Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; June 1993; v. 83; no. 3; p. 660-679
© 1993 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by RUUD, B. O.
Right arrow Articles by HUSEBYE, E. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

An exercise in automating seismic record analysis and network bulletin production

B. O. RUUD, C. D. LINDHOLM and E. S. HUSEBYE*

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY OSLO UNIVERSITY, P.O. BOX 1047, BLINDERN, N-0316 OSLO, Norway
NFR/NORSAR, P.O. BOX 51, N-2007 KJELLER, Norway

Abstract

A long-standing problem in observational seismology is that of automating network operation. In this study we report an experiment that uses the detector described in Ruud and Husebye (1992) for automatically picking P and S arrivals in local event records from the Norwegian Seismic Network (NSN). The analysis was performed on prescreened waveform segments known to contain local events. For automatic epicenter determination a novel, robust grid-search method well-suited for estimation problems with nonGaussian observational errors is introduced in order to handle outliers. In our experiment, 49 local events from the August 1991 NSN bulletin were located. The number of detecting stations varied from 3 to 10, with an average of 5 of a total of 15 stations. P- and S-picking errors were small, mostly within 0.5 sec for both P and S. Mis-identification of the P- and S-phase was more frequent; this affected about 15% of the picks. Even for events with several large arrival time outliers (up to 40 to 50% of total) satisfactory epicenter determinations were obtained. The median location difference of our "automatic" solutions compared with those in the NSN bulletin based on analyst picked and identified phases was 15 km. For 90% of the events the difference was less than 50 km.

Footnotes

* Present address: Dept. of Solid Earth Geophysics, Bergen University, Allègaten 41, N-5007 Bergen, Norway.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
I. M. Tibuleac and J. M. Britton
An Automated Short-Period Surface-Wave Detection Algorithm
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 2006; 96(1): 334 - 343.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
E. S. Husebye, B. O. Ruud, and A. M. Dainty
Robust and reliable epicenter determinations: Envelope processing of local network data
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1998; 88(1): 284 - 290.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the Seismological Society of America.