Automatic discrimination of earthquakes and quarry blasts using wavelet filter bank and support vector machine

  • Omar M. SaadEmail author
  • Ahmed Shalaby
  • Mohammed S. Sayed


False discrimination between earthquakes and quarry blasts may lead to an unrealistic characterization of the natural seismicity of a region. The similarity in seismograms between earthquakes and quarry blasts is the primary reason for incorrect discrimination. Therefore, in this paper, we propose a discriminative algorithm utilizing wavelet filter bank to extract unique features between earthquakes and quarry blasts. The discriminative features are found to be in the first five seconds after the onset time. The proposed algorithm is divided into two stages: first, wavelet filter bank extracts the features of the seismic signals; then, support vector machine classifies the event based on these extracted features. The proposed algorithm achieves a discrimination accuracy of 98.5% when applied to 900 earthquakes and quarry blast waveforms.


Seismic data classification Wavelet filter bank Particle swarm optimization Support vector machine 



We would like to thank Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology (E-JUST) for the continuous support. Also, we would like to thank the National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG) for providing the seismic data used in this paper.

Funding information

This work received funding from the Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education.


  1. Akhouayri ES, Agliz D, Zonta D, Atmani A, et al. (2015) A fuzzy expert system for automatic seismic signal classification. Expert Syst Appl 42(3):1013–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bai Q (2010) Analysis of particle swarm optimization algorithm. Comput Inf Sci 3(1):180Google Scholar
  3. Beyreuther M, Hammer C, Wassermann J, Ohrnberger M, Megies T (2012) Constructing a hidden M arkov model based earthquake detector: application to induced seismicity. Geophys J Int 189 (1):602–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Catanzaro B, Sundaram N, Keutzer K (2008) Fast support vector machine training and classification on graphics processors. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on machine learning, ACM, pp 104–111Google Scholar
  5. Chi M, Feng R, Bruzzone L (2008) Classification of hyperspectral remote-sensing data with primal SVM for small-sized training dataset problem. Adv Space Res 41(11):1793–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J (2000) An introduction to support vector machines and other kernel-based learning methods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farahani JV (2015) Discrimination of quarry blasts and microearthquakes using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems in the T ehran region. Episodes 38(3):162–168Google Scholar
  8. Farahani JV, Zaré M (2014) Site characterizations for the T ehran network (tdmmo) in T ehran region using micro-earthquake, microtremor and quarry blast data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 63:235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gendron P, Ebel J, Manolakis D (2000) Rapid joint detection and classification with wavelet bases via B ayes theorem. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(3):764–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hassan R, Cohanim B, De Weck O, Venter G (2005) A comparison of particle swarm optimization and the genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 1st AIAA multidisciplinary design optimization specialist conference, vol 18, p e21Google Scholar
  11. Horasan G, Güney A B, Küsmezer A, Bekler F, Öğütçü Z, Musaoğlu N (2009) Contamination of seismicity catalogs by quarry blasts: an example from istanbul and its vicinity, northwestern T urkey. J Asian Earth Sci 34(1):90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kekovalı K, Kalafat D, Deniz P (2012) Spectral discrimination between mining blasts and natural earthquakes: application to the vicinity of tunbilek mining area, western T urkey. Int J Phys Sci 7 (35):5339–5352Google Scholar
  13. Kennedy J (2011) Particle swarm optimization. In: Encyclopedia of machine learning, Springer, pp 760–766Google Scholar
  14. Kortström J, Uski M, Tiira T (2016) Automatic classification of seismic events within a regional seismograph network. Computers & Geosciences 87:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuyuk H, Yildirim E, Dogan E, Horasan G (2012) Application of k-means and gaussian mixture model for classification of seismic activities in istanbul. Nonlinear Process Geophys 19(4):411–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuyuk HS, Yildirim E, Dogan E, Horasan G (2014) Clustering seismic activities using linear and nonlinear discriminant analysis. J Earth Sci 25(1):140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lyubushin A, Kaláb Z, Lednická M, Haggag H (2013) Discrimination of earthquakes and explosions using multi-fractal singularity spectrums properties. J Seismol 17(3):975–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mousavi SM (2017) Comment on recent developments of the M iddle E ast catalog by Z are et al. J Seismol 21(1):257–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mousavi SM, Langston CA (2016) Hybrid seismic denoising using higher-order statistics and improved wavelet block thresholding. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(4):1380–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mousavi SM, Langston CA (2017) Automatic noise-removal/signal-removal based on general cross-validation thresholding in synchrosqueezed domain and its application on earthquake data. Geophysics 82(4):V211–V227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mousavi SM, Horton SP, Langston CA, Samei B (2016) Seismic features and automatic discrimination of deep and shallow induced-microearthquakes using neural network and logistic regression. Geophys J Int 207(1):29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Muller KR, Mika S, Ratsch G, Tsuda K, Scholkopf B (2001) An introduction to kernel-based learning algorithms. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 12(2):181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orlic N, Loncaric S (2010) Earthquake—explosion discrimination using genetic algorithm-based boosting approach. Comput Geosci 36(2):179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Percival DB, Walden AT (2006) Wavelet methods for time series analysis, vol 4. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Quang PB, Gaillard P, Cano Y, Ulzibat M (2015) Detection and classification of seismic events with progressive multi-channel correlation and hidden M arkov models. Comput Geosci 83:110–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schölkopf B, Burges CJ, Smola AJ (1999) Advances in kernel methods: support vector learning. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Selvi V, Umarani DR (2010) Comparative analysis of ant colony and particle swarm optimization techniques. Int J Comput Appl 5(4):0975–8887Google Scholar
  28. Shi Y, Eberhart RC (1999) Empirical study of particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 1999 congress on evolutionary computation, 1999. CEC 99. IEEE, vol 3, pp 1945-1950Google Scholar
  29. Strang G, Nguyen T (1996) Wavelets and filter banks. SIAM, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor SR, Denny MD, Vergino ES, Glaser RE (1989) Regional discrimination between nts explosions and western us earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79(4):1142–1176Google Scholar
  31. Tong S, Chang E (2001) Support vector machine active learning for image retrieval. In: Proceedings of the ninth ACM international conference on multimedia, ACM, pp 107–118Google Scholar
  32. 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(9):1209–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yılmaz Ş, Bayrak Y, Çınar H (2013) Discrimination of earthquakes and quarry blasts in the eastern B lack S ea region of T urkey. J Seismol 17(2):721–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omar M. Saad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ahmed Shalaby
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mohammed S. Sayed
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG)HelwanEgypt
  2. 2.CS, Faculty of Computers and InformaticsBenha UniversityBanhaEgypt
  3. 3.ECEE-JUST UniversityAlexandriaEgypt
  4. 4.ECEZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt

Personalised recommendations