Advertisement

Advances in Seismic and Acoustic Monitoring

  • Jürgen AltmannEmail author
Chapter
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Seismic and acoustic (infrasound) monitoring form important parts of the International Monitoring System (IMS) for verification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Of the globally planned 170 seismic plus 60 infrasound stations, 87% have been certified. Understanding of the propagation in the Earth and the atmosphere has improved markedly, instruments and evaluation algorithms have become more sophisticated. Thus the detection threshold has decreased to values below 0.1 kt TNT equivalent for teleseismic signals, and below 0.5 kt for infrasound, much better than the IMS design goal of 1 kt. A seismic aftershock monitoring system (SAMS) can be set up during on-site inspections by the CTBT Organization. Semi-automatic evaluation of the SAMS signals is used to localise the hypocentre of an underground explosion precisely. Other research focuses on the reduction of periodic disturbances e.g. from aircraft. Acoustic and seismic sensors can detect land and air vehicles in the monitoring of peace-keeping agreements, and ballistic-missile launches for improved early warning. Local systems of seismic sensors have promise for safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for final repositories of spent nuclear fuel.

References

  1. 1.
    Dahlman O, Israelson H (1977) Monitoring Underground Nuclear Explosions. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Committee on Technical Issues Related to Ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (2002) Technical Issues Related to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Committee on Reviewing and Updating Technical Issues Related to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (2012) The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: Technical Issues for the United States. National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (2018) Interactive Map, IMS categories. https://www.ctbto.org/map/. Accessed 14 April 2018
  5. 5.
    Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (2015) Science and Technology – The Conference Series. https://www.ctbto.org/the-organization/science-and-technology-the-conference-series/. Accessed 30 April 2019
  6. 6.
    Evers LG, Haak EW (2010) The Characteristics of Infrasound, its Propagation and Some Early History. In: Le Pichon A, Blanc E, Hauchecorne A (eds) (2010) Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–27Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hafemeister D (2007) Progress in CTBT Monitoring Since its 1999 Senate Defeat. Sci Glob Secur 15(3):151–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (2015) The CTBT Verification Regime: Monitoring the Earth for nuclear explosions. https://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/user_upload/public_information/2015/Verification_Regime_final_2015_final.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2019
  9. 9.
    Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (2007) The CTBT verification regime put to the test – the event in the DPRK on 9 October 2006. https://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/highlights/2007/the-ctbt-verification-regime-put-to-the-test-the-event-in-the-dprk-on-9-october-2006/. Accessed 30 April 2019
  10. 10.
    Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (2013) On the CTBTO’s detection in North Korea. https://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/press-releases/2013/on-the-ctbtos-detection-in-north-korea/. Accessed 30 April 2019
  11. 11.
    Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (2016) Technical Findings. https://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/developments-after-1996/2016-dprk-announced-nuclear-test/technical-findings/. Accessed 30 April 2019
  12. 12.
    Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (2016) 9 September 2016 – North Korea – Announced Nuclear Test – Technical Findings. https://