Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 171, Issue 3–5, pp 537–547 | Cite as

Sources of Error and the Statistical Formulation of M S: m b Seismic Event Screening Analysis

  • D. N. Anderson
  • H. J. Patton
  • S. R. Taylor
  • J. L. Bonner
  • N. D. Selby
Article

Abstract

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), a global ban on nuclear explosions, is currently in a ratification phase. Under the CTBT, an International Monitoring System (IMS) of seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasonic and radionuclide sensors is operational, and the data from the IMS is analysed by the International Data Centre (IDC). The IDC provides CTBT signatories basic seismic event parameters and a screening analysis indicating whether an event exhibits explosion characteristics (for example, shallow depth). An important component of the screening analysis is a statistical test of the null hypothesis H 0: explosion characteristics using empirical measurements of seismic energy (magnitudes). The established magnitude used for event size is the body-wave magnitude (denoted m b) computed from the initial segment of a seismic waveform. IDC screening analysis is applied to events with m b greater than 3.5. The Rayleigh wave magnitude (denoted M S) is a measure of later arriving surface wave energy. Magnitudes are measurements of seismic energy that include adjustments (physical correction model) for path and distance effects between event and station. Relative to m b, earthquakes generally have a larger M S magnitude than explosions. This article proposes a hypothesis test (screening analysis) using M S and m b that expressly accounts for physical correction model inadequacy in the standard error of the test statistic. With this hypothesis test formulation, the 2009 Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea announced nuclear weapon test fails to reject the null hypothesis H 0: explosion characteristics.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support of Ms. Leslie A. Casey and the National Nuclear Security Administration Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Verification Research and Development for funding this work. This work was completed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by Los Alamos National Laboratory under contract DE-AC52-06NA24596. We thank Dr. Dmitry Storchak, Director of the International Seismological Centre, for his support in the acquisition of the data used in this article. We also thank Dr. Ronan Le Bras, Head of the Software Integration Unit at the International Data Centre, for providing important context in regard to event screening.

References

  1. Anderson, D. N., W. R. Walter, D. K. Fagan, T. M. Mercier, and S. R. Taylor (2009). Regional multi-station discriminants: Magnitude, distance and amplitude corrections and sources of error. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 99, 794–808.Google Scholar
  2. Bolt, B. (1976). Nuclear explosions and earthquakes: The parted veil. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  3. Bonner, J. L., R. B. Herrmann, and M. Harkrider, D. G. Pasyanos (2008). The surface wave magnitude for the 9 October 2006 North Korean nuclear explosion. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 98, 2598–2506.Google Scholar
  4. Bormann, P., R. Liu, Z. Xu, K. Ren, L. Zhang, and S. Wendt (2009). First application of the new IASPEI teleseismic magnitude standards to data of the China national seismograph network. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 99, 1868–1891.Google Scholar
  5. Dahlman, O. and H. Israelson (1977). Monitoring Underground Nuclear Explosions. Amsterdam: Elsevier-North Holland.Google Scholar
  6. Douglas, A., J. A. Hudson, and V. K. Kembhavi (1971). The relative excitation of body and surface waves by point sources. Geophys. J. Roy. Astr. Soc. 23, 451–460.Google Scholar
  7. Gutenberg, P. (1945). Amplitudes of surface waves and the magnitudes of shallow earthquakes. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 35, 3–12.Google Scholar
  8. Herak, M. and D. Herak (1993). Distance dependence of M s and calibrating function for 20 second Rayleigh waves. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 83, 1881–1892.Google Scholar
  9. Marshall, P. D. and P. Basham (1972). Discrimination between earthquakes and underground explosions employing an improved M s scale. Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc. 29, 431–458.Google Scholar
  10. Mikhailov, V. N. (1999). Catalog of Worldwide Nuclear Testing. New York: Begell-Atom.Google Scholar
  11. Patton, H. J. and S. R. Taylor (2008). Effects of shock-induced tensile failure on m b − M s discrimination: Contrasts between historic nuclear explosions and the North Korean test of 9 October 2006. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L14301.Google Scholar
  12. Rezapour, M. and R. G. Pearce (1998). Bias in surface-wave magnitude M s due to inadequate distance correction. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 88, 43–61.Google Scholar
  13. Russell, D. R. (2006). Development of a time-domain, variable-period surface-wave magnitude measurement procedure for application at regional and teleseismic distances, Part I: Theory. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 96, 665–677.Google Scholar
  14. Scheffe, H. (1959). The Analysis of Variance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  15. Searle, S. R. (1971). Linear Models. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Searle, S. R., G. Casella, and C. E. McCulloch (1992). Variance Components. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Selby, N. D., P. D. Marshall, and D. Bowers (2012). m b:M s event screening revisited. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 102, 88–97.Google Scholar
  18. Stevens, J. L. and S. M. Day (1985). The physical basis of the m b:M s and variable frequency magnitude methods for earthquake/explosion discrimination. J. Geophys. Res. 90, 3009–3020.Google Scholar
  19. Stevens, J. L. and K. L. McLaughlin (2001). Optimization of surface wave identification and measurement. Pure. App. Geophys. 158, 1547–1582.Google Scholar
  20. Vanuek, J., A. Zatopek, V. Karnik, Y. Riznichenko, E. Saverensky, S. Solov’ev, and N. Shebalin (1962). Standardization of magnitude scales. Bull. (Izvest.) Acad. Sci. U.S.S.R., Geophys. Ser. 2, 153–158.Google Scholar
  21. von Seggern, D. (1977). Amplitude distance relation for 20-second Rayleigh waves. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 67, 405–411.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. N. Anderson
    • 1
  • H. J. Patton
    • 1
  • S. R. Taylor
    • 2
  • J. L. Bonner
    • 3
  • N. D. Selby
    • 4
  1. 1.Los Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA
  2. 2.Rocky Mountain GeophysicsLos AlamosUSA
  3. 3.Weston GeophysicalLexingtonUSA
  4. 4.AWE BlacknestReadingUK

Personalised recommendations