HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by RINGDAL, F. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

On the estimation of seismic detection thresholds

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED, POST OFFICE BOX 334, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314

Abstract

The incremental detection capability of a seismic station, i.e., the probability of detection as a function of event magnitude, is usually estimated either by using the exponential magnitude-frequency relationship of earthquakes (the recurrence method) or by comparing the station detections to an independent reference system (the direct method). The recurrence method usually yields significantly lower 90 per cent thresholds than the direct method, while a hypothetical "true" threshold would lie between these values. This is explained theoretically as resulting from the global variance of observed signal amplitudes for a given seismic event. A maximum likelihood estimation procedure is developed for the direct method, and approximate confidence limits on the estimated detection thresholds are derived. The two estimation techniques are applied to determine the event detection capability of the NORSAR array for the Japan-Kuriles-Kamchatka region, and the results are related to previously published estimates.

Footnotes

^* Present address: NTNF/NORSAR, P.O. Box 51, N-2007 Kjeller, Norway.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. M. Tibuleac, D. H. von Seggern, J. G. Anderson, K. W. Smith, A. Aburto, and T. Rennie 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 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 2008; 98(2): 756 - 767. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. H. von Seggern Seismic Background Noise and Detection Threshold in the Southern Great Basin Digital Seismic Network Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2004; 94(6): 2280 - 2298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Statistical Estimation of the Efficiency of Earthquake Prediction Under Uncertain Identification of Target Events Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 2000; 90(2): 324 - 333.

				GSETT-3: Evaluation of the Detection and Location Capabilities of an Experimental Global Seismic Monitoring System Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 2000; 90(1): 166 - 186.

				M. L. Jost, J. Schweitzer, and H.-P. Harjes Monitoring nuclear test sites with GERESS Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1996; 86(1A): 172 - 190. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. MYKKELTVEIT, F. RINGDAL, T. Kvaerna, and R. W. ALEWINE Application of regional arrays in seismic verification research Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1990; 80(6B): 1777 - 1800. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. RINGDAL Teleseismic event detection using the NORESS array, with special reference to low-yield semipalatinsk explosions Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1990; 80(6B): 2127 - 2142. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. RINGDAL and E. S. HUSEBYE Application of arrays in the detection, location, and identification of seismic events Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1982; 72(6B): S201 - S224. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. RINGDAL and H. BUNGUM Noise level variation at norsar and its effect on detectability Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1977; 67(2): 479 - 492. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. RINGDAL Maximum-likelihood estimation of seismic magnitude Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 1976; 66(3): 789 - 802. [Abstract] [PDF]