Detecting earthquakes over a seismic network using single-station similarity measures

37Citations
Citations of this article
102Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

New blind waveform-similarity-based detection methods, such as Fingerprint and Similarity Thresholding (FAST), have shown promise for detecting weak signals in long-duration, continuous waveform data. While blind detectors are capable of identifying similar or repeating waveforms without templates, they can also be susceptible to false detections due to local correlated noise. In this work, we present a set of three new methods that allow us to extend single-station similarity-based detection over a seismic network; event-pair extraction, pairwise pseudo-association, and event resolution complete a post-processing pipeline that combines single-station similarity measures (e.g. FAST sparse similarity matrix) from each station in a network into a list of candidate events. The core technique, pairwise pseudo-association, leverages the pairwise structure of event detections in its network detection model, which allows it to identify events observed at multiple stations in the network without modeling the expected moveout. Though our approach is general, we apply it to extend FAST over a sparse seismic network. We demonstrate that our network-based extension of FAST is both sensitive and maintains a low false detection rate. As a test case, we apply our approach to 2 weeks of continuous waveform data from five stations during the foreshock sequence prior to the 2014 Mw 8.2 Iquique earthquake. Our method identifies nearly five times as many events as the local seismicity catalogue (including 95 per cent of the catalogue events), and less than 1 per cent of these candidate events are false detections.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bergen, K. J., & Beroza, G. C. (2018). Detecting earthquakes over a seismic network using single-station similarity measures. Geophysical Journal International, 213(3), 1984–1998. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggy100

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free