STAT application is built within the IMS suite of seismic analysis and visualisation software applications.
It enables the operator to continuously monitor the seismic activity rate and other seismic parameter within
predefined monitoring areas or ‘polygons’. The application can be coupled with the MCTRS to form an
automatic monitoring and alert system, with the overall aim of reducing workforce exposure to seismic
hazard. The application was developed with IMS in response to the author’s recognition of the shortfalls
associated with current seismic risk management systems.
The application has two primary inputs: the monitoring area (polygon), and multiple seismic parameter
thresholds (activity rate, event magnitude and ground motion). The system health of the seismic monitoring
system can also be monitored in real time to signal any reduction or loss of monitoring capability and
subsequent reduction in seismic risk management effectiveness.
One of the key benefits of the use of polygons, which form the basis of the application, is the ability for the
geotechnical engineer to select areas according to the level of seismic risk and apply appropriate trigger
thresholds. It must be noted that the use of polygons has its shortfalls in that alerts and mitigation controls
are applied to the entire polygon volume, while the hazard may occur in only one part.

Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada 523

Development and implementation of the Short Term Activity Tracker C Chester et al.
and Mine Control Trigger Response System

Historically, it has been common practice to focus attention on areas of clustered seismicity and associated
seismic hazard while overlooking other seismic variables that define the seismic risk, such as workforce
exposure and excavation vulnerability. Heal et al. (2010) proposed the use of the rockburst damage potential
index, which looked at excavation vulnerability potential among other variables to determine the rockburst
hazard state. Although the approach has been integrated into the ACG’s mXrap software (Harris & Wesseloo
2015), the approach is considered a longer term monitoring and analysis tool.
Through the development and implementation of the STAT system at two caving operations, the authors
have identified several criteria that should be considered when creating STAT monitoring polygons and
determining trigger thresholds. An example of these considerations can be seen in Figure 1, which illustrates
the monitoring polygons at a cave mining operation. The criteria are summarised below, while more details
are provided in the following sections.

Figure 1 Examples of monitoring polygons at a caving mining operation

Polygon selection criteria:

 Workforce exposure. Areas of high exposure, such as workshops and crusher chambers, where
constant exposure of personnel outside of vehicles occurs.
 Infrastructure exposure. Areas of critical infrastructure, both production and safety related
(secondary egress).
 Seismic catalogue size. The polygon must contain a sufficient seismic catalogue of events which are
considered background and not influenced by blasting or large events.
 Installed seismic monitoring capacity. To achieve the full functionality of the STAT application,
monitoring polygons ideally have a minimum of two functioning sensors inside the polygon.
Threshold determination criteria:
 Ground support capacity. PGV and large event magnitude thresholds should be based on sensor
records of previous damaging seismic events.
 Seismic sensor density. As above, the PGV threshold must take into consideration the polygon
volume and sensor density.

524 Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada

 Seismicity – tools to manage seismic risk

 Human comfort factor. It is important to consider the psychological impact of strong ground motion
and seismic activity on the workforce, especially in areas of high exposure such as workshops and
crusher chambers.

3.1 Event rate tracking

The following sections provide a detailed overview of the possible seismic parameters that can be monitored
via the STAT system for the defined polygons. The parameters can be broken down into proactive monitoring
(event rate tracking) and reactive monitoring (ground motion, event magnitude and seismic system health).
With a rise in seismic activity, there is a recognised increase in the probability that a larger and potentially
damaging event may occur. The Short Term Event Rate Tracker was developed by Mendecki (2016a) based
on this general concept.
Changes in seismic activity rate within two different time periods, ∆t1 and ∆t2 and within the same volume
(polygon) of rock can be achieved by counting the number of accepted seismic events within the respective
time period. A potency value threshold, based on the Pmin, which represents the potency above which the
entire seismic catalogue is captured, for the monitoring polygon is applied to the assessment (Mendecki
2016a). Mendecki also states that “the minimum practical time interval over which the event count is
measured and compared against the reference rate is 30 mins; any shorter and the associated uncertainty
increases” (Mendecki 2016a). Longer interval windows would also increase the time taken before an elevated
activity rate was recognised resulting in unnecessary hazard exposure. Seismic activity rates under normal
background conditions can be described as resulting from a Poisson process, and as such, can be irregular in
nature. Mendecki states that to measure the seismicity rate change, the probability density function of the
activity rate (λ) must be derived by normalising the Poissonian density function. As such, the probability that
the seismicity rate in two different time intervals increased by more than k times is:
λ2 1 ∞ ∆𝑡2
𝑃𝑟 (
λ1
> 𝑘) = ∫ 𝑥 𝑁1
𝑁2 !𝑁1 ! 0
exp(−𝑥) Ӷ (𝑁2 + 1, 𝑘𝑥
∆𝑡1
) 𝑑𝑥 (2)

where:
λ1 = N1 (≥ log Pmin)/∆t1 and λ2 = N2 (≥ log Pmin) /∆t2 are the activity rates during ∆t1 and ∆t2,
respectively.
∞
Γ (N2 + 1, kx∆t2 /∆t1) = ∫𝑘𝑥∆𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑡)𝑡 𝑁2 +1 𝑑𝑡 is the upper incomplete Gamma function.
1 /∆𝑡2

𝑥 = λ∆t.
(Marsan & Wyss 2011; Mendecki 2016a Section 4.2)
Using Equation 2, it is possible to calculate probabilities of activity rate change in real time (0.5 hour periods)
and display within the STAT application the results using a simple traffic light system, whereby:

Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada 525

Development and implementation of the Short Term Activity Tracker C Chester et al.
and Mine Control Trigger Response System

The reference number of events (N1) for a given t1 (by default, an hour) is calculated over a background period
during which people worked underground, and in which there were no large events and no artificial elevation
of seismic activity, e.g. due to blasting. The following criteria should be adopted for setting the reference
seismic activity rate:
Data recorded during the minimum post-blasting exclusion range is excluded as the seismic
response is not assumed to be Poissonian.
The time ranges over which data is analysed is aligned with when personnel are working
underground (which may be continuous).
If a significant event occurred during the chosen time range, then it is excluded as association would
increase the estimated background rate.
If a particular blast had an unusually high seismic response, then the entire time period up until the
next blast is excluded from the calculation. Further, if a large event occurred during good periods
(periods when people were underground), then we also exclude all data from the event time to the
next blast.
The coefficient of variation is calculated to test that the reference data is close to Poissonian. If the dataset
is Poissonian, this value should be close to one.
Once the reference seismic data has been selected from periods when personnel are underground, the
periods are divided into t1 (usually one hour) bins, as illustrated in Figure 2. In this example, there are
1,300 observations (hours) where no events occurred within the reference period, about 1,050 hours where
only one event occurred, and so on. The correct lambda 1 value is left to the user to choose. However, to
avoid excessive triggers from the system, it is recommended to use a higher value than the mean average for
the reference rate. To aid in the set-up of the STAT event rate trigger thresholds and other set-up parameters,
an automated process or wizard is available that can be initiated manually or automatically.

Figure 2 Event rate distribution – STAT calibration wizard

A time line of STAT ‘traffic light’ status and associated seismic parameters (cumulative potency, cumulative
events, event magnitude and distance from polygon centre) for each of the monitoring polygons is shown
within the STAT application, an example of which is shown in Figure 3.

526 Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada

 Seismicity – tools to manage seismic risk

Figure 3 Example of STAT results, illustrating seismic activity rate status change

3.2 Ground motion

Seismic alert protocols have traditionally been based on the occurrence of an event above a predefined event
magnitude threshold within a monitored area. Good practice would dictate that only manually processed
events, i.e. events with an accurate magnitude and minimal location error would be accepted as possible
threshold triggers. Although an acceptable approach, there is an inherent delay associated with this method,
as processing of an event can take upwards of 10 minutes depending on event processing arrangements.
More often than not, the geotechnical engineer is first alerted to the occurrence of large events directly via
operations personnel, rather than automated alert systems.
With the desire to have a more immediate alert system for the monitored areas, the STAT application was
developed further to include the continuous monitoring of ground velocity, measured at selected seismic
sensors (geophones) located within or very close to the monitored polygons. The inclusion of continuous
ground velocity monitoring in the STAT application means it is no longer necessary to process a seismic event
to generate a reliable trigger, as ground velocity is measured and transmitted immediately with no
requirement for processing or manipulation. As such, responses can occur almost immediately when
triggered via a breach of ground motion threshold.
The use of ground motion as a trigger requires the monitored area to contain, or have in close proximity, at
least two active seismic sensors to avoid false triggers, which can occur due to electrical interference on
individual sensors. The minimum number of sensors that must exceed the PGV threshold in order to trigger an
alert can be set in the application. This functionality allows the engineer to adjust the trigger sensitivity to reflect
sensor spread and monitoring volume. As the monitoring polygon volume increases, the number of active
sensors within the volume must also increase; a rule of thumb being one sensor per 10,000–40,000 m3. It is not
recommended to rely upon sensors located away from the monitored area, as threshold trigger levels would
need to be low in order to take account of seismic attenuation, and as such, are susceptible to false triggers.
Increasing threshold levels to counter this risk would subsequently limit the effectiveness of the application.
Some calibration work is required to determine appropriate trigger thresholds, which takes into account
recorded PGVs from previous damaging seismic events, the range of possible event hypocentre to sensor
distances, and a ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) or equivalent. For initial implementation
purposes, the authors suggest utilising the chart in Figure 4 to assist in the determination of appropriate PGV
thresholds. The chart integrates the results of a GMPE, developed by Mendecki (2016b) and the rock mass
damage scale proposed by Kaiser et al. (1992). In the case shown in Figure 4, the ground support is considered

Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada 527

Development and implementation of the Short Term Activity Tracker C Chester et al.
and Mine Control Trigger Response System

to be ‘dynamic’ in its energy absorption capacity. It should be noted that the results of the GMPE do not take
into account the site effect where interaction with excavations can lead to amplification of ground motion
felt at the excavation surface. The GMPE is also based on a best fit analysis of seismic sensor data recorded
at a cave mining operation, and as such, must undergo systematic calibration.
Within the STAT application, a ground motion threshold breach is distinguished from an activity rate trigger
by a changing in colour of the traffic light surround (Figure 5). If the integrated MCTRS application is also
being used, as detailed in Section 4, an alert command box will also be activated. The location of the triggered
monitoring polygon is also highlighted by a change of colour (Figure 6).

Figure 4 Predicted ground velocity chart (after Mendecki 2016b) with overlain ground support damage
forecast (after Kaiser et al. 1992) for dynamic ground support. Note: PGV values do not take into
account site effect

Figure 5 Example of a ground motion or event magnitude trigger alert (red surround) within the STAT
application

528 Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada

 Seismicity – tools to manage seismic risk

Figure 6 Example of the seismic 3D visualiser with the monitoring polygons coloured by their STAT status

A shortfall of this approach is the course resolution at which the mitigation controls must be placed. While
the strong ground motion hazard may be isolated, any mitigation controls would be applied to the entire
monitoring polygon. Further development of seismic event ShakeMaps, as described by Meyer et al. (2018)
and there integration with the STAT application has the potential to rapidly define the risk-affected areas on
a finer resolution, allowing for more focused mitigation control adoption.

3.3 Event magnitude

Although it is recommended to use the ground motion parameter to initiate large seismic event mitigation
controls, the layout of particular seismic systems may not be set-up to accommodate this. In these
circumstances, it is possible to revert to a more conventional event magnitude-based trigger threshold.
Thresholds can be tailored for each monitored polygon based on the level of exposure, installed ground
support capacity, and previous damaging seismic event records. As mentioned, there is an inherent delay
associated with event magnitude triggers, which should be taken into consideration. As with ground motion
triggers, to distinguish a magnitude trigger from an activity rate trigger, the alert is visually represented by a
change in the background colour of the traffic light (Figure 5). The colour of the activated monitoring polygon
volume also changes colour to red to reflect the triggered level (Figure 6).

