Advertisement

International Journal of Fuzzy Systems

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 1656–1670 | Cite as

A New Spatial Algorithm Based on Adaptive Fuzzy Neural Network for Prediction of Crustal Motion Velocities in Earthquake Research

  • Nuray Güneri Tosunoğlu
  • Ayşen Apaydın
Article

Abstract

In earthquake studies, different methods are used in modeling of the crustal motions. In case of obscurity data structure, different approaches are needed in solving motion problems. In this paper, a new spatial algorithm has been developed which is based on adaptive fuzzy neural network (AFNN) approach for the prediction of the crustal motion velocities. In order to find the fuzzy class numbers regarding the network model formed by the fuzzification of the studied area, subtractive clustering algorithm is used. In determining the membership function, utilization of the variogram function which models the relationship that depends on distance among spatial data is proposed. The Marmara Region, Turkey, is used as the case for this study. In order to evaluate the performance of the approach, the kriging method is also utilized in the prediction and the results obtained from both methods are compared based on the mean-square-error criteria. It is observed that the AFNN approach yields results which are as effective as those of kriging. Consequently, it is shown that the AFNN approach will contribute to earthquake studies.

Keywords

Earthquake Crustal motion velocities Spatial prediction Variogram Kriging Fuzzy logic Adaptive fuzzy neural network 

References

  1. 1.
    Aboonasr, S.F.G., Zamani, A., Razavipour, F., Boostani, R.: Earthquake hazard assessment in the Zagros Orogenic Belt of Iran using a fuzzy rule-based model. Acta Geophys. 65, 589–605 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahumada, A., Altunkaynak, A., Ayoub, A.: Fuzzy logic-based attenuation relationships of strong motion earthquake records. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 1287–1297 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alavi, A.H., Gandomi, A.M.: Prediction of principal ground-motion parameters using a hybrid method coupling artificial neural networks and simulated annealing. Comput. Struct. 89, 2176–2194 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alimoradi, A., Pezeshk, S., Naeim, F., Frigui, H.: Fuzzy pattern classification of strong ground motion records. J. Earthq. Eng. 9(3), 307–332 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ameur, M., Derras, B., Zendagui, D.: Ground motion prediction model using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems: an example based on the NGA-West 2 data. Pure Appl. Geophys. 175, 1–16 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andalib, A., Zare, M., Atry, F.: A fuzzy expert system for earthquake prediction, case study: the Zagros range. Proc. Intell. Transp. Syst. 15(3), 1168–1178 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andrić, J.M., Lu, D.-G.: Fuzzy probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with applications to Kunming city, China. Nat. Hazards 89, 1031–1057 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Asencio-Cortés, G., Martínez-Álvarez, F., Troncoso, A., Morales-Esteban, A.: Medium–large earthquake magnitude prediction in Tokyo with artificial neural networks. Neural Comput. Appl. 28, 1043–1055 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baldovino, R.G., Dadios, E.P.: A hybrid fuzzy logic–PLC-based controller for earthquake simulator system. JAC III 20, 100–105 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bodri, B.: A neural-network model for earthquake occurrence. J. Geodyn. 32, 289–310 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, M.S., Wang, S.W.: Fuzzy clustering analysis for optimizing fuzzy membership functions. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 103, 239–254 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng, C.B., Lee, E.S.: Applying fuzzy adaptive network to fuzzy regression analysis. Comput. Math Appl. 38, 123–140 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheng, C.B., Lee, E.S.: Fuzzy regression with radial basis function network. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 119, 291–301 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cressie, N.A.C.: Statistics for spatial data. Wiley, Canada (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giacinto, G., Paolucci, R., Roli, F.: Application of neural networks and statistical pattern recognition algorithms to earthquake risk evaluation. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 18, 1353–1362 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goovaerts, P.: Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford University Pres, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huang, C., Leung, Y.: Estimating the relationship between isoseismal area and earthquake magnitude by a hybrid fuzzy-neural-network method. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 107, 131–146 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Isaaks, E.H., Srivastava, R.M.: An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford University Pres, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ishibuchi, H., Tanaka, H.: Fuzzy neural networks with fuzzy weights and fuzzy biases. In: Proceedings of 1993 IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, San Francisco, pp. 1650–1655 (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jang, J.-S.R.: ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 23(3), 665–684 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jang, J.-S.R., Sun, C.-T.: Neuro-fuzzy modeling and control. Proc. IEEE 83(3), 378–406 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Last, M., Rabinowitz, N., Leonard, G.: Predicting the maximum earthquake magnitude from seismic data in Israel and its neighboring countries. PLoS ONE 11(1), e0146 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, S.C., Han, S.W.: Neural-network-based models for generating artificial earthquakes and response spectra. Comput. Struct. 80, 1627–1638 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Muller, S., Garda, P., Muller, J.D., Cansi, Y.: Seismic events discrimination by neuro-fuzzy merging of signal and catalogue features. Phys. Chem. Earth (A) 24(3), 201–206 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Negarestani, A., Setayeshi, S., Maragheh, M.G., Akashe, B.: Estimation of the radon concentration in soil related to the environmental parameters by a modified Adaline neural network. Appl. Radiat. Isotops 58, 269–273 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reilinger, R., Mc Clusky, S., Vernant, P., Lawrence, S., Ergintav, S., Cakmak, R., Ozener, H., Kadirov, F., Guliev, I., Stepanyan, R., Nadariya, M., Hahubia, G., Mahmoud, S., Sakr, K., ArRajehi, A., Paradissis, D., Al-Aydrus, A., Prilepin, M., Guseva, T., Evren, E., Dmitrotsa, A., Filikov, S.V., Gomez, F., Al-Ghazzi, R., Karam, G.: 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(B5): Art. No. B05411 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rovithakis, G.A., Vallianatos, F.: A neural network approach to the identification of electric earthquake precursors. Phys. Chem. Earth (A) 25(3), 315–319 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sinclair, A.J., Blackwell, G.H.: Applied Mineral Inventory Estimation. Cambridge University Press, Weat Nyack (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stein, A., Meer, F., Gorte, B.: Spatial statistics for remote sensing. Kluwer Academic, Hingham (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Takagi, T., Sugeno, M.: Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to modelling and control. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. 15, 116–132 (1985)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tercan, A.E., ve Saraç, C.: Maden Yataklarının Değerlendirilmesinde Jeoistatistiksel Yöntemler, TMMOB Jeoloji Mühendisleri Odası Yayınları: 48, Ankara, Türkiye (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tosunoğlu, N.G.: Prediction of crustal motion velocities which is constitute earthquake by the fuzzy adaptive network in spatial statistics. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Science, University of Ankara, Ankara, Turkey (2007) (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wyss, M.: Why is earthquake prediction research not progressing faster? Tectonophysics 338, 217–223 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang, J., Yao, N.: The geostatistical framework for spatial prediction. Geo-Spatial Inf. Sci. 11(3), 180–185 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhong, M., Zhang, Q.: Prediction of reservoir-induced earthquake based on fuzzy theory. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Networking and Network Security (ISNNS’10), Jinggangshan, pp. 101–104 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Taiwan Fuzzy Systems Association and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International TradeGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Insurance and Actuarial ScienceAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations