Seismological Research Letters; November/December 2006; v. 77; no. 6;
p. 780-792; DOI: 10.1785/gssrl.77.6.780
© 2006 Seismological Society of America
Implementation of ShakeMap in Ontario: Challenges of Detection and Location in a Sparse Network
ShakeMap is a computer program to map earthquake ground-motion parameters
in near real time. It originally was developed and implemented using a dense
recording network in California (Wald
et al. 1999); typical interstation spacing in southern
California is about 5 to 50 km, though some stations in the Los Angeles
metropolitan area are less than 2 km from each other, as seen at
http://www.data.scec.org/stations/CI_station_map.php).
For our implementation of ShakeMap in southern Ontario, we have developed an
automated earthquake detection program, "EventDetector," to
continuously detect events and trigger ShakeMap in a sparse network where
typical interstation spacing is about 100 km. The EventDetector is keyed to
ShakeMap objectives in that it detects events based on the exceedance of
specified ground-motion amplitudes at five or more stations. The specified
threshold is set as peak ground velocity (PGV) = 0.003 mm/s. For our network
configuration, this criterion should result in ShakeMap triggering on all
events of M > 2.8 within the southern Ontario network.
When the program detects an event, EventDetector automatically triggers the
ShakeMap program and continues to process the incoming data. The main
challenge in event detection is to screen out false triggers caused by
teleseismic events or other spurious signals. We distinguish between
local/regional and teleseismic events by using the standard deviation of the
peak ground velocity, normalized by the mean (denoted NSD) as a discriminant.
Events that have NSD < 0.7 are teleseismic events (with a rate of 10% false
triggers). To locate the regional earthquake once an event is confirmed by the
above criteria, we use the ground-motion centroid concept, originally
developed by Kanamori (1993).
The centroid provides an estimate of the earthquake moment magnitude
(M) and location from the point of view of ground motion, and it may
not coincide with the actual earthquake epicenter and magnitude. The
estimation is based on fitting the observed amplitude data to ground-motion
attenuation relations. An additional check on whether the event is a
significant earthquake is based on the determined centroid magnitude; events
of M < 2.8 are not considered further.
We have compared the accuracy of estimated ground motions obtained using
the epicenter location with those obtained using the ground-motion centroid
for more than 30 local/regional earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 to 5.0. Overall
the centroid performance in terms of estimating recorded ground motions
appears to be satisfactory. In fact, the Nuttli magnitude
(MN) 5.4 6 March 2005 Rivière-du-Loup earthquake
demonstrates that estimated PGV based on ShakeMap agrees quite well with the
recorded PGV (Kaka and Atkinson
2005b). Use of the epicenter might improve estimates of ground
motion near the epicenter in cases where no nearby stations are available.
However, the centroid is available in near real time while the epicenter is
not.
Copyright © 2009 by Seismological Society of America