Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deep and confident prediction for a laboratory earthquake

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many laboratory fault failure experiments are conducted as analogue of earthquakes, in which most of them are coupled with acoustic emission (AE) as a powerful diagnostic tool for investigating failure precursors. The purpose of this study is to predict time to the next failure in a laboratory fault failure experiment before failures happen based on the instantaneous recorded AE signals. A customized deep learning network comprising the convolutional neural network module and the recurrent neural network module is built and trained using raw AE data directly. No statistical characteristics or handmade features are extracted from raw data, avoiding any possible precursor information losses. More than 600 million AE data from a repetitive fault failure experiment are segmented as several thousand equilong sequences to form training and validation samples. The proposed network delivers satisfactory predicted results with the R2 value 0.55, much better than results using traditional earthquake catalogs method. Results of this study also demonstrate that our network does not prioritize those AE signals collected when failures impend, which is a common bias in traditional earthquake prediction methods. This study definitely holds the promise of using deep learning in earthquake prediction. Further studies are needed when analogous studies proceed to an industrial practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

adapted from https://news.psu.edu/story/562509/2019/03/11/research/research-predicts-size-magnitude-timing-lab-earthquakes)

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rouet-Leduc B, Hulbert C, Lubbers N, Barros K, Humphreys CJ, Johnson PA (2017) Machine learning predicts laboratory earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 44(18):9276–9282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wyss M, Booth DC (1997) The IASPEI procedure for the evaluation of earthquake precursors. Geophys J Int 131(3):423–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertello I, Piersanti M, Candidi M, Diego P, Ubertini P (2018) Electromagnetic field observations by the DEMETER satellite in connection with the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Annales Geophysicae, Copernicus GmbH

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mai PM, Wikelski M, Scocco P, Catorci A, Keim D, Pohlmeier W, Fechteler G (2018) Monitoring pre-seismic activity changes in a domestic animal collective in central Italy. In: EGU general assembly conference abstracts

  5. Calais E, Camelbeeck T, Stein S, Liu M, Craig T (2016) A new paradigm for large earthquakes in stable continental plate interiors. Geophys Res Lett 43(20):10,621-610,637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carpinteri A, Borla O (2019) Acoustic, electromagnetic, and neutron emissions as seismic precursors: the lunar periodicity of low-magnitude seismic swarms. Eng Fract Mech 210:29–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Panakkat A, Adeli H (2008) Recent efforts in earthquake prediction (1990–2007). Nat Hazards Rev 9(2):70–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Roeloffs E, Langbein J (1994) The earthquake prediction experiment at Parkfield, California. Rev Geophys 32(3):315–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hayakawa M (2015) Earthquake prediction with radio techniques. John Wiley & Sons

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Uyeda S, Nagao T, Kamogawa M (2009) Short-term earthquake prediction: current status of seismo-electromagnetics. Tectonophysics 470(3–4):205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson PA, Savage H, Knuth M, Gomberg J, Marone C (2008) Effects of acoustic waves on stick–slip in granular media and implications for earthquakes. Nature 451(7174):57–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kocharyan GG, Ostapchuk AA, Pavlov DV (2018) Traces of laboratory earthquake nucleation in the spectrum of ambient noise. Sci Rep 8(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Leeman J, Saffer D, Scuderi M, Marone C (2016) Laboratory observations of slow earthquakes and the spectrum of tectonic fault slip modes. Nat Commun 7(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Marone C (1998) Laboratory-derived friction laws and their application to seismic faulting. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 26(1):643–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lei X, Ma S (2014) Laboratory acoustic emission study for earthquake generation process. Earthq Sci 27(6):627–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Goebel TW, Schorlemmer D, Becker T, Dresen G, Sammis C (2013) Acoustic emissions document stress changes over many seismic cycles in stick-slip experiments. Geophys Res Lett 40(10):2049–2054

  17. Tinti E, Scuderi M, Scognamiglio L, Di Stefano G, Marone C, Collettini C (2016) On the evolution of elastic properties during laboratory stick-slip experiments spanning the transition from slow slip to dynamic rupture. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 121(12):8569–8594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Renard F, Cordonnier B, Kobchenko M, Kandula N, Weiss J, Zhu W (2017) Microscale characterization of rupture nucleation unravels precursors to faulting in rocks. Earth Planet Sci Lett 476:69–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Scuderi M, Marone C, Tinti E, Di Stefano G, Collettini C (2016) Precursory changes in seismic velocity for the spectrum of earthquake failure modes. Nat Geosci 9(9):695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mogi K (1962) Study of elastic shocks caused by the fracture of heterogeneous materials and its relation to earthquake phenomena. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo 40:125–173

