MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The seismogenic zones of an M2.0-5.5 earthquakes successfully recovered in deep South African gold mines: the outcomes and the follow-up plan

2020· article· en· W3108834322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hiroshi Ogasawara, Bennie Liebenberg, Yasuo Yabe, Yuki Yokoyama, Tetsuro Hirono, Devan M. Nisson, T. C. Onstott, Thomas L. Kieft, Esta van Heerden, Thomas Wiersberg, Taku Noda, M. Manzi, Siyanda Mngadi, Raymond Durrheim, Yuhji Yamamaoto, Takatoshi Ito, Akio Funato, Martin Ziegler, James Mori, C. Dinske

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismologyDrillingAftershockPrincipal stressPopulationPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This paper reports on the outcomes of the ICDP drilling into seismogenic zones of M2.0-5.5 earthquakes in South African (SA) gold mines (DSeis; 2017-2018), the follow-up work in 2019, and planned post-drilling activity from 2020 onwards.</p><p>In deep SA gold mines, seismogenic zones evolve ahead of thin tabular excavations. Normal faulting prevails because mining enhances the vertical maximum principal stress. At 1km depth at the Cooke 4 mine, we elucidated the evolution of the seismogenic zone with a dense acoustic emission network. In 2017, we successfully recovered both the metasedimentary host rock (mainly quartzite ~2.8 Ga) and samples of the seismogenic zone with well-preserved fracture systems using a triple-tube (BQ 1.5m-long). Subsequent laboratory work investigated critical characteristics of rock-rock friction.</p><p>In 2014, an M5.5 earthquake, the largest in deep South African gold mining districts, took place. Dense seismic networks, both on the Earth’s surface and at 2-3 km depth, showed that this event was atypical because it was a sinistral event on an unknown geological structure below the mining horizon in West Rand Group strata (~2.9 Ga). Inversion and back-projection of the ground motion showed complicated but unilateral rupture propagation. The densest population of aftershocks shows a sharp upper cut-off and streaks, both dipping to the south.  Its centroid lies outside the significant main rupture zone. In 2017, we commenced drilling at a site at 2.9km depth in a tension quadrant of the sinistral faulting, several hundreds of meters above the upper fringe of the M5.5 aftershock plane. During 2017-2018, we drilled holes, of a total length of 1.6 km. With a 1.5m NQ triple-tube for the critical section, we could recover the fault materials and the host rock with the seismic fracture system well preserved. Borehole logging and core curation in SA and laboratory work at international organizations, including Kochi Core Center Japan (KCC), followed during 2017-2019. With the geology data mapped on the mining horizons and the legacy seismic reflection data as additional information, the following picture is emerging: (a) transition of the stress regime from normal-faulting to sinistral-faulting; (b) stress localization; (c) heterogeneity in the aftershock distribution as well as the segregation between the main rupture and aftershocks, potentially correlated with significant heterogeneity in mechanical properties; (d) a role of an altered lamprophyre dike; (e) hypersaline brine with salinity even higher than measurements at other deep gold mines, potentially as old as brine found at Kidd Creek mine, Canada; and (f) abiogenic gas and organic carbon.</p><p>These data sets allow us to address questions in earthquake and deep-life sciences raised in the ICDP Science Plan (2014-2019). In 2019, the ICDP Executive Committee described DSeis as a ‘successful’ project. To integrate and discuss the outcomes in greater depth and plan additional follow-up work, we are planning a post-drilling workshop in November 2020 or January 2021 at KCC before we return the imported critical section of the core to South Africa.</p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207