An official website of the United States government
Abstract Accurate and (near) real-time earthquake monitoring provides the spatial and temporal behaviors of earthquakes for understanding the nature of earthquakes, and also helps in regional seismic hazard assessments and mitigations. Because of the increase in both the quality and quantity of seismic data, an automated earthquake monitoring system is needed. Most of the traditional methods for detecting earthquake signals and picking phases are based on analyses of features in recordings of an individual earthquake and/or their differences from background noises. When seismicity is high, the seismograms are complicated, and, therefore, traditional analysis methods often fail. With the development of machine learning algorithms, earthquake signal detection and seismic phase picking can be more accurate using the features obtained from a large amount of earthquake recordings. We have developed an attention recurrent residual U-Net algorithm, and used data augmentation techniques to improve the accuracy of earthquake detection and seismic phase picking on complex seismograms that record multiple earthquakes. The use of probability functions of P and S arrivals and potential P and S arrival pairs of earthquakes can increase the computational efficiency and accuracy of backprojection for earthquake monitoring in large areas. We applied our workflow to monitor the earthquake activity in southern California during the 2019 Ridgecrest sequence. The distribution of earthquakes determined by our method is consistent with that in the Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC) catalog. In addition, the number of earthquakes in our catalog is more than three times that of the SCEDC catalog. Our method identifies additional earthquakes that are close in origin times and/or locations, and are not included in the SCEDC catalog. Our algorithm avoids misidentification of seismic phases for earthquake location. In general, our algorithm can provide reliable earthquake monitoring on a large area, even during a high seismicity period.
more »
« less
PhaseLink: A Deep Learning Approach to Seismic Phase Association
Abstract Seismic phase association is a fundamental task in seismology that pertains to linking together phase detections on different sensors that originate from a common earthquake. It is widely employed to detect earthquakes on permanent and temporary seismic networks and underlies most seismicity catalogs produced around the world. This task can be challenging because the number of sources is unknown, events frequently overlap in time, or can occur simultaneously in different parts of a network. We present PhaseLink, a framework based on recent advances in deep learning for grid‐free earthquake phase association. Our approach learns to link phases together that share a common origin and is trained entirely on millions of synthetic sequences ofPandSwave arrival times generated using a 1‐D velocity model. Our approach is simple to implement for any tectonic regime, suitable for real‐time processing, and can naturally incorporate errors in arrival time picks. Rather than tuning a set of ad hoc hyperparameters to improve performance, PhaseLink can be improved by simply adding examples of problematic cases to the training data set. We demonstrate the state‐of‐the‐art performance of PhaseLink on a challenging sequence from southern California and synthesized sequences from Japan designed to test the point at which the method fails. For the examined data sets, PhaseLink can precisely associate phases to events that occur only ∼12 s apart in origin time. This approach is expected to improve the resolution of seismicity catalogs, add stability to real‐time seismic monitoring, and streamline automated processing of large seismic data sets.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1818582
- PAR ID:
- 10371062
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
- Volume:
- 124
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2169-9313
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 856-869
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
ABSTRACT Rapid association of seismic phases and event location are crucial for real‐time seismic monitoring. We propose a new method, named rapid earthquake association and location (REAL), for associating seismic phases and locating seismic events rapidly, simultaneously, and automatically. REAL combines the advantages of both pick‐based and waveform‐based detection and location methods. It associates arrivals of different seismic phases and locates seismic events primarily through counting the number of P and S picks and secondarily from travel‐time residuals. A group of picks are associated with a particular earthquake if there are enough picks within the theoretical travel‐time windows. The location is determined to be at the grid point with the most picks, and if multiple locations have the same maximum number of picks, the grid point among them with smallest travel‐time residuals. We refine seismic locations using a least‐squares location method (VELEST) and a high‐precision relative location method (hypoDD). REAL can be used for rapid seismic characterization due to its computational efficiency. As an example application, we apply REAL to earthquakes in the 2016 central Apennines, Italy, earthquake sequence occurring during a five‐day period in October 2016, midway in time between the two largest earthquakes. We associate and locate more than three times as many events (3341) as are in Italy's National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology routine catalog (862). The spatial distribution of these relocated earthquakes shows a similar but more concentrated pattern relative to the cataloged events. Our study demonstrates that it is possible to characterize seismicity automatically and quickly using REAL and seismic picks.more » « less
-
Abstract We introduce an algorithm for declustering earthquake catalogs based on the nearest‐neighbor analysis of seismicity. The algorithm discriminates between background and clustered events by random thinning that removes events according to a space‐varying threshold. The threshold is estimated using randomized‐reshuffled catalogs that are stationary, have independent space and time components, and preserve the space distribution of the original catalog. Analysis of catalog produced by the Epidemic Type Aftershock Sequence model demonstrates that the algorithm correctly classifies over 80% of background and clustered events, correctly reconstructs the stationary and space‐dependent background intensity, and shows high stability with respect to random realizations (over 75% of events have the same estimated type in over 90% of random realizations). The declustering algorithm is applied to the global Northern California Earthquake Data Center catalog with magnitudesm≥ 4 during 2000–2015; a Southern California catalog withm≥ 2.5, 3.5 during 1981–2017; an area around the 1992 Landers rupture zone withm≥ 0.0 during 1981–2015; and the Parkfield segment of San Andreas fault withm≥ 1.0 during 1984–2014. The null hypotheses of stationarity and space‐time independence are not rejected by several tests applied to the estimated background events of the global and Southern California catalogs with magnitude ranges Δm< 4. However, both hypotheses are rejected for catalogs with larger range of magnitudes Δm> 4. The deviations from the nulls are mainly due to local temporal fluctuations of seismicity and activity switching among subregions; they can be traced back to the original catalogs and represent genuine features of background seismicity.more » « less
-
Abstract We analyze nearest‐neighbor proximities of earthquakes in California based on the joint distribution (T,R) of rescaled timeTand rescaled distanceRbetween pairs of earthquakes (Zaliapin & Ben‐Zion, 2013a,https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50179), using seismic catalogs from several regions and several catalogs for the San Jacinto Fault Zone (SJFZ). The study aims to identify informative modes in nearest‐neighbor diagrams beyond the general background and clustered modes, and to assess seismic catalogs derived by different methods. The results show that earthquake clusters with large and small‐to‐medium mainshocks have approximately diagonal and horizontal (T,R) distributions of the clustered mode, respectively, reflecting different triggering distances of mainshocks. Earthquakes in the creeping section of San Andreas Fault have a distinct “repeaters mode” characterized by very large rescaled timesTand very small rescaled distancesR, due to nearly identical locations of repeating events. Induced seismicity in the Geysers and Coso geothermal fields follow mostly the background mode, but with larger rescaled timesTand smaller rescaled distancesRcompared to tectonic background seismicity. We also document differences in (T,R) distributions of catalogs constructed by different techniques (analyst‐picks, template‐matching and deep‐learning) for the SJFZ, and detect a mode with very largeRand smallTin the template‐matching and deep‐learning based catalogs. This mode may reflect dynamic triggering by passing waves and/or catalog artifacts.more » « less
-
Abstract How faulting processes lead to a large earthquake is a fundamental question in seismology. To better constrain this pre‐seismic stage, we create a dense seismic catalog via template matching to analyze the precursory phase of the Mw 6.1 L’Aquila earthquake that occurred in central Italy in 2009. We estimate several physical parameters in time, such as the coefficient of variation, the seismic moment release, the effective stress drop, and analyze spatio‐temporal patterns to study the evolution of the sequence and the earthquake interactions. We observe that the precursory phase experiences multiple accelerations of the seismicity rate that we divide into two main sequences with different signatures and features: the first part exhibits weak earthquake interactions, quasi‐continuous moment release, slow spatial migration patterns, and a lower effective stress drop, pointing to aseismic processes. The second sequence exhibits strong temporal clustering, fast seismicity expansion, and a larger effective stress drop typical of a stress transfer process. We interpret the differences in seismicity behaviors between the two sequences as distinct physical mechanisms that are controlled by different physical properties of the fault system. We conclude that the L’Aquila earthquake is preceded by a complex preparation, made up of different physical processes over different time scales on faults with different physical properties.more » « less