    Google Scholar 

  21. Scholz C (1968) Experimental study of the fracturing process in brittle rock. J Geophys Res 73(4):1447–1454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fortin J, Stanchits S, Dresen G, Gueguen Y (2009) Acoustic emissions monitoring during inelastic deformation of porous sandstone: comparison of three modes of deformation. Pure Appl Geophys 166(5):823–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kocharyan GG, Novikov VA, Ostapchuk AA, Pavlov DV (2017) A study of different fault slip modes governed by the gouge material composition in laboratory experiments. Geophys J Int 208(1):521–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw409

  24. Lubbers N, Bolton DC, Mohd-Yusof J, Marone C, Barros K, Johnson PA (2018) Earthquake catalog-based machine learning identification of laboratory fault states and the effects of magnitude of completeness. Geophys Res Lett 45(24):13,269-213,276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Corbi F, Sandri L, Bedford J, Funiciello F, Brizzi S, Rosenau M, Lallemand S (2019) Machine learning can predict the timing and size of analog earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 46(3):1303–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yue Z, Gao F, Xiong Q et al (2019) A novel semi-supervised convolutional neural network method for synthetic aperture radar image recognition. Cogn Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-019-09639-x

  27. Otter DW, Medina JR, Kalita JK (2020) A survey of the usages of deep learning for natural language processing. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 32(2):604–624. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2020.2979670

  28. Bloch I, Clouard R, Revenu M, Sigaud O (2020) Artificial intelligence and pattern recognition, vision, learning. In: A guided tour of artificial intelligence research. Springer, pp 337–364

  29. Bolton DC, Shokouhi P, Rouet-Leduc B, Hulbert C, Rivière J, Marone C, Johnson PA (2019) Characterizing Acoustic Signals and Searching for Precursors during the Laboratory Seismic Cycle Using Unsupervised Machine Learning. Seismol Res Lett 90(3):1088–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Szegedy C, Liu W, Jia Y, Sermanet P, Reed S, Anguelov D, Erhan D, Vanhoucke V, Rabinovich A (2015) Going deeper with convolutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

  31. Serre T, Wolf L, Bileschi S, Riesenhuber M, Poggio T (2007) Robust object recognition with cortex-like mechanisms. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 29(3):411–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J (1997) Long short-term memory. Neural Comput 9(8):1735–1780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kingma DP, Ba J (2014) Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

  34. Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A (2016) Deep learning. MIT Press

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Towhata I (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Springer

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Yang B, Yin K, Lacasse S, Liu Z (2019) Time series analysis and long short-term memory neural network to predict landslide displacement. Landslides 16(4):677–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chakraborty S, Tomsett R, Raghavendra R, Harborne D, Alzantot M, Cerutti F, Srivastava M, Preece A, Julier S, Rao RM (2017) Interpretability of deep learning models: a survey of results. In: 2017 IEEE smartworld, ubiquitous intelligence & computing, advanced & trusted computed, scalable computing & communications, cloud & big data computing, internet of people and smart city innovation (SmartWorld/SCALCOM/UIC/ATC/CBDCom/IOP/SCI). IEEE

  38. Johnson P, Ferdowsi B, Kaproth B, Scuderi M, Griffa M, Carmeliet J, Guyer R, Le Bas PY, Trugman D, Marone C (2013) Acoustic emission and microslip precursors to stick-slip failure in sheared granular material. Geophys Res Lett 40(21):5627–5631

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) under Collaborative Research and Development (CRD) Grant. Data used in this paper were acquired during laboratory experiment conducted at Penn State Rock Mechanics Laboratory and available at https://www.kaggle.com/c/LANL-Earthquake-Prediction/data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Coal Mine Disaster Dynamics and Control, College of Resources and Safety Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400044, People’s Republic of China

    Yuanyuan Pu & Jie Chen

  2. School of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2R3, Canada

    Derek B. Apel

Authors
  1. Yuanyuan Pu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jie Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Derek B. Apel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jie Chen or Derek B. Apel.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (CSV 26 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pu, Y., Chen, J. & Apel, D.B. Deep and confident prediction for a laboratory earthquake. Neural Comput & Applic 33, 11691–11701 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-05872-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-05872-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation