Advertisement

Journal of Seismology

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 965–985 | Cite as

The smart cluster method

Adaptive earthquake cluster identification and analysis in strong seismic regions
  • Andreas M. Schaefer
  • James E. Daniell
  • Friedemann Wenzel
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 346 Downloads

Abstract

Earthquake clustering is an essential part of almost any statistical analysis of spatial and temporal properties of seismic activity. The nature of earthquake clusters and subsequent declustering of earthquake catalogues plays a crucial role in determining the magnitude-dependent earthquake return period and its respective spatial variation for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. This study introduces the Smart Cluster Method (SCM), a new methodology to identify earthquake clusters, which uses an adaptive point process for spatio-temporal cluster identification. It utilises the magnitude-dependent spatio-temporal earthquake density to adjust the search properties, subsequently analyses the identified clusters to determine directional variation and adjusts its search space with respect to directional properties. In the case of rapid subsequent ruptures like the 1992 Landers sequence or the 2010–2011 Darfield-Christchurch sequence, a reclassification procedure is applied to disassemble subsequent ruptures using near-field searches, nearest neighbour classification and temporal splitting. The method is capable of identifying and classifying earthquake clusters in space and time. It has been tested and validated using earthquake data from California and New Zealand. A total of more than 1500 clusters have been found in both regions since 1980 with M m i n = 2.0. Utilising the knowledge of cluster classification, the method has been adjusted to provide an earthquake declustering algorithm, which has been compared to existing methods. Its performance is comparable to established methodologies. The analysis of earthquake clustering statistics lead to various new and updated correlation functions, e.g. for ratios between mainshock and strongest aftershock and general aftershock activity metrics.

Keywords

Earthquake clustering Seismic hazard Earthquake declustering Aftershock prediction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the New Zealand GeoNet project and its sponsors EQC, GNS Science and LINZ, for providing data/images used in this study.

Furthermore, we thank the anonymous reviewers of this study for their critical and helpful comments improving this script substantially.

References

  1. Abrahamson N (2006) Seismic hazard assessment: problems with current practice and future developments. In: First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, CHGoogle Scholar
  2. Aki K (1965) Maximum-likelihood estimate of b in the formula of log n = a - bm and its confidence limits. Bull Earthq Res Inst, Univ Tokyo 43:237–239Google Scholar
  3. Altman N (1992) An introduction to kernel and nearest-neighbor nonparametric regression. Am Stat 46:175–185Google Scholar
  4. Anagno T, Kiremidjian A (1988) A review of earthquake occurrence models for seismic hazard analysis. Probab Eng Mech 3:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ankerst M, Breunig HPM, Kriegel, Sander J (1999) Is the sequence of earthquake in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD’99 international conference on management data, Philadelphia, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Baiesi M, Paczuski M (2004) Scale-free networks of earthquakes and aftershocks. Phys Rev 69:066106–1–066106-8Google Scholar
  7. Bath M (1965) Lateral inhomogeneities in the upper mantle. Tectonophysics 2:483–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyd O (2012) Including foreshocks and aftershocks in time-independent probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102:909–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryan C, Sherburn S, Bibby H, Bannister S, Hurst A (1999) Shallow seismicity of the Central Taupo vulcanic zone, New Zealand: its distribution and nature. N Z J Geol Geophys 42:533–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cesca S, Sen AT, Dahm T (2013) Seismicity monitoring by cluster analysis of moment tensors. Geophys J Int 196(3):ggt492Google Scholar
  11. Contreras-Reyes J (2013) Nonparametric assessment of aftershock clusters of the maule earthquake mw = 8.8. Journal of Data Science 11:623–638Google Scholar
  12. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  13. Custódio S, Lima V, Vales D, Cesca S, Carrilho F (2016) Imaging active faulting in a region of distributed deformation from the joint clustering of focal mechanisms and hypocentres: application to the azores—Western Mediterranean Region. Tectonophysics 676:70–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniell J, Vervaeck A, Wenzel F, Schaefer A, Khazai B, Brink S, Kunz-Plapp T, Anhorn J, Floerchinger V, Schmidt H, Hoechner A, Muehr B, Dittrich A, Girard T, Robles C, Skapski J (2015) Nepal Earthquakereport 1. CEDIM forensic disaster analysis reportGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson J, Green A (2011) Are earthquake magnitudes clustered? Phys Rev Lett 106:108502–1108502-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ester M, Kriegel H, Sander J, Xu X (1996) A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. AAAI Press, Portland, OR, pp 226–231Google Scholar
  17. Farrell J, Husen S, Smith RB (2009) Earthquake swarm and b-value characterization of the Yellowstone volcano-tectonic system. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 188(1):260–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Felzer K, Becker T, Abercrombie R, Ekstroem G, Rice J (2002) Triggering of the 1999 mw 7.1 hector mine earthquake by aftershocks of the 1992 mw 7.3 landers earthquake. J Geophys Res 107:ESE 6-1–ESE 6-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardner J, Knopoff L (1974) A review of earthquake occurrence models for seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 64:1363–1367Google Scholar
  20. Gutenberg B, Richter C (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188Google Scholar
  21. Kagan Y, Jackson D (2007) A testable five-year forecast of moderate and large earthquakes in Southern California based on smoothed seismicity. Seismol Res Lett 78:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kanamori H (1977) The energy release in great earthquakes. J Geophys Res 82:2981–2987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lizurek G, Lasocki S (2014) Clustering of mining-induced seismic events in equivalent dimension spaces. J Seismol 18(3):543–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mogi K (1963) Some discussions on aftershocks, foreshocks and earthquake swarms: the fracture of a semi-infinite body caused by an inner stress origin and its relation to the earthquake phenomena (third paper). Bull Earthquake Res Inst 41:615–658Google Scholar
  25. Molchan G, Dmitrieva O (1991) Aftershock identification: methods and new approaches. Geophys J Int 109:501–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nanjo K (2010) Earthquake forecast models for Italy based on the RI algorithm. Ann Geophys 53:117–127Google Scholar
  27. NCEDC (2014) Northern California earthquake data center. http://www.quake.geo.berkeley.edu/anss/catalog-search.html
  28. Ogata Y (1998) Space-time point-process models for earthquake occurrences. Ann Inst Stat Math 50:379–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Omori Y (1894) On the aftershocks of earthquakes. Journal of College Science, Imperial University of Tokyo 7:111– 200Google Scholar
  30. Pedregoas F, Variquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchasnay E (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830Google Scholar
  31. Reasenberg P (1985) Second-order moment of central California seismicity. J Geophys 90:5479–5495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schaefer A, Daniell J, Wenzel F (2015a) Present, past, future-what earthquake clusters can tell us about an upcoming marmara sea earthquake. In: EGU general assembly conference abstracts, vol 17, p 5314Google Scholar
  33. Schaefer A, Daniell J, Wenzel F (2015b) The seismic hazard of Australia a venture into an uncertain future. In: Pacific conference on earthquake engineering proceedings, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  34. Shcherbakov R, Turcotte D, Rundle J (2005) Aftershock statistics. Pure Appl Geophys 162:1051–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith B, Sandwell D (2006) A model of the earthquake cycle along the San Andreas fault system for the past 1000 years. J Geophys Res 111:5479–5495Google Scholar
  36. Telesca L, Rouai M, Cherkaoui T (2009) Time-clustering behavior in the sequence of the aftershocks of the al-hoceima (morocca) 24 February 2004 earthquake. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:2063–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Uhrhammer R (1986) Characteristics of northern and central california seismicity. Earthquake Notes 57(1):21Google Scholar
  38. Utsu T (1961) A statistical study of the occurrence of aftershocks. Geophys Mag 30:521–605Google Scholar
  39. Utsu T (2002) A List of Destructive earthquakes in the World, 1500-1992. International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Part A. Academic Press, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  40. van Stiphout T, Zhuang J, Marsan D (2012) Seismicity declustering. Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis, 10Google Scholar
  41. Vecchio A, Carbone V, Sorriso-Valo L, Rose CD, Guerra I, Harabaglia P (2008) Statistical properties of earthquake clustering. Nonlin Processes Geophys 15:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vidale JE, Shearer PM (2006) A survey of 71 earthquake bursts across southern california: exploring the role of pore fluid pressure fluctuations and aseismic slip as drivers. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 111 (B5):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vidale JE, Boyle KL, Shearer PM (2006) Crustal earthquake bursts in California and Japan: their patterns and relation to volcanoes. Geophys Res Lett 33(20):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4):974–1002Google Scholar
  45. Werner MJ, Helmstetter A, Jackson D, Kagan Y (2011) High-resolution long-term and short-term earthquake forecasts for California. Bull Seism Soc Am 101:1630–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiemer S, Wyss M (2000) Minimum magnitude of complete reporting in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the western United States, and Japan. Bull Seism Soc Am 90:859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zaliapin I, Ben-Zion Y (2013) Earthquake clusters in southern California i: identification and stability. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 118:2847–2864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zaliapin I, Ben-Zion Y (2016) Discriminating characteristics of tectonic and human-induced seismicity. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(3):846–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhuang J (2011) Next-day earthquake forecasts by using the etas model. Earth Planet Space 63:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhuang J, Ogata Y, Vere-Jones D (2002) Stochastic declustering of space-time earthquake occurrences. J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas M. Schaefer
    • 1
  • James E. Daniell
    • 1
  • Friedemann Wenzel
    • 1
  1. 1.Geophysical InstituteKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations