Seismic Instruments

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 87–101 | Cite as

Use of artificial neural networks for classification of noisy seismic signals

  • K. V. KislovEmail author
  • V. V. Gravirov


Automatic identification of noisy seismic events is still a problem. The process involves the analysis of complex relationships between data from different sources. Moreover, there are disturbing factors such as poor signal-to-noise ratio, the presence of accidental bursts of man-made noise, and changes in the amplitude and phase of the waves as they travel through the medium. The amount of observed data increases rapidly, so it is imperative to develop suitable and effective methods for processing and analyzing the influx of big data. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) show promise as a disruptive technology that will accelerate and improve analysis of seismic signals. ANNs are easy to apply, and the results often outperform alternative methods. This paper gives an overview of the highs and lows of neural networks, discusses the possibility of routine processing of seismic signals using ANNs, and presents examples of some interesting applications. It is hoped that researchers who read the article will actively use this technique, because ANNs could become more robust and flexible for solving complex problems that currently cannot be solved by the standard approach.


artificial neural networks classification routine detection of seismic signal 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. bu-Elsoud, M.A., Abou-Chadi, F.E.Z., Amin, A.E.M., and Mahana, M., Classification of seismic events in Suez Gulf area, Egypt using artificial neural network, ICEEE’04: 2004 International Conference on Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, Cairo, Egypt, 2004, pp. 337–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baranov, S.V., Application of neural networks to reducing the false alarms when automatic detection of seismic signals, in Tezisy dokladov Vtoroi regional’noi nauchno-tekhnicheskoi konferentsii “Problemy kompleksnogo geofizicheskogo monitoringa Dal’nego Vostoka Rossii” (Abstracts of the Second Regional Scientific and Technical Conference “Problems of complex Geophysical Monitoring in the Russian Far East”), Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky: Geophys. Survey RAS, 2009, pp. 108–190.Google Scholar
  3. Bertsekas, D.P. and Tsitsiklis, J.N., Neuro-Dynamic Programming, Bellmont, Mass.: Athena Scientific, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. Böse, M., Wenzel, F., and Erdik, M., PreSEIS: A neural network-based approach to earthquake early warning for finite faults, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 2008, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 366–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter, G.A. and Grossberg, S., Adaptive resonance theory, in Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining, Sammut, C. and Webb, G., Eds., Berlin: Springer, 2014, pp. 1–17. pdf.Google Scholar
  6. Cichowicz, A., An automatic S-phase picker, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 1993, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 180–189.Google Scholar
  7. Cybenko, G., Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, Math. Control Signals Syst., 1989, no. 2, pp. 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Del Pezzo, E., Esposito, A., Giudicepietro, F., Marinaro, M., Martini, M., and Scarpetta, S., Discrimination of earthquakes and underwater explosions using neural networks, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 2003, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreyfus, G., Neural Networks: Methodology and Applications, Berlin: Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Essenreiter, R., Karrenbach, M., and Treitel, S., Identification and classification of multiple reflections with self-organizing maps, Geophys. Prospect., 2001, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans, J.R. and Allen, S.S., A Teleseism-specific detection algorithm for short-period traces, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 1983, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 1173–1186.Google Scholar
  12. Gentili, S. and Bragato, P., A neural-tree-based system for automatic location of earthquakes in Northeastern Italy, J. Seismol., 2006, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gravirov, V.V. and Kislov K.V. Development of a hybrid earthquake early warning system based on single sensor technique, NED Univ. J. Res. (Karachi, Pakistan), 2012, Thematic Issue on Earthquakes., pp. 1–20. ( pdf).Google Scholar
  14. Gravirov, V.V., Kislov, K.V., and Vinberg, F.E., The informative signal separation from the high noise level non-stationary seismic data with the use of the neural network classifiers, Ind. Autom. Control Syst. Controllers, 2012, no. 12, pp. 55–59.Google Scholar
  15. Hecht-Nielsen, R., Kolmogorov’s mapping neural network existence theorem, IEEE First Annual Int. Conf. on Neural Networks, San Diego, 1987, vol. 3, pp. 11–13.Google Scholar
  16. Kislov, K.V. and Gravirov, V.V., Neural network techniques for earthquake detection in high noise, Issled. Ross., 2010, pp. 837–848. Scholar
  17. Kislov, K.V. and Gravirov, V.V., Earthquake arrival identification in a record with technogenic noise, Seism. Instrum., 2011, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kislov, K.V. and Gravirov, V.V., Magnitude threshold reducing for a network of close located Mobile stations, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference “Problems of Geocosmos,” St. Petersburg, Russia, 2014, Troyan, V.N., Bobrov, N.Yu., Kosterov, A.A., Samsonov, A.A., Smirnova, N.A., and Yanovskaya, T.B., Eds., St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 2014, pp. 178–183.Google Scholar
  19. Kislov, K.V., Vinberg, F.E., Kushnir, A.F., and Gravirov, V.V., Early warning system and man-made noise, Proceedings of the IVInternational Conference Problems of Cybernetics and Informatics, Baku, Azerbaijan, 2012, pp. 52–55. Scholar
  20. Köhler, A., Ohrnberger, M., and Scherbaum, F., Unsupervised pattern recognition in continuous seismic wavefield records using Self-Organizing Maps, Geophys. J. Int., 2010, vol. 182, no. 3, pp. 1619–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kurzon, I., Vernon, F.L., Rosenberger, A., and Ben-Zion, Y., Real-time automatic detectors of P and S waves using singular value decomposition, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 2014, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 1696–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuyuk, H.S., Yildirim, E., Dogan, E., and Horasan, G., An unsupervised learning algorithm: Application to the discrimination of seismic events and quarry blasts in the vicinity of Istanbul, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 2011, vol. 11, pp. 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leonard, M. and Kennett, B.L.N., Multi component autoregressive techniques for the analysis of seismograms, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 1999, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin, Chu-Chieh J., Lin, Pei-Yang, Chang, Tao-Ming, Lin, Tzu-Kun, Weng, Yuan-Tao, Chang, Kuo-Chen, and Tsai, Keh-Chyuan, Development of on-site earthquake early warning system for Taiwan, in Earthquake Research and Analysis–New Frontiers in Seismology, D’Amico, S., Ed., InTech, 2012, Ch. 13, pp. 329–358.Google Scholar
  25. Lo, J.T. and Bassu, D., Adaptive multilayer perceptrons with long- and short-term memories, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks., 2002, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Madureira, G. and Ruano, A.E., A neural network seismic detector, Acta Tech. Jaurinensis, 2009, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 159–170.Google Scholar
  27. McEvilly, T.V. and Majer, E.L., ASP: An automated seismic processor for microearthquake networks, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 1982, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 303–325.Google Scholar
  28. Nazimov, A.I., Adaptive methods of analyzing the noised nonstationary signals on the basis of wavelet transform and algorithm of artificial neural networks, Candidate’s (Phys.- Math.) Sci. Dissertation, Saratov, 2014.Google Scholar
  29. Plešinger, A., Ružek, B., and Boušková, A., Statistical interpretation of WEBNET seismograms by artificial neural nets, Stud. Geophys. Geod., 2000, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reading, A., Mao, W., and Gubbins, D., Polarization filtering for automatic picking of seismic data and improved converted phase detection, Geophys. J. Int., 2001, vol. 147, no. 1, pp. 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Samarin, A. I., Neural networks with preliminary adjustment, VII All-Russia Scientific Conference “Neuroinformatics- 2005”: Lectures on Neuroinformatics, Moscow: MEPhI, 2005, pp. 13–42.Google Scholar
  32. Scarpetta, S., Giudicepietro, F., Ezin, E.C., Petrosino, S., Del Pezzo, E., Martini, M., and Marinaro, M., Automatic classification of seismic signals at Mt. Vesuvius Volcano, Italy, using neural networks, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 2005, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sick, B., Guggenmos, M., and Joswig, M., Chances and limits of single-station seismic event clustering by unsupervised pattern recognition, Geophys. J. Int., 2015, vol. 201, no. 3, pp. 1801–1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Williams, R.J. and Zipser, D., A learning algorithm for continually running fully recurrent neural networks, Neural Computation., 1989, vol. 1, pp. 270–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiszniowski, J., Plesiewicz, B.M., and Trojanowski, J., Application of real time recurrent neural network for detection of small natural earthquakes in Poland, Acta Geophys., 2014, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Withers, M., Aster, R., Young, C., Beiriger, J., Harris, M., Moore, S., and Trujillo, J., A comparison of select trigger algorithms for automated global seismic phase and event detection, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 1998, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 95–106.Google Scholar
  37. Zhang, H., Thurber, C., and Rowe, C., Automatic P-wave arrival detection and picking with multiscale wavelet analysis for single-component recording, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 2003, vol. 93, no. 5, pp. 1904–1912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Allerton Press, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical GeophysicsRussian Academy of ScienceMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations