Advertisement

Evolving Systems

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 41–50 | Cite as

A machine learning approach for asperities’ location identification

  • Konstantinos ArvanitakisEmail author
  • Ioannis Karydis
  • Katia L. Kermanidis
  • Markos Avlonitis
Original Paper
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Asperities’ location is a very important factor in spatiotemporal analysis of an area’s seismicity, as they can accumulate a large amount of tectonic stress and, by their rupture, a great magnitude earthquake. Seismic attributes of earthquakes, such as the b-value and seismic density, have been shown to be useful indicators of asperities’ location. In this work, machine learning techniques are used to identify the location of areas with high probability of asperity existence using as feature vector information extracted solely by earthquake catalogs (b-value and seismic density), avoiding thus any geo-location information. Extensive experimentation on algorithms’ performance is conducted with a plethora of machine learning classification algorithms, focusing on the effect of data oversampling and undersampling, as well as the effect of cost sensitive classification without any resampling of the data. The results obtained are promising with performance being comparable to geo-location information including vectors.

Keywords

Asperity Density b-value Seismicity Machine learning 

References

  1. Aki K (1965) Maximum likelihood estimate of b in the formula logn = a-bm and its confidence limits. Bull Earthq Res Inst 43:237–239Google Scholar
  2. Arvanitakis K, Avlonitis M (2016) Identifying asperity patterns via machine learning algorithms. In: IFIP International conference on artificial intelligence applications and innovations. Springer, pp 87–93Google Scholar
  3. Avlonitis M, Kalaitzidou K (2015) Estimating the real contact area between sliding surfaces by means of a modified OFC model. Arch Civ Mech Eng 15(2):355–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avlonitis M, Papadopoulos GA (2014) Foreshocks and b value: bridging macroscopic observations to source mechanical considerations. Pure Appl Geophys 171(10):2569–2580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5–32CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Chawla NV, Bowyer KW, Hall LO, Kegelmeyer WP (2002) Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. J Artif Intell Res 16:321–357CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalguer LA, Irikura K, Riera JD (2003) Simulation of tensile crack generation by three-dimensional dynamic shear rupture propagation during an earthquake. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 108(B3):2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deeb ZA, Devine T, Geng Z (2010) Randomized decimation hyperpipes. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  9. Devasena CL, Sumathi T, Gomathi VV, Hemalatha M, Hemalatha M (2011) Effectiveness evaluation of rule based classifiers for the classification of IRIS data set. Bonfring Int J Man Mach Interface 1:5Google Scholar
  10. Freund Y, Schapire RE (1995) A desicion-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. In: European conference on computational learning theory. Springer, pp 23–37Google Scholar
  11. Fukui K, Inaba D, Numao M (2014) Discovering seismic interactions after the 2011 tohoku earthquake by co-occurring cluster mining. Inf Media Technol 9(4):886–895Google Scholar
  12. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in california. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34(4):185–188Google Scholar
  13. Hall MA, Frank E (2008) Combining Naive Bayes and decision tables. In: FLAIRS conference, vol 2118, pp 318–319Google Scholar
  14. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl 11(1):10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hart P (1968) The condensed nearest neighbor rule (corresp.). IEEE Trans Inf Theory 14(3):515–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatzfeld D, Kementzetzidou D, Karakostas V, Ziazia M, Nothard S, Diagourtas D, Deschamps A, Karakaisis G, Papadimitriou P, Scordilis M, Smith R, Voulgaris N, Kiratzi S, Makropoulos K, Bouin MP, Bernard P (1996) The galaxidi earthquake of 18 november 1992: a possible asperity within the normal fault system of the gulf of Corinth (Greece). Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(6):1987–1991Google Scholar
  17. Irikura K, Miyake H, Iwata T, Kamae K, Kawabe H, Dalguer LA (2004) Recipe for predicting strong ground motion from future large earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 1341. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  18. John GH, Langley P (1995) Estimating continuous distributions in Bayesian classifiers. In: Proceedings of the eleventh conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp 338–345Google Scholar
  19. Kagawa T, Irikura K, Somerville PG (2004) Differences in ground motion and fault rupture process between the surface and buried rupture earthquakes. Earth Planets Sp 56(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kohavi R (1995) The power of decision tables. Mach Learn ECML-95, pp 174–189Google Scholar
  21. KR Felzer (2006) Calculating the Gutenberg-Richter b value. In: AGU Fall Meeting AbstractsGoogle Scholar
  22. Kulhanek O(2005) Seminar on b-value. Department of Geophysics, Charles University, Prague, pp 10–190Google Scholar
  23. Murotani S, Satake K, Fujii Y (2013) Scaling relations of seismic moment, rupture area, average slip, and asperity size for m\(^{\sim }\) 9 subduction-zone earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 40(19):5070–5074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Otari GV, Kulkarni RV (2012) A review of application of data mining in earthquake prediction. Int J Comput Sci Inf Technol 3(2):3570–3574Google Scholar
  25. Ozacar AA, Beck SL (2004) The 2002 denali fault and 2001 Kunlun fault earthquakes: complex rupture processes of two large strike-slip events. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(6B):S278–S292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Panakkat A, Adeli H (2007) Neural network models for earthquake magnitude prediction using multiple seismicity indicators. Int J Neural Syst 17(01):13–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Park S-C, Mori J (2007) Are asperity patterns persistent? Implication from large earthquakes in Papua New Guinea. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. doi: 10.1029/2006JB004481 Google Scholar
  28. Pulido N (2004) Broadband frequency asperity parameters of crustal earthquakes from inversion of near-fault ground motion. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Paper, number 751Google Scholar
  29. Pulido N, Aoi S, Fujiwara H (2008) Rupture process of the 2007 notohanto earthquake by using an isochrones back-projection method and k-net/kik-net data. Earth Planets Sp 60(10):1035–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reyes J, Morales-Esteban A, Martínez-Álvarez F (2013) Neural networks to predict earthquakes in Chile. Appl Soft Comput 13(2):1314–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spence W, Mendoza C, Engdahl ER, Choy GL, Norabuena E (1999) Seismic subduction of the Nazca Ridge as shown by the 1996–97 Peru earthquakes. In: Seismogenic and tsunamigenic processes in shallow subduction zones. Springer, pp 753–776Google Scholar
  32. Takahashi H, Kasahara M (2007) Spatial relationship between interseismic seismicity, coseismic asperities and aftershock activity in the southwestern Kuril islands. Volcanism and Subduction: The Kamchatka Region, pp 153–164Google Scholar
  33. Tomek I (1976) Two modifications of cnn. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 6:769–772MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Rijsbergen CJ (1979) Information retrieval, vol 14. Department of Computer Science, University of GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiemer S (2001) A software package to analyze seismicity: Zmap. Seismol Res Lett 72(3):373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wiemer S, Wyss M (1997) Mapping the frequency–magnitude distribution in asperities: an improved technique to calculate recurrence times? J Geophys Res 102:115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yamanaka Y, Kikuchi M (2001) Asperity map based on the analysis of historical seismograms: Tohoku version. Jpn Earth Planet Sci Jt Meet. (Sy-005)Google Scholar
  38. Yamanaka Y, Kikuchi M (2004) Asperity map along the subduction zone in northeastern Japan inferred from regional seismic data. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. doi: 10.1029/2003JB002683 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantinos Arvanitakis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ioannis Karydis
    • 1
  • Katia L. Kermanidis
    • 1
  • Markos Avlonitis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsIonian UniversityCorfuGreece

Personalised recommendations