Advertisement

Journal of Seismology

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 59–76 | Cite as

Discrimination of quarry blasts from tectonic events in the Armutlu Peninsula, Turkey

  • Evrim Yavuz
  • Fadime SertçelikEmail author
  • Hamdullah Livaoğlu
  • Heiko Woith
  • Birger-Gottfried Lühr
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 273 Downloads

Abstract

Different methods to discriminate between quarry blasts and earthquakes in seismic records are applied and compared. Test area is the Armutlu Peninsula in northwestern Turkey, where microearthquakes and quarry blasts occur within the same area. The vertical component of a 360″ broadband sensor is used for the discrimination analyses. Eighty-seven seismic events with up to M = 3.0 duration magnitude and maximum 23-km epicentral distance are chosen from the first 7 months of 2014. Five different methods, (1) time distribution, (2) amplitude peak ratio (As/Ap–log(As)), (3) complexity-spectral ratio (C–Sr), (4) coda wave decay rate (Qc), (5) power spectrum density (PSD), and two statistical approaches, linear discriminant function (LDF), quadratic discriminant function (QDF), are performed through all seismic events. The results are then compared to a “gold standard” obtained by a careful manual investigation. Two functions are obtained for As/Ap–log(As) method and four functions with different distances (0–13 km, 13–23 km) are estimated for C–Sr method. Accuracies of LDF and QDF for As/Ap–log(As) method are 88.5% and 87.4%, respectively. For C–Sr method, an accuracy of 89.8% is obtained for both, LDF and QDF, for distances up to 13 km, whereas for the distance range between 13 and 23 km from the epicenter, the accuracies are 85.7% and 89.3% for LDF and QDF, respectively. According to the Qc, the success rate is calculated as 91.9%. 93.1% accuracy of PSD technique provides the most successful results. All methods were used for a final decision according to which 27 earthquakes and 55 quarry blasts could be identified, while five events are misclassified. Overall, a 94.2% success rate could be obtained for our test data set. For the Armutlu Peninsula, the PSD method proves to give reliable solutions. Nevertheless, this cannot be generalized and thus a combination of different methods is recommended for areas with high tectonic and mining activity.

Keywords

Quarry blast discrimination Statistical approaches Time and frequency domain methods Armutlu Peninsula, Turkey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mariano Garcia-Fernandez, PhD. (associate editor), and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that improved the manuscript. Many thanks to Kocaeli University Earth and Space Sciences Research Center (KOU-ESSRC) and GFZ (German Research Centre for Geosciences) for ARNET operation and data sharing.

References

  1. Akartuna M (1968) The geology of the Armutlu Peninsula. Istanbul University Graduate School of Applied Science Monographies 20:105 (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  2. Aki K (1995) Discriminating underground explosions from earthquakes using seismic coda waves. University of Southern California Los Angeles Center for Earth SciencesGoogle Scholar
  3. Aki K, Chouet B (1975) Origin of coda waves: source, attenuation, and scattering effects. J Geophys Res 80:3322–3342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aki K, Richards PG (1980) Quantitative seismology: theory and methods. W. H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  5. Allmann BP, Shearer PM, Hauksson E (2008) Spectral discrimination between quarry blasts and earthquakes in Southern California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:2073–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arai N, Yosida Y (2004) Discrimination by short-period seismograms. International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Building Research Institute (IISEE). Lecture note, global course, Tsukuba, Japan, p. 10Google Scholar
  7. Armijo R, Meyer B, Hubert A, Barka A (1999) Westwards propagation of the North Anatolian fault into the northern Aegean: timing and kinematics. Geology 27:267–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arrowsmith SJ, Arrowsmith MD, Hedlin MA, Stump B (2006) Discrimination of delay-fired mine blasts in Wyoming using an automatic time-frequency discriminant. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2368–2382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ataeva G, Gitterman Y, Shapira A (2017) The ratio between corner frequencies of source spectra of P- and S-waves—a new discriminant between earthquakes and quarry blasts. J Seismol 21:209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barka A, Akyüz HS, Altunel E, Sunal G, Çakir G, Çakir Z, Dikbaş A, Yerli B, Armijo R, Meyer B, de Chabalier JB, Rockwell T, Dolan JR, Hartleb R, Dawson T, Christofferson S, Tucker A, Fumal T, Langridge R, Stenner H, Lettis W, Bachhuber J, Page W (2002) The surface rupture and slip distribution of the 17 August 1999 İzmit earthquake (M 7.4), North Anatolian fault. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baumgardt DR, Young GB (1990) Regional seismic waveform discriminants and case-based event identification using regional arrays. Bull Seismol Soc Am 80:1874–1892Google Scholar
  12. Borleanu F, Manea L, Stoicescu D (2016) Lateral variations of Vp/Vs ratios for Romanian upper crust. EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts 18:17350Google Scholar
  13. Çaka D (2012) Shear-wave splitting analysis in and around Armutlu Peninsula, Ph.D. dissertation, Kocaeli University (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  14. Carr DB, Garbin HD (1998) Discriminating ripple-fired explosions with high-frequency (>16 Hz) data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:963–972Google Scholar
  15. Eisenlohr T (1997) The thermal springs of the Armutlu Peninsula (NW Turkey) and their relocationship geology and tectonic. Active Tectonics of Northwestern Anatolia-The Marmara Poly-project, ETH-Zurich, pp 197–228Google Scholar
  16. Gitterman Y, Shapira A (1993) Spectral discrimination of underwater explosions. Isr J Earth Sci 42:37–44Google Scholar
  17. Gitterman Y, Pinsky V, Shapira A (1998) Spectral classification methods in monitoring small local events by the Israel seismic network. J Seismol 2:237–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Göncüoğlu MC, Erendil M, Tekeli O, Aksay A, Kuşçu I, Urgun BM (1992) Introduction to the geology of Armutlu Peninsula. In: Proc Int Symp on the Geology of the Black Sea Region, pp 26–36Google Scholar
  19. Hartse HE, Phillips WS, Fehler MC, House LS (1995) Single-station spectral discrimination using coda waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:1464–1474Google Scholar
  20. Havskov J, Ottemoller L (1999) SEISAN earthquake analysis software. Seismol Res Lett 70:532–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horasan G, Güney AB, Küsmezer A, Bekler F, Öğütçü Z, Musaoğlu N (2009) Contamination of seismicity catalogs by quarry blasts: an example from Istanbul and its vicinity, northwestern Turkey. J Asian Earth Sci 34:90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kekovalı K, Kalafat D, Deniz P (2012) Spectral discrimination between mining blasts and natural earthquakes: application to the vicinity of Tunçbilek mining area, Western Turkey. Int J Phys Sci 7:5339–5352Google Scholar
  23. Kim WY, Aharonian V, Lerner-Lam AL, Richards PG (1997) Discrimination of earthquakes and explosions in southern Russia using regional high-frequency three-component data from the IRIS/JSP Caucasus network. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:569–588Google Scholar
  24. Kinscher J, Krüger F, Woith H, Lühr BG, Hintersberger E, Irmak TS, Barış Ş (2013) Seismotectonics of the Armutlu peninsula (Marmara Sea, NW Turkey) from geological field observation and regional moment tensor inversion. Tectonophysics 608:980–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiszely M (2005) Annual, monthly, weekly and diurnal distribution of Carpathian (1964-2004) and M>7 earthquakes worldwide (1900-2004) and seeking for the effect of the Moon. Acta Geod Geoph Hung 40:437–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koch K, Fäh D (2002) Identification of earthquakes and explosions using amplitude ratios: the Vogtland area revisited. Monitoring the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty: Seismic event discrimination and identification. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 735–757Google Scholar
  27. Krzanowski WJ (1988) Principles of multivariate analysis: a user’s perspective. ClarendonGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuşçu I, Okamura M, Matsuoka H, Yamamori K, Awata Y, Özalp S (2009) Recognition of active faults and step over geometry in Gemlik bay, Sea of Marmara, NW Turkey. Mar Geol 260:90–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuyuk HS, Yildirim E, Dogan E, Horasan G (2011) An unsupervised learning algorithm: application to the discrimination of seismic events and quarry blasts in the vicinity of Istanbul. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuyuk HS, Yildirim E, Dogan E, Horasan G (2014) Clustering seismic activities using linear and nonlinear discriminant analysis. J Earth Sci 25:140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MATLAB Release 2011, The MathWorks, Inc, Natick, Massachusetts, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  32. McClusky S, Reilinger R, Mahmoud S, Sari DB, Tealeb A (2003) GPS constraints on Africa (Nubia) and Arabia plate motions. Geophys J Int 155:126–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reilinger RE, McClusky SC, Oral MB, King RW, Toksoz MN, Barka AA, Kinik I, Lenk O, Sanli I (1997) Global Positioning System measurements of present-day crustal movements in the Arabia-Africa-Eurasia plate collision zone. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 102:9983–9999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reilinger R, McClusky S, Vernant P et al (2006) GPS constraints on continental deformation in the Africa-Arabia-Eurasia continental collision zone and implications for the dynamics of plate interactions. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 111:9983–9999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robertson AH, Ustaömer T (2004) Tectonic evolution of the Intra-Pontide suture zone in the Armutlu Peninsula, NW Turkey. Tectonophysics 381:175–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Seber GAF (1984) Multivariate observations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sertçelik F, Başer O (2010) Güney Ege Bölgesi’nde yapay ve doğal kaynaklı titreşimlerin ayırt edilmesi (Discrimination of artificial and natural sourced vibrations in the southern Aegean Region). Yerbilimleri 31:233–245 (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  38. Shashidhar D, Mallika K, Rao NP, Satyanarayana HVS, Gupta HK (2014) Detection of quarry blasts in the Koyna-Warna region, western India. Open J Earthquake Res 3:162–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stein S, Wysession M (2003) An introduction to seismology, earthquakes, and earth structure. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Su F, Aki K, Biswas NN (1991) Discriminating quarry blasts from earthquakes using coda waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81:162–178Google Scholar
  41. Tunç B, Çaka D, Irmak TS, Woith H, Tunç S, Barış Ş, Özer MF, Lühr BG, Günther E, Grosser H, Zschau J (2011) The Armutlu Network: an investigation into the seismotectonic setting of Armutlu–Yalova–Gemlik and the surrounding regions. Ann Geophys 54:35–45Google Scholar
  42. Ursino A, Langer H, Scarfì L, Di Grazia G, Gresta S (2001) Discrimination of quarry blasts from tectonic microearthquakes in the Hyblean Plateau (Southeastern Sicily). Ann Geophys 44:703–722Google Scholar
  43. Wathelet M (2005) GEOPSY-geophysical signal database for noise array processing. Software, LGIT, GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiemer S, Baer M (2000) Mapping and removing quarry blast events from seismicity catalogs. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wüster J (1993) Discrimination of chemical explosions and earthquakes in central Europe—a case study. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83:1184–1212Google Scholar
  46. Yavuz E, Çaka D, Tunç B, Irmak TS, Woith H, Cesca S, Lühr BG, Barış Ş (2015) Earthquake swarm in Armutlu Peninsula, eastern Marmara region, Turkey. EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts 17:5099Google Scholar
  47. Yıldırım E, Gülbağ A, Horasan G, Doğan E (2011) Discrimination of quarry blasts and earthquakes in the vicinity of Istanbul using soft computing techniques. Comput Geosci 37:1209–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yılmaz Ş, Bayrak Y, Çınar H (2013) Discrimination of earthquakes and quarry blasts in the eastern Black Sea region of Turkey. J Seismol 17:721–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evrim Yavuz
    • 1
  • Fadime Sertçelik
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hamdullah Livaoğlu
    • 1
  • Heiko Woith
    • 2
  • Birger-Gottfried Lühr
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Geophysical EngineeringKocaeli UniversityKocaeliTurkey
  2. 2.GFZ, German Research Centre for GeosciencesPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations