Precursory Analysis of GPS Time Series for Seismic Hazard Assessment
- 56 Downloads
We discuss the use of fractal analysis of geophysical big data as a precursory method for the estimation of current seismic hazard. We begin by analyzing GPS time series of land surface displacements recorded in various regions of the planet exhibiting different degrees of seismic activity. We show how the quantitative measure of chaoticity based on a modified detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) method can be used to distinguish critical and noncritical regimes of evolution of the Earth’s crust. Having established the reference values for the measure of chaoticity, we then choose California as the case study region and apply modified DFA to over 1200 time series for determining local areas currently exposed to higher seismic hazard. We comprehensively analyze the results obtained and compare them with those produced by conventional risk assessment methods. We demonstrate consistency of our results and yet discover that the suggested approach allows us to quantify two qualitatively different mechanisms involved in the growth of seismic hazards. We propose a hypothesis which relates these mechanisms to the known mechanisms of earthquake generation that evince a growth of collective behavior in the Earth’s crust on the eve of an earthquake. In order to verify the hypothesis, we analyze the same GPS data by an independent statistical method, canonical coherence analysis (CCA), which permits us to quantify the degree of synchronized behavior of constituents of the Earth’s crust. The CCA method confirms our previously obtained estimates, thus supporting fractal analysis of GPS time series as a suitable precursory method for current seismic hazard assessment.
KeywordsShort- and intermediate-term seismic hazard assessment GPS time series collective behavior detrended fluctuation analysis coherence analysis transition to criticality
We are grateful to scientists of the Nevada Geodetic Laboratory (University of Nevada, the USA) for preprocessing the raw GPS data and making them publicly available. The software implementing the modified DFA method used for processing the time series is freely available at the website of Sceptica Scientific Ltd (www.sceptica.co.uk/?catastrophes) under a copyleft license. We acknowledge valuable comments of the anonymous referees that have contributed to the improvement of the final version of the paper. The research was partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Grant No. 18-05-00133, project ”Estimation of fluctuations of seismic hazard on the basis of complex analysis of the Earth’s ambient noise.”
- Braunmiller, J. (2015). Earthquake mechanisms and tectonics. In M. Beer, I. A. Kougioumtzoglou, E. Patelli, & S.-K. Au (Eds.), Encyclopedia of earthquake engineering. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Brillinger, D. R. (1975). Time series: Data analysis and theory. Holt: Rinehart and Winston Inc.Google Scholar
- Cady, J. W. (1975). Magnetic and gravity anomalies in the Great Valley and Western Sierra Nevada metamorphic belt, California. GSA Special Papers, 168, 1–56.Google Scholar
- Field, E. H., and the 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. (2015). UCERF3: A new earthquake forecast for California’s complex fault system. U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 2015-3009.Google Scholar
- Field, E. H., Milner, K. R., and the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. (2008), Forecasting California’s earthquakes—What can we expect in the next 30 years?. U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 2008-3027.Google Scholar
- Gubbins, D. (1990). Seismology and plate tectonics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Haken, H. (2006). Information and self-organization: A macroscopic approach to complex systems. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Hong, K. T. (2009). Earthquake mechanics. In J. Lastovicka (Ed.), Geophysics and geochemistry (Vol. II, pp. 128–149). Oxford: EOLSS Publishers.Google Scholar
- Johnston, M. J. S., Linde, A. T., & Agnew, D. C. (1994). Continuous borehole strain in the San Andreas fault zone before, during, and after the 28 June 1992, Mw 7.3 Landers, California, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 799–805.Google Scholar
- Kantelhardt, J. W. (2008), Fractal and multifractal time series. arXiv:0804.0747.Google Scholar
- Kasahara, K. (1981). Earthquake mechanics. USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kay, S. M. (1988). Modern spectral estimation: Theory and application. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
- Lognonné, P., & Clévédé, E. (2002). Normal modes of the Earth and planets. In W. H. K. Lee, H. Kanamori, P. C. Jennings, & C. Kisslinger (Eds.), International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology: Part A (pp. 125–147). London: International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth’s Interior (IASPEI).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lyubushin, A. A. (1998). Analysis of canonical coherences in the problems of geophysical monitoring. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 34, 52–58.Google Scholar
- Lyubushin, A. A. (1999). Analysis of multidimensional geophysical monitoring time series for earthquake prediction. Annals of Geophysics, 42, 927–937.Google Scholar
- McEvilly, T. V., & Johnson, L. R. (1974). Stability of P and S velocities from central California quarry blasts. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 64, 343–353.Google Scholar
- Montagner, J.-P., & Roult, G. (2008). Normal modes of the Earth. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 118, 012004.Google Scholar
- Nevada Geodetic Laboratory, University of Nevada, USA. (2018). http://geodesy.unr.edu/index.php.
- Peng, C.-K., Hausdorff, J. M., & Goldberger, A. L. (2000). Fractal mechanisms in neuronal control: Human heartbeat and gait dynamics in health and disease. In J. Walleczek (Ed.), Self-organized biological dynamics and nonlinear control: Toward understanding complexity, chaos and emergent function in living systems (pp. 66–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rikitake, T. (1976). Earthquake prediction, developments in solid earth geophysics series (Vol. 9). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Scholz, C. H. (1997). What ever happened to earthquake prediction? Geotimes, 42, 16–19.Google Scholar
- Semenov, A. M. (1969). Variations in the travel-time of transverse and longitudinal waves before violent earthquakes. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 4, 245–248.Google Scholar
- Sornette, D. (2006). Critical phenomena in natural sciences. Chaos, fractals, selforganization and disorder: Concepts and tools. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- U.S. Geological Survey. (2017a). Are earthquake probabilities or forecasts the same as prediction? https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/are-earthquake-probabilities-or-forecasts-same-prediction.
- U.S. Geological Survey (2017b), The San Andreas Fault, https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/where.html.
- Williams, S. D. P., Bock, Y., Fang, P., Jamason, P., Nikolaidis, R. M., Prawirodirdjo, L., et al. (2004). Error analysis of continuous GPS position time series. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, B03412.Google Scholar