Advertisement

Journal of Seismology

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 93–106 | Cite as

Quantifying capability of a local seismic network in terms of locations and focal mechanism solutions of weak earthquakes

  • Lucia FojtíkováEmail author
  • Miriam Kristeková
  • Jiří Málek
  • Efthimios Sokos
  • Kristián Csicsay
  • Jiří Zahradník
Original Article

Abstract

Extension of permanent seismic networks is usually governed by a number of technical, economic, logistic, and other factors. Planned upgrade of the network can be justified by theoretical assessment of the network capability in terms of reliable estimation of the key earthquake parameters (e.g., location and focal mechanisms). It could be useful not only for scientific purposes but also as a concrete proof during the process of acquisition of the funding needed for upgrade and operation of the network. Moreover, the theoretical assessment can also identify the configuration where no improvement can be achieved with additional stations, establishing a tradeoff between the improvement and additional expenses. This paper presents suggestion of a combination of suitable methods and their application to the Little Carpathians local seismic network (Slovakia, Central Europe) monitoring epicentral zone important from the point of seismic hazard. Three configurations of the network are considered: 13 stations existing before 2011, 3 stations already added in 2011, and 7 new planned stations. Theoretical errors of the relative location are estimated by a new method, specifically developed in this paper. The resolvability of focal mechanisms determined by waveform inversion is analyzed by a recent approach based on 6D moment-tensor error ellipsoids. We consider potential seismic events situated anywhere in the studied region, thus enabling “mapping” of the expected errors. Results clearly demonstrate that the network extension remarkably decreases the errors, mainly in the planned 23-station configuration. The already made three-station extension of the network in 2011 allowed for a few real data examples. Free software made available by the authors enables similar application in any other existing or planned networks.

Keywords

Seismic network Relative location uncertainty Focal-mechanism uncertainty Waveform inversion Uncertainty mapping Weak earthquakes Little Carpathians 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Lucia Fojtíková and Jiří Málek have been supported by the Czech Science Foundation grant GACR-P210/12/2336. Jiří Zahradník has been supported by the Czech Science Foundation grant GACR-14-04372S. Miriam Kristeková, Kristian Csicsay have been supported by the Slovak Foundation Grant VEGA-2/0188/15. Miriam Kristeková has been supported as well by the project: MYGDONEMOTION APVV-0271-11, funded by the Slovak grant agency APVV. The authors thank Progseis company for providing the data from their local seismic network and Jaroslav Štrunc for cooperation in the development of new stations. The authors also thank Antonio Emolo, Ronnie Quintero, and Lucas V. Barros for constructive comments.

References

  1. Benetatos C, Málek J, Verga F (2013) Moment tensor inversion for two micro-earthquakes occurring inside the Háje gas storage facilities, Czech Republic. J Seismol 17:557–577. doi: 10.1007/ s10950-012-9337-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fojtíková L (2010b) Earthquake moment tensors and tectonic stress in Malé Karpaty Doctoral thesis (in Slovak) http://www.fyzikazeme.sk/mainpage/prace/2010_PhD_Fojtikova.pdf
  3. Fojtíková L, Zahradník J (2014) A new strategy for weak events in sparse networks: the first-motion polarity solutions constrained by single-station waveform inversion. Seismol Res Lett 85:1265–1274. doi: 10.1785/0220140072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fojtíková L, Vavryčuk V, Cipciar A, Madarás J (2010) Focal mechanisms of micro-earthquakes in the Dobrá Voda seismoactive area in the Malé Karpaty Mts. (Little Carpathians), Slovakia. Tectonophysics 492:213–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Herrmann RB (1979) FASTHYPO—a hypocenter location program. Earthq Notes 50(2):25–37Google Scholar
  6. Kagan YY (1991) 3-D rotation of double-couple earthquake sources. Geophys J Int 106:709–716. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1991.tb06343.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kárník V (1968) Seismicity of the EuropeanArea. Part 1. Academia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  8. McLaren JP, Frohlich C (1985) Model calculations of regional network locations for earthquakes in subduction zones. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75:397–413Google Scholar
  9. Michele M, Custódio S, Emolo A (2014) Moment tensor resolution: case study of the Irpinia seismic network, Southern Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104:1348–1357. doi: 10.1785/0120130177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Panza GF, Sarao A (2000) Monitoring volcanic and geothermal areas by full seismic moment tensor inversion: are non-double-couple components always artefacts of modelling? Geophys J Int 143:353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (1997) Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77: The Art of Scientific Computing, Second Ed., Cambridge University Press, 992 pages.Google Scholar
  12. Šílený J (2009) Resolution of non-double-couple mechanisms: Simulation of hypocenter mislocation and velocity structure mismodeling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(4):2265–2272. doi: 10.1785/0120080335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Šílený J, Campus P, Panza GF (1996) Seismic moment tensor resolution by waveform inversion of a few local noisy records - I. Synthetic tests. Geophys J Int 126:605–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Snoke JA (2003) FOCMEC: FOcal MEChanism determinations. In: Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings PC, Kisslinger C (eds) International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology. Academic Press, San Diego, Chapter 85.12Google Scholar
  15. Sokos E, Zahradník J (2008) ISOLA a Fortran code and a Matlab GUI to perform multiple-point source inversion of seismic data. Comput Geosci 34:967–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sokos E, Zahradník J (2013) Evaluating centroid-moment-tensor uncertainty in the new version of ISOLA software. Seismol Res Lett 84:656–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Staňek F, Eisner L, Moser TJ (2013) Stability of source mechanisms inverted from P-wave amplitude microseismic monitoring data acquired at the surface. Geophys Prospect 62:475–490. doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12107 Google Scholar
  18. Stierle E, Vavryčuk V, Šílený J, Bohnhoff M (2014) Resolution of non-double-couple components in the seismic moment tensor using regional networks—I: a synthetic case study. Geophys J Int 196:1869–1877. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggt502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Uhrhammer RA (1980) Analysis of small seismographic station networks. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:1369–1379Google Scholar
  20. Vavryčuk V, Kuehn D (2012) Moment tensor inversion of waveforms: a two-step time-frequency approach. Geophys J Int 190:1761–1776. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05592.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wéber Z (2009) Estimating source time function and moment tensor from moment tensor rate functions by constrained L1 norm minimization. Geophys J Int 178:889–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zahradník J, Custódio S (2012) Moment tensor resolvability: application to southwest Iberia. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102:1235–1254. doi: 10.1785/0120110216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhao P, Oye V, Kuhn D, Cesca S (2014) Evidence for tensile faulting deduced from 614 full waveform moment tensor inversion during the stimulation in the Basel enhanced 615 geothermal system. Geothermics 52:74–83. doi: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2014.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zollo A, Iannaccone G, Lancieri M, Cantore L, Convertito V, Emolo A, Festa G, Gallovič F, Vassallo M, Martino C, Satriano C, Gasparini P (2009) The earthquake early warning system in Southern Italy: methodologies and performance evaluation. Geophys Res Lett 36:L00B07. doi: 10.1029/2008GL036689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zsíros T (2005) Seismicity of the Western-Carpathians. Acta Geod Geophys Hung 40:1217–8977CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucia Fojtíková
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Miriam Kristeková
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jiří Málek
    • 1
  • Efthimios Sokos
    • 4
  • Kristián Csicsay
    • 2
  • Jiří Zahradník
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of Rock Structure and MechanicsAcademy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.iPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Earth Science Institute, Slovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia
  3. 3.Comenius University in BratislavaBratislavaSlovakia
  4. 4.Department of Geology, Seismological LaboratoryUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece
  5. 5.Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations