| Citation: |
SI ZhengYa, ZHUANG JianCang, JIANG ChangSheng. 2022. A Bayesian algorithm for magnitude determination by merging multiple seismic networks. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 65(6): 2167-2178, doi: 10.6038/cjg2022P0138
|
A Bayesian algorithm for magnitude determination by merging multiple seismic networks
-
Abstract
The earthquake magnitude determined by a temporary seismic network usually differs from that given by a permanent seismic network due to several factors, including the undetermined site response, the determination method, and the operation mode. This problem cannot even be solved by correcting the gauge function in the magnitude determination formula for the temporary seismic network. Therefore, a large number of small earthquakes recorded only by temporary seismic networks that cannot be directly added to the standard catalogs. This paper aims to provide a novel fast algorithm for solving this problem. Assuming that an observed magnitude follows the Gaussian distribution, with a mean of its unknown true value if it is determined by the permanent seismic network, or with a mean as a linear function of its true value if it is given by a temporary seismic network, we derive the posterior probability density function of the magnitude given its observation values by different networks, based on the Bayesian formula. The parameters in the posterior probability density function can be estimated from observation data by using the maximum likelihood method, and then the posterior estimate of the earthquake magnitude, namely the revised magnitude, can be calculated. This algorithm is applied to earthquake catalogs recorded by the Xichang (XC) temporary seismic network and by the China (CN) seismic network. We find that the revised magnitude approximately follows a linear relationship against its observed value given by the CN seismic network, generally larger than its value measured by the XC seismic network. The proposed method provides a fast algorithm for correcting the unprecise magnitudes determined by temporary seismic networks, and simultaneously, improves the stability and accuracy of the magnitudes estimated by the permanent seismic network by taking account of the consistency of the magnitudes measured by the temporary seismic network.
-
-
References
Abbasi A. 2019. Linear and nonlinear earthquake location approaches in a case study overview. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. , 293: 106265. doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2019.05.008
Anbazhagan P, Balakumar A. 2019. Seismic magnitude conversion and its effect on seismic hazard analysis. J. Seismol., 23(4): 623-647. doi: 10.1007/s10950-019-09826-1
Butcher A, Luckett R, Verdon J P, et al. 2017. Local magnitude discrepancies for near-event receivers: Implications for the U.K. traffic-light scheme. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 107(2): 532-541, doi: 10.1785/0120160225.
Castellaro S, Mulargia F, Kagan Y Y. 2006. Regression problems for magnitudes. Geophys. J. Int., 165(3): 913-930. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02955.x
Castellaro S, Bormann P. 2007. Performance of different regression procedures on the magnitude conversion problem. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 97(4): 1167-1175. doi: 10.1785/0120060102
Clarke H, Eisner L, Styles P, et al. 2014. Felt seismicity associated with shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The first documented example in Europe. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41(23): 8308-8314, doi: 10.1002/2014GL062047.
Dai G H, Miao C L, Zhai L Y. 2019. Unified earthquake cataloging of China seismographic network. Earthquake Research in China (in Chinese), 35(1): 192-203.
Edwards B, Douglas J. 2014. Magnitude scaling of induced earthquakes. Geothermics, 52: 132-139. doi: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2013.09.012
Gök R, Hutchings L, Mayeda K, et al. 2009. Source parameters for 1999 North Anatolian fault zone aftershocks. Pure Appl. Geophys., 166(4): 547-566. doi: 10.1007/s00024-009-0461-x
Hickman S, Zoback M, Ellsworth W. 2004. Introduction to special section: Preparing for the San Andreas Fault observatory at depth. Geophys. Res. Lett. , 31(12): L12S01, doi: 10.1029/2004GL020688.
Hiemer S, Roessler D, Scherbaum F. 2012. Monitoring the West Bohemian earthquake swarm in 2008/2009 by a temporary small-aperture seismic array. J. Seismol., 16(2): 169-182. doi: 10.1007/s10950-011-9256-5
Lin F C, Li D Z, Clayton R W, et al. 2013. High-resolution 3D shallow crustal structure in Long Beach, California: Application of ambient noise tomography on a dense seismic array. Geophysics, 78(4): Q45-Q56. doi: 10.1190/geo2012-0453.1
Liu R F, Chen Y T, Bormann P, et al. 2005. Comparison between earthquake magnitudes determined by China seismograph network and US seismograph network: I. Body wave magnitude. Acta Seismologica Sinica (in Chinese), 27(6): 583-587.
Liu R F, Chen Y T, Bormann P, et al. 2006. Comparison between earthquake magnitudes determined by china seismograph network and U.S. seismograph network (Ⅱ): surface wave magnitude. Acta Seismologica Sinica (in Chinese), 28(1): 1-7.
Liu R F, Zheng X F, Yang H, et al. 2015. Management and Service of Seismic Observation Data (in Chinese). Beijing: Seismological Press, 63-67.
Long F, Jiang C S, Qi Y P, et al. 2018. A joint probabilistic approach for merging earthquake catalogs of two neighboring seismic networks: An example of the 2014 Ludian sequence catalog. Chinese J. Geophys. (in Chinese), 61(7): 2815-2827, doi: 10.6038/cjg2018L0593.
Luckett R, Ottemöller L, Butcher A, et al. 2019. Extending local magnitude ML to short distances. Geophys. J. Int., 216(2): 1145-1156, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggy484.
Mahani A B, Kao H. 2020. Determination of local magnitude for induced earthquakes in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin: An update. CSEG Recorder, 45(2): 1-12.
Ottemöller L, Sargeant S. 2013. A local magnitude scale ML for the United Kingdom. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. , 103(5): 2884-2893, doi: 10.1785/0120130085.
Pandey A K, Chingtham P, Roy P N S. 2017. Homogeneous earthquake catalogue for Northeast region of India using robust statistical approaches. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 8(2): 1477-1491. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2017.1345794
Pechmann J C, Nava S J, Terra F M, et al. 2007. Local magnitude determinations for intermountain seismic belt earthquakes from broadband digital data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. , 97(2): 557-574. doi: 10.1785/0120060114
Piccinini D, Agostinetti N P, Roselli P, et al. 2009. Analysis of small magnitude seismic sequences along the Northern Apennines (Italy). Tectonophysics, 476(1-2): 136-144. doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2009.04.005
Picozzi M, Oth A, Parolai S, et al. 2017. Accurate estimation of seismic source parameters of induced seismicity by a combined approach of generalized inversion and genetic algorithm: Application to the Geysers geothermal area, California. J. Geophys. Res. : Solid Earth, 122(5): 3916-3933. doi: 10.1002/2016JB013690
Rezaeifar M, Kissling E. 2018. Compilation of a high-quality catalogue for M3.0+ seismicity in northern Iran region for the period of 2005-2017. Geophys. J. Int. , 215(1): 118-132. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggy271
Sakamoto Y, Ishiguro M, Kitagawa G. 1986. Akaike Information Criterion Statistics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Scordilis E M. 2006. Empirical global relations converting MS and mb to moment magnitude. J. Seismol., 10(2): 225-236. doi: 10.1007/s10950-006-9012-4
Smith A J, Cummins P R, Baba T, et al. 2004. Intra-plate seismicity in the subducting Philippine Sea Plate, southwest Japan: magnitude-depth correlations. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. , 145(1-2): 179-202.
Solarino S, Kissling E, Sellami S, et al. 1997. Compilation of a recent seismicity data base of the greater Alpine region from several seismological networks and preliminary 3D tomographic results. Annali Di Geofisica, 40(1): 161-174.
Trugman D T, Shearer P M. 2017. Application of an improved spectral decomposition method to examine earthquake source scaling in Southern California. J. Geophys. Res. : Solid Earth, 122(4): 2890-2910. doi: 10.1002/2017JB013971
Viveros J A B, Reynoso G S, Schroeder M G O. 2017. A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, Mexico based on historical and instrumentally recorded seismicity. Geofísica Internacional, 56(1): 87-101.
Wang Q, Jackson D D, Kagan Y Y. 2009. California earthquakes, 1800-2007: A unified catalog with moment magnitudes, uncertainties, and focal mechanisms. Seismol. Res. Lett., 80(3): 446-457. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.80.3.446
Wetie Ngongang A, Lenhardt N, Smit A. 2019. Seismic hazard parameter estimation of the Mount Cameroon volcanic region (Cameroon) based on a combination of mixed catalogs. Natural Hazards, 96(1): 369-388. doi: 10.1007/s11069-018-3547-x
Wollin C, Bohnhoff M, Martínez-Garzón P, et al. 2018. A unified earthquake catalogue for the Sea of Marmara Region, Turkey, based on automatized phase picking and travel-time inversion: seismotectonic implications. Tectonophysics, 747-748: 416-444. doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2018.05.020
Yadav R B S, Bayrak Y, Tripathi J N, et al. 2012. A probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazard parameters in NW Himalaya and the adjoining regions. Pure Appl. Geophys. , 169(9): 1619-1639. doi: 10.1007/s00024-011-0434-8
代光辉, 苗春兰, 翟璐媛. 2019. 中国测震台网统一地震编目. 中国地震, 35(1): 192-203. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4683.2019.01.018
刘瑞丰, 陈运泰, Bormann P等. 2005. 中国地震台网与美国地震台网测定震级的对比(Ⅰ)——体波震级. 地震学报, 27(6): 583-587. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-3782.2005.06.001
刘瑞丰, 陈运泰, Bormann P等. 2006. 中国地震台网与美国地震台网测定震级的对比(Ⅱ)——面波震级. 地震学报, 28(1): 1-7. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-3782.2006.01.001
刘瑞丰, 郑秀芬, 杨辉等. 2015. 地震观测数据的管理与服务. 北京: 地震出版社, 63-67.
龙锋, 蒋长胜, 祁玉萍等. 2018. 联合概率法在合并相邻台网地震目录中的应用: 以2014年鲁甸序列为例. 地球物理学报, 61(7): 2815-2827, doi: 10.6038/cjg2018L0593.
Figures(4)
Tables(1)
Export File
Citation
SI ZhengYa, ZHUANG JianCang, JIANG ChangSheng. 2022. A Bayesian algorithm for magnitude determination by merging multiple seismic networks. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 65(6): 2167-2178, doi: 10.6038/cjg2022P0138
Format
Content
DownLoad:
-
Figure 1.
Differences in the locations and the magnitudes for each matched pairs between the permanent (CN) and the temporary (XC) seismic networks
-
Figure 2.
Magnitude comparison of the each matched pair between permanent and temporary seismic networks
-
Figure 3.
Illustration of the relationship of data inclusion and exclusion when the records are recorded by multiple monitoring networks
-
Figure 4.
Comparison between the revised magnitudes that are calculated by the Bayesian algorithm and the original recorded magnitudes