The work of anticipating failure
On any mine site, high-consequence structures like dams, pit walls, and waste dumps are always adjusting to external conditions. For geotechnical teams, the question isn't whether movement is happening. It's whether the movement indicates a developing failure, and if so, when that might occur.
Making that determination is harder than it sounds, because no single monitoring method gives a complete answer on its own. Radar, InSAR, LiDAR, total stations, piezometers, inclinometers, GNSS sensors, and periodic survey each see part of the picture. But each has its own systematic errors and inbuilt uncertainty. Geotechnical teams must reconcile all the outputs and extract a clear signal they can visually verify. The difficulty is rarely a lack of data. It’s knowing which signal to trust.
What visual inspection allows, and what it can miss
Onsite visual inspection is the first line of defence in managing geotechnical engineering risk. But visual inspection has two points of failure. The first is that it doesn’t scale. A geotech can’t walk every metre of every structure on a regular basis. The second is that there’s no simple, reliable method of determining exactly
where to look to ensure an efficient and effective use of specialist time.
Project teams we work with face this regularly. When monitoring detects movement they can’t see, they don’t know if the detection is valid or caused by external effects. And when they can visually verify the movement, they can’t see how the structure is actually moving. A TARP may trigger either way, with the potential for stopped production and regulator involvement. The onsite team is responsible for validating why movement was detected, and whether the response was actually needed, without an independent reference point against which to confirm the signal.
High-consequence monitoring programs need an independent point of truth
Mining professionals understand the value of independent verification. In engineering design, mine planning, and environmental compliance, engaging an external perspective is standard practice. It catches anomalies that might otherwise be missed. But the same principle is rarely applied to monitoring program design. Each monitoring method is assessed on its merits, and the question of interoperability, or the extent to which the methods can determine the truth between them, is left unexamined. As each monitoring method has intrinsic sources of error, movement signals must be verified by another method. The window to detect signs of failure progression early can be missed during the wait. Monitoring programs that include an independent point of truth are part of robust safety and risk management on high-consequence mining sites.
Where continuous GNSS is suited to this role and where it’s not
Well-designed, continuous GNSS systems can serve as an independent reference point. They measure absolute position in X, Y and Z, rather than movement relative to line-of-sight, so they don’t share blind spots with the radar, InSAR, or prism-based methods they’re checking.
But GNSS systems have systematic errors and complexities of their own. Multipath obstacles are everywhere on active mining sites. The integrity of GNSS system data must be proactively managed to be a reliable source of truth. This is what Kurloo was built for.
The logic for when and where to use Kurloo is simple, and the simplicity is the point. Geotechs don’t need another GNSS tool to manage alongside the others. Instead, Kurloo provides geotechnical teams with a low-maintenance, reliable means of confirming whether something is actually moving, how it’s moving, and where to look to verify it, freeing up time and making it easier to anticipate and manage failure risk.
Specific technical features allow Kurloo to reliably fill this role.
- Absolute 6D measurement: In addition to measuring position in absolute X, Y, and Z, Kurloo also measures three degrees of rotation, giving teams the full picture of movement.
- Independent validation: GNSS observations are processed centrally using specialised algorithms and geodetic oversight to separate movement from multipath error and other external effects.
- Precise point monitoring: A discrete physical point can be independently verified far more accurately than a scan or an average across many points. For the highest precision, individual points work best.
- Simple to deploy: No subsurface infrastructure such as boreholes or cabling, so the system is simpler and more cost effective to install and maintain.
- Continuous and autonomous: Precise readings from daily down to hourly reveal trends in days without waiting for weeks for survey or inspection. Routine measurement happens autonomously, even through weather extremes and blasting, taking surveyors out of hazardous environments.
- Defensible design: Well-designed GNSS systems record raw observation data so it can be post-processed in different ways to confirm a result, standing up to third-party scrutiny.
What this looks like in practice
The Kurloo geomonitoring system provides millimetre-accurate 6D Measurement across distributed mining sites, with independent geodetic validation handled centrally.
The raw GNSS observations remain available for deeper analysis and review at any time, so the onsite team and EoR retain full control over interpretation.
Because data is independently validated and the raw observations preserved, the same data that flagged movement early also stands up to regulator and EoR scrutiny later. Results can be re-examined, explained and defended as site conditions change.
Teams responsible for high-consequence structures are adopting Kurloo GNSS as a reliable point of truth in their monitoring program.
Their Kurloos are stationed at the most likely points of failure, which are pre-agreed with the team before installation.
One Australian mine site replaced manual surveys with continuous, passive Kurloo GNSS monitoring. This increased temporal resolution by up to 180 times, reduced survey labour by 80 - 90 percent, and supported earlier risk detection across rehabilitation areas and water-impacted dumps. We'll share more detail in our next
update.
If you're thinking through whether there are gaps in your monitoring program, you might find these links useful:
- Find out more about Kurloo for mining applications: Kurloo supports TSFs, open pits, waste heaps, subsidence and rehabilitation monitoring
- Monitoring methods compared: Where different methods work well within a robust monitoring ecosystem
- Book a consultation: Explore adding an independent point of truth to your monitoring program for high-consequence structures.