Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 167, Issue 4–5, pp 601–618 | Cite as

Satellite Earth Observations Support CTBT Monitoring: A Case Study of the Nuclear Test in North Korea of Oct. 9, 2006 and Comparison with Seismic Results

Article

Abstract

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty prescribes the use of seismic stations and arrays as the main measure for verification of Treaty compliance. Since the inception of the Treaty, a vast amount of open source earth observation satellite data has become available. This paper investigates the potential for combining seismic and satellite data for more effective monitoring and response. With data acquired before, during and after the alleged North Korean underground nuclear test on October 9, 2006, wide area change detection techniques using medium resolution optical/infrared satellite sensors are combined with localized high-resolution imagery to attempt to pinpoint the test location within the area identified by the seismic measurements. Problems associated with the timeliness, degree of coverage and ambiguity of the remote sensing data are pointed out, however it is generally concluded that their integration into the CTBT regime would valuably complement the existing seismic observation network.

References

  1. Ammon, C. J., and Lay, T. (2007), Nuclear test illuminates USArray data quality, Eos Trans. AGU 88, 37.Google Scholar
  2. Bonner, J., Herrmann, R. B., Harkrider, D., and Pasyanos, M. (2008), The surface wave magnitude for the 9 October 2006 North Korean nuclear explosion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, 2498–2506.Google Scholar
  3. Canty, M. J., Nielsen, A. A., and Schlittenhardt, J. (2005), Sensitive change detection for remote monitoring of nuclear Treaties. Proc. 31st Int. Symp. on Remote Sensing of Environment, Global Monitoring for Sustainability and Security, St. Petersburg, Russia, 20–24 June 2005.Google Scholar
  4. Canty, M. J., and Schlittenhardt, J. (2001), Satellite data used to locate site of 1998 Indian nuclear test, Eos Trans. AGU 82(3), 25–29.Google Scholar
  5. Coppin, P., Jonckheere, I., Nackaerts, K., and Muys, B. (2004), Digital change detection methods in ecosystem monitoring: A review, Int. J. Remote Sens. 25(9), 1565–1596.Google Scholar
  6. Cong, X., Schlittenhardt, J., Gutjahr, K., Soergel, U., Canty, M., and Nielsen, A. (2007), Using differential SAR interferometry for the measurement of surface displacement caused by underground nuclear explosions and comparison with optical change detection results. In Global Monitoring for Security and Stability (GMOSS)—Integrated Scientific and Technological Research Supporting Security Aspects of the European Union (eds. G. Zeug and M. Pesaresi), European Commission—Joint Research Centre, pp. 282–293.Google Scholar
  7. Fisk, M. D. (2002), Accurate locations of nuclear explosions at the Lop Nor test site using alignment of seismograms and IKONOS satellite imagery, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 2911–2925.Google Scholar
  8. General Geological Map of Korea (1945), 1:1000000, multi-color, Bibl.-Magazin BGR, Hannover.Google Scholar
  9. Gupta, V. (1995), Locating nuclear explosions at the Chinese test site near Lop Nor, Sci. Global Security 5, 205–244.Google Scholar
  10. Hotelling, H. (1936), Relations between two sets of variates. Biometrika 28, 321–377.Google Scholar
  11. Kennett, B. L. N. (1991), IASPEI 1991 seismological tables, Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  12. Kim, W. Y., and Richards, P. G. (2007), North Korean nuclear test: seismic discrimination at low yields, Eos Trans AGU 88, 158–161.Google Scholar
  13. Koper, K. D., Herrmann, R. B., and Benz, H. M. (2008), Overview of open seismic data from the North Korean event of 9 October 2006, Seismol. Res. Lett 79, 178–185.Google Scholar
  14. Kvaerna, T., Ringdal, F., Baadshaug, U. (2007), North Korea’s nuclear test: The capability for seismic monitoring of the North Korean test site, Seismol. Res. Lett. 78, 487–497.Google Scholar
  15. Marshall, P. D., Springer, D. L., and Rodean, H. C. (1979), Magnitude corrections for attenuation in the upper mantle. Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc. 57, 609–638.Google Scholar
  16. Nielsen, A. A. (2007), The regularized iteratively reweighted MAD method for change detection in multi- and hyperspectral data. IEEE Trans. Image Process, 16(2), 463–478. http://www.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/p.php?4695.
  17. Nielsen, A. A., Conradsen, K., and Simpson, J. J. (1998), Multivariate alteration detection (MAD) and MAF post-processing in multispectral, bitemporal image data: New approaches to change detection studies, Remote Sens. Environ. 64, 1–19. http://www.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/p.php?1220.
  18. Nuttli, O. W. (1986), Yield estimates of Nevada test site explosions obtained from seismic Lg waves. J. Geophys. Res. 91, 2137–2151.Google Scholar
  19. Patton, H. J., and Taylor, S. R. (2008), Effects of 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, doi:10.1029/2008GL034211.
  20. Radke, R. J., Andra, S., Al-Kofahi, O., and Roysam, B. (2005), Image change detection algorithms: A systematic survey, IEEE Trans. Image Process. 14(4), 294–307.Google Scholar
  21. Schlittenhardt, J. (1988), Seismic yield estimation using teleseismic P- and PKP-waves recorded at the GRF-(Gräfenberg) array, Geophys. J. 95, 163–179.Google Scholar
  22. Schlittenhardt, J., Cong, X., Canty, M., Gutjahr, K., and Soergel, U. (2008), Satellite Earth observations support CTBT monitoring. In Remote Sensing for International Stability and Security, Integrating GMOSS Achievements in GMES (eds. G. Zeug, T. Kemper, A. Steel and M. Pesaresi), JRC Ispra, 19–20 February 2008, pp. 83–84.Google Scholar
  23. Singh, A. (1989), Digital change detection techniques using remotely-sensed data, Internat. J. Remote Sens. 10(6), 989–1002.Google Scholar
  24. Sulsoft (2003), AsterDTM 2.0 installation and user’s guide, Technical report, SulSoft Ltd, Porto Alegre, Brazil.Google Scholar
  25. Tibuleac, I. M., von Seggern, D. H., Anderson, J. G., Smith, K. W., Aburto, A., and Rennie, T. (2008), Location and magnitude estimation of the 9 October 2006 Korean nuclear explosion using the southern Great Basin digital seismic network as a large-aperture array, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, 756–767.Google Scholar
  26. Thurber, C., Quin, H., and Richards, P. (1993), Accurate locations of nuclear explosions at Balapan, Kazakhstan, 1987 to 1989, Geophys. Res. Lett. 20, 399–402.Google Scholar
  27. Vincent, P., Larsen, S., Galloway, D., Laczniak, R.J., Walter, W.R., Foxall, W., and Zucca, J. J. (2003), New signatures of underground nuclear tests revealed by satellite radar Interferometry, Geophys. Res Lett. 30(22), 2141.Google Scholar
  28. Zhao, L.-F., Xie, X.-B., Wang, W.-M., and Yao, Z.-X. (2008), The regional seismic characteristics of the October 9, 2006 North Korean nuclear test, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, 2571–2589.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und RohstoffeHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbHJülichGermany

Personalised recommendations