David Green, Ross Heyburn, Jessica Keeble, Alexandra Nippress, Stuart Nippress, Sheila Peacock and John Young review the history of the UK's seismological monitoring of underground nuclear testing

No abstract

No abstract

<p>. ABSTRACT<br>When monitoring for possible underground nuclear tests,<br>identifying shallow earthquakes from explosive sources can<br>be achieved using the ratio of the body-wave magnitude to<br>the surface-wave magnitude (mb:Ms criterion), with explosive<br>sources producing less energetic surface wave excitation.<br>Current methods for automated surface-wave detection at the<br>International Data Centre (IDC) rely on a dispersion test - a<br>global group-velocity model is used to predict a time window<br>based on event origins in the IDC Reviewed Event Bulletin<br>(REB). The data in the predicted time window are narrowband<br>filtered into eight frequency bands - if the time of the maximum<br>energy of at least 6/8 of the bands sits within a specified error<br>of the expected dispersion curves, a surface wave is said to be<br>detected. Stevens et al. (2001) added phase match filtering to<br>the process to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, and this was<br>implemented into provisional operations at the IDC in 2010,<br>under the name Maxpmf.</p><p>A number of issues can potentially arise with this automatic<br>detection technique, leading to false detections and mis-associations, these include:<br>• local noise passing the dispersion test and being erroneously associated;<br>• surface waves detected at close-to-regional distances<br>experience little dispersion and hence impulsive signals<br>can pass the dispersion test;<br>• since automatic detection is only attempted for REB<br>events, some surface waves may be missed entirely, as<br>they lack an origin from which to calculate an arrival-time<br>window.</p><p>Assuming random noise and that the signals are independent,<br>Stevens (2007) defined parameters that determine the false<br>alarm rate, determined empirically from the network as it was<br>in 2007. Stevens (2007) recommended that these parameters be<br>continually reviewed. Since automated surface wave processing<br>at the IDC was implemented, the number of International<br>Monitoring System (IMS) seismic stations with at least one<br>surface-wave detection in the REB has significantly increased<br>(from around 50 stations in 2002, to around 145 in 2020)<br>without review of the false alarm rate parameters.<br>We have designed interactive software to manually review<br>stages of the IDC automatic surface-wave detection algorithm.<br>We will use this to investigate the false-detection rate and<br>how it has changed over time, and interrogate whether the<br>independence and random noise assumptions this prediction is<br>predicated on are still valid for a larger network.</p><p><br>REFERENCES<br>Stevens, J. L., 2007. Automatic surface wave processing support<br>and documentation, Tech. rep., CTBTO Vienna International<br>Centre.<br>Stevens, J. L., Adams, D. A., & Baker, G. E., 2001. Improved<br>surface wave detection and measurement using phasematched filtering with a global one-degree dispersion model,<br>Tech. rep., Science Applications International Corp San<br>Diego CA.</p>