3.4 System health

As seismic monitoring and alert systems become an integral part of a mine’s risk management strategy, there
is a requirement to monitor the health and performance of the system. The STAT application has been
developed to include a real-time system health monitor with predefined threshold triggers, which raises an
alert via the MCTRS. A minimum time threshold prevents any false alarms resulting from short, intermittent
drops in system health due to breaks in communications or power supply. Through system health monitoring,
early intervention can take place to rectify identified issues, or other mitigation controls can be enacted to
minimise the workforce’s exposure due to reduced monitoring sensitivity or functionality.

Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada 529

Development and implementation of the Short Term Activity Tracker C Chester et al.
and Mine Control Trigger Response System

3.5 Statistical evaluation

To understand the implication of introducing the STAT application, or adjusting threshold levels, it is possible
to run a statistical analysis on the number of threshold triggers. The evaluation can be defined by time period
for each of the monitoring polygons. An example of the output can be seen in Table 1. The information can
be used to understand and demonstrate the impact of the current or any proposed threshold settings.
Long-term changes in the seismic environment of each monitoring polygon may also be highlighted through
analysis of threshold trigger statistics.

Table 1 Example of a STAT statistical evaluation

Rating Number Percentage

Green 3,212 98.3
Yellow 50 1.5
Red 4 0.1
Red (large events) 0 0
Red (activity) 4 0.1
Red (PGV) 0 0

4 Mine Control Trigger Response System

The MCTRS integrates with the STAT application to provide a seamless seismic risk management application,
from system monitoring to automated alert generation and mitigation control initiation. The MCTRS forms
the output interface to the STAT monitoring application and is organised around a tabular seismic TARP. The
application is ideal for deployment in mine controls centres, as personnel require minimal seismic knowledge
in order to use the application. System operators simply need to enact the predefined controls presented via
the alert command box in the event of a threshold breach.
Under normal background seismic conditions, monitored areas (polygons) have their base level TARP
category displayed (Figure 7). Any change in condition of the monitored areas will immediately generate a
command box (Figure 8), which details the required action associated with the identified seismic condition.
An audible alert can also accompany the command box alert. Following confirmation of the command dialog
box, which requires the operator to add their name, the required action will also appear in the TARP tab for
a predefined period of time. If the alert condition remains, such as high event activity rate, the action will
remain in the TARP tab.

Figure 7 Example of background seismic TARP category

530 Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada

 Seismicity – tools to manage seismic risk

Figure 8 Example of STAT alarm command box

The system creates a log of all alert confirmations, recording time of confirmation, user name (who
confirmed), machine name, alert description, and type and kind of alert. This provides a useful time stamped
record of alerts and initiation of mitigation controls.

5 Discussion
Through the development and implementation of the two applications at two Australian caving operations,
the authors have identified the following key benefits.
Reduction in workforce exposure: By removing personnel from areas of increased seismic activity or from
areas affected by a seismic event with minimal delay, it is possible to reduce the workforce’s exposure, and
in turn, reduce the seismic risk. This is considered by the authors to be the major benefit of the applications.
Rapid and automatic response: Through the innovative use of ground velocity measurements, which require
no human input, it is possible to rapidly implement mitigation controls within the monitored area with the
intention of reducing workforce exposure. With the integrated MCTRS, threshold trigger response actions
can be activated immediately through a visual and/or audible alert. This avoids the inherent delays associated
with processing a possibly damaging seismic event, interpreting the TARP categories and then
communicating the required actions to those who must enact them.
Continuity in response: However detailed and prescribed the TARP categories are, there is still a requirement
for interpretation, which can lead to inconsistencies with regards to determining the appropriate category
and associated mitigation controls. The integrated STAT and MCTRS applications minimise the need for
human interpretation, with clearly defined and agreed thresholds and associated mitigation controls. This
not only ensures continuity in interpretation and response, but also reduces human error.
Document version control: As the application is entirely software based, updates to the seismic TARP due to
system expansions, lessons learnt, etc. can be implemented rapidly. This eliminates the risks associated with
document version control where key stakeholders refer to out-of-date copies of the document.
Reduced susceptibility to spurious triggers: Seismic systems are susceptible to false or spurious events,
caused by electrical interference and mechanical noise such as rock breakers. The STAT system reduces this
risk via the use of minimum sensor trigger thresholds. This functionality enables the user to set the minimum
number of sensors that must achieve the threshold level to trigger an alert.
Monitored area statistical reporting: The seismic database can be queried to determine the number and
frequency of triggers within a defined time period for each of the monitored areas, based on the entered
threshold settings. This enables the geotechnical engineer to review and demonstrate the impact of the
current controls and that of any threshold changes, or the addition of a new monitoring area. Determination
of appropriate thresholds for seismic activity rate and predicted ground velocity is an iterative process with
threshold levels required at a level that minimises seismic risk exposure and impact on production. Periodic
reviews of trigger frequency may also highlight longer term variation in seismic hazard.

6 Future direction
The authors are continuing to work with the software developers to implement further improvements to the
applications. Further integration of the two applications with set-up wizards will improve the experience of the
user and reduce human error when designing and implementing the system. Through the implementation of
the ShakeMap application, as detailed by Meyer et al. (2018), it will also be possible to implement more focused

Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada 531

Development and implementation of the Short Term Activity Tracker C Chester et al.
and Mine Control Trigger Response System

mitigation controls, rather than the more coarse resolutions approach taken currently, whereby an entire
polygon area has mitigation controls applied irrespective of the hazard’s location.
Following the successful integration of the two applications, the design of future seismic systems will need
to take into account the ground motion trigger application, which will require a more regular distribution of
sensors in areas of current and future seismic risk.

7 Conclusion
The integrated Short Term Activity Tracker and Mine Control Trigger Response System software application
is a relatively simple tool to implement at mining operations, with clear benefits in seismic risk management.
Current short-term seismic risk management approaches have recognised shortfalls, which impact on their
effectiveness in reducing workforce exposure to seismic risk.
Through the implementation of the applications at two caving operations, improvements have been made
to seismic risk management through the reduction in workforce exposure during periods of increased seismic
risk. The realised benefits of the integrated applications include real-time monitoring of key seismic
parameters and automatic trigger response. The innovative use of measured ground motion as a monitoring
input enables an almost immediate trigger response to a threshold breach via the Mine Control Trigger
Response System. Furthermore, continuity in seismic data interpretation and triggered mitigation controls
are recognised advantages of the applications.
Further development work is proposed to integrate the ShakeMap application, also developed by IMS
engineers. Additionally, seismic system designs at the two caving operations will now take into consideration
the ground motion application and the requirement to have sensors within areas of concern.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank the Institute of Mine Seismology and Newcrest Mining Limited for giving permission to
publish this work.

References
Harris, PC & Wesseloo, J 2015, mXrap, version 5, computer software, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, The University of Western
Australia, Perth, https://www.mxrap.com
Heal, DP 2010, Observations and Analysis of Incidence of Rockburst Damage in Underground Mines, PhD thesis, The University of
Western Australia, Perth.
Heal, DP, Potvin, Y & Hudyma, MR 2006, ‘Evaluating rockburst damage potential in underground mining’, in DP Yale, SC Holtz,
C Breeds & U Ozbay (eds), Proceedings of the 41st US Rock Mechanics Symposium, American Rock Mechanics Association,
Alexandria.
Kaiser, PK, Tannant, DD, McCreath, DR & Jesenak, P 1992, ‘Rockburst damage assessment procedure’, in PK Kaiser & DD McCreath
(eds), Rock Support in Mining and Underground Construction, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 639–647.
Marsan, D & Wyss, M 2011, Seismicity Rate Changes, https://dx.doi.org/10.5078/corssa-25837590
Mendecki, AJ 2016a, Mine Seismology Reference Book: Seismic Hazard, 1st edn, Institute of Mine Seismology, Hobart.
Mendecki, AJ 2016b, Development of Ground Motion Prediction Equation for Cadia East Mine, technical report, Institute of Mine
Seismology, Hobart.
Meyer, S, Doolan, J, Chester, C & Basson, G 2018, ‘Rapid assessment of the spatial extent of strong ground motion in mines –
ShakeMap approach’, in Y Potvin & J Jakubec (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Block and Sublevel
Caving, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 561–572.

532 Caving 2018, Vancouver, Canada