Earthquake or Blast? Classification of Local-Distance Seismic Events in Sweden using Fully-Connected Neural Networks

IF 2.8 3区 地球科学 Q2 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS Geophysical Journal International Pub Date : 2024-01-10 DOI:10.1093/gji/ggae018
Gunnar Eggertsson, Björn Lund, Michael Roth, Peter Schmidt
{"title":"Earthquake or Blast? Classification of Local-Distance Seismic Events in Sweden using Fully-Connected Neural Networks","authors":"Gunnar Eggertsson, Björn Lund, Michael Roth, Peter Schmidt","doi":"10.1093/gji/ggae018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary Distinguishing between different types of seismic events is a task typically performed manually by expert analysts and can thus be both time- and resource expensive. Analysts at the Swedish National Seismic Network (SNSN) use four different event types in the routine analysis: natural (tectonic) earthquakes, blasts (e.g. from mines, quarries and construction) and two different types of mining-induced events associated with large, underground mines. In order to aid manual event classification and to classify automatic event definitions, we have used fully-connected neural networks to implement classification models which distinguish between the four event types. For each event, we band-pass filter the waveform data in twenty narrow frequency bands before dividing each component into four non-overlapping time windows, corresponding to the P-phase, P-coda, S-phase and S-coda. In each window we compute the root-mean-square amplitude and the resulting array of amplitudes is then used as the neural network inputs. We compare results achieved using a station-specific approach, where individual models are trained for each seismic station, to a regional approach where a single model is trained for the whole study area. An extension of the models, which distinguishes spurious phase associations from real seismic events in automatic event definitions, has also been implemented. When applying our models to evaluation data distinguishing between earthquakes and blasts we achieve an accuracy of about 98% for automatic events and 99% for manually analyzed events. In areas located close to large underground mines, where all four event types are observed, the corresponding accuracy is about 90% and 96%, respectively. The accuracy when distinguishing spurious events from real seismic events is about 95%. We find that the majority of erroneous classifications can be traced back to uncertainties in automatic phase picks and location estimates. The models are already in use at the SNSN, both for preliminary type predictions of automatic events and for reviewing manually analyzed events.","PeriodicalId":12519,"journal":{"name":"Geophysical Journal International","volume":"93 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geophysical Journal International","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggae018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary Distinguishing between different types of seismic events is a task typically performed manually by expert analysts and can thus be both time- and resource expensive. Analysts at the Swedish National Seismic Network (SNSN) use four different event types in the routine analysis: natural (tectonic) earthquakes, blasts (e.g. from mines, quarries and construction) and two different types of mining-induced events associated with large, underground mines. In order to aid manual event classification and to classify automatic event definitions, we have used fully-connected neural networks to implement classification models which distinguish between the four event types. For each event, we band-pass filter the waveform data in twenty narrow frequency bands before dividing each component into four non-overlapping time windows, corresponding to the P-phase, P-coda, S-phase and S-coda. In each window we compute the root-mean-square amplitude and the resulting array of amplitudes is then used as the neural network inputs. We compare results achieved using a station-specific approach, where individual models are trained for each seismic station, to a regional approach where a single model is trained for the whole study area. An extension of the models, which distinguishes spurious phase associations from real seismic events in automatic event definitions, has also been implemented. When applying our models to evaluation data distinguishing between earthquakes and blasts we achieve an accuracy of about 98% for automatic events and 99% for manually analyzed events. In areas located close to large underground mines, where all four event types are observed, the corresponding accuracy is about 90% and 96%, respectively. The accuracy when distinguishing spurious events from real seismic events is about 95%. We find that the majority of erroneous classifications can be traced back to uncertainties in automatic phase picks and location estimates. The models are already in use at the SNSN, both for preliminary type predictions of automatic events and for reviewing manually analyzed events.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
地震还是爆炸?利用全连接神经网络对瑞典局部-远距离地震事件进行分类
摘要 区分不同类型的地震事件通常是由专家分析师手动完成的一项任务,因此既耗费时间又耗费资源。瑞典国家地震台网(SNSN)的分析人员在常规分析中使用四种不同的事件类型:天然(构造)地震、爆破(如来自矿山、采石场和建筑工程的爆破)以及与大型地下矿山相关的两种不同类型的采矿诱发事件。为了帮助人工事件分类和自动事件定义分类,我们使用了全连接神经网络来实现分类模型,以区分四种事件类型。对于每个事件,我们先在 20 个窄频带内对波形数据进行带通滤波,然后将每个分量划分为四个不重叠的时间窗口,分别对应 P 相、P 尾音、S 相和 S 尾音。我们计算每个窗口的均方根振幅,然后将得到的振幅阵列作为神经网络的输入。我们比较了针对具体地震台站的方法(即针对每个地震台站训练单个模型)和针对整个研究区域的方法(即针对整个研究区域训练单个模型)所取得的结果。我们还对模型进行了扩展,在自动事件定义中将虚假的相位关联与真实的地震事件区分开来。将我们的模型应用于区分地震和爆破的评估数据时,自动事件的准确率约为 98%,人工分析事件的准确率为 99%。在靠近大型地下矿井的地区,四种事件类型均可观测到,相应的准确率分别约为 90% 和 96%。区分虚假事件和真实地震事件的准确率约为 95%。我们发现,大部分错误分类可追溯到自动相位选择和位置估计的不确定性。这些模型已在 SNSN 上使用,既可用于自动事件的初步类型预测,也可用于人工分析事件的审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Geophysical Journal International
Geophysical Journal International 地学-地球化学与地球物理
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
10.70%
发文量
436
审稿时长
3.3 months
期刊介绍: Geophysical Journal International publishes top quality research papers, express letters, invited review papers and book reviews on all aspects of theoretical, computational, applied and observational geophysics.
期刊最新文献
Modelling of non-linear elastic constitutive relationship and numerical simulation of rocks based on the Preisach-Mayergoyz space model Marginal stability analyses for thermochemical convection and its implications for the dynamics of continental lithosphere and core-mantle boundary regions Deep neural helmholtz operators for 3D elastic wave propagation and inversion Event locations: Speeding up grid searches using quadratic interpolation Internal deformation of the North Andean Sliver in Ecuador-southern Colombia observed by InSAR
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1