The detection and location of low magnitude earthquakes in northern Norway using multi-channel waveform correlation at regional distances

Gibbons, Steven J.; Sørensen, Mathilde B.; Harris, David B.; Ringdal, Frode

doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2006.11.008

Cited by 51 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gibbons et al (2007) demonstrated that the signal from a M 3.5 master event was able to correlate with and detect events three orders of magnitude lower (confirmed by recordings from local stations). These two statements suggest that our simplifying assumption of linear scaling of the signals is reasonable for our purposes of testing improved detection capability since we are considering only one magnitude unit difference.…”

Section: Technical Approachmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…But when it comes to observational seismology it has been used comparatively little for event detection (e. g. Gibbons & Ringdal, 2004;Gibbons & Ringdal, 2005;Gibbons & Ringdal, 2006;Gibbons et al, 2007). Shelly et al (2006) introduced a novel, direct, scientific application of a correlation detector to identify lowfrequency earthquakes in non-volcanic tremor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subsequent work extended correlators to subspace detectors to allow for variations in waveforms for a given source region (Harris, 1997). Case studies are beginning to show more promise for correlation detectors in reducing magnitude thresholds for practical applications (Gibbons and Ringdal, 2004;Gibbons and Ringdal, 2005;Gibbons and Ringdal, 2006;Gibbons et al, 2007;Schaff and Waldhauser, 2006). The case studies, however, are not able to estimate false alarm rates unless a denser, complete, local catalog is available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Improving Magnitude Detection Thresholds Using Multi-Station Multi-Event, and Multi-Phase Methods

Schaff¹,

Waldhauser²

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. (31-07-2008) REPORT DATE SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)AFRL/RVBYE SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) AFRL-RV-HA-TR-2008-1121 DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTWe report on the results of both a semi-empirical analysis and a case study in Xiuyan, China, that demonstrated that a correlation detector can lower magnitude detection thresholds by over one full unit for similar events as compared to a standard STA/LTA detector. 90 out of 90 events (100%) were detected by cross correlation for the case study whereas a procedure like the pIDC employs detected only 11%. We found that less than perfect matches still provided useful detections due to location, focal mechanism, and magnitude differences. Events with magnitude differences as large as 2.3 and 3.3 were shown to produce detection spikes on the correlation traces. Further work applied the correlation techniques on a larger scale to 5,000 events at Parkfield, California, and 19,000 events in and near China. We are attempting to see how broadly applicable correlation methods can be applied to different tectonic settings and for what percentage of the seismicity. 111 million correlations were performed on Lg-waves for the events in China at 363 stations. Final results indicate two thirds of the 19,000 events can be detected by cross correlation using this relatively sparse regional network. The full magnitude unit reduction in detection threshold is confirmed on a large scale in China and Parkfield.

show abstract

Section: Technical Approachmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving Magnitude Detection Thresholds Using Multi-Station Multi-Event, and Multi-Phase Methods

Schaff¹,

Waldhauser²

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Waveform correlation is a well-established technique to identify close-lying events, which produce very similar waveforms at same stations if the source mechanism is similar. Waveform correlation is especially powerful in detecting signals that fall below the detection capability of energy based detectors as shown in previous studies like Gibbons et al (2007) in Norway and Withers et al (1999) in New Mexico.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Automatic data processing and analysis system for monitoring region around a planned nuclear power plant

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The Institute of Seismology of University ofHelsinki is building a new local seismic network, called OBF network, around planned nuclear power plant in Northern Ostrobothnia, Finland. The network will consist of nine new stations and one existing station. The network should be dense enough to provide azimuthal coverage better than 180 • and automatic detection capability down to M L −0.1 within a radius of 25 km from the site.The network construction work began in 2012 and the first four stations started operation at the end of May 2013. We applied an automatic seismic signal detection and event location system to a network of 13 stations consisting of the four new stations and the nearest stations of Finnish and Swedish national seismic networks. Between the end of May and December 2013 the network detected 214 events inside the predefined area of 50 km radius surrounding the planned nuclear power plant site. Of those detections, 120 were identified as spurious events. A total of 74 events were associated with known quarries and mining areas. The average location error, calculated as a difference between the announced location from environment authorities and companies and the automatic location, was 2.9 km. During the same time period eight earthquakes between magnitude range 0.1-1.0 occurred within the area. Of these seven could be automatically detected. The results from the phase 1 stations of the OBF network indicates that the planned network can achieve its goals.

show abstract

“…Israelsson, 1990;Harris, 1991), detection (e.g. Gibbons and Ringdal, 2006;Gibbons et al, 2007) and location (e.g. Shearer, 1997;Waldhauser and Ellsworth, 2000;Zhang and Thurber, 2003;Schaff and Richards, 2004;Massa et al, 2006;Richards et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Ground Truth Data Set with Waveform and Arrival Data

Bondár¹,

Bergman²,

Kohl³

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 30 SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)Air Force Research Laboratory 29 Randolph Rd. Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-3010 SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)AFRL/RVBYE SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)AFRL-RV-HA-TR-2007-1101 DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTWe present the final results of our three-year research project to produce a high-confidence global GT5 data set. During the course of this project we have developed, tested, and validated the hybrid HDC-RCA (Hypocentroidal Decomposition and Reciprocal Cluster Analysis) methodology to produce new GT5 or better event locations from event clusters. The HDC algorithm uses regional and teleseismic data to estimate precise relative event locations with respect to the cluster centroid. The RCA algorithm uses local data to precisely locate the cluster centroid. We have demonstrated that the HDC-RCA multiple event location methodology is able to produce high-confidence GT5 (epicenter and depth) or better event locations using only a few local stations, without reliance on independent GT information. A posteriori assessment procedures and a priori applicability criteria have been developed and tested to assure the quality and high-confidence of the resulting GT5 events. We have developed a novel, adaptive approach to waveform cross-correlation for improved differential arrival time measurements. The method finds the optimal time-bandwidth product to perform waveform cross-correlation, thus maximizing the similarity between waveforms for a wide range of seismic phases. Correlations are accepted or rejected based on their significance level derived from the estimated time-bandwidth product. We have further developed an error model to estimate the a priori uncertainties in differential time measurements in order to facilitate their inclusion with bulletin arrival time picks in the HDC algorithm. We demonstrated differential times contribute to significant improvements in resolving the relative event locations in the HDC analysis and validated the cross-correlatio...

show abstract

The detection and location of low magnitude earthquakes in northern Norway using multi-channel waveform correlation at regional distances

Cited by 51 publications

References 33 publications

Improving Magnitude Detection Thresholds Using Multi-Station Multi-Event, and Multi-Phase Methods

Improving Magnitude Detection Thresholds Using Multi-Station Multi-Event, and Multi-Phase Methods

Automatic data processing and analysis system for monitoring region around a planned nuclear power plant

Global Ground Truth Data Set with Waveform and Arrival Data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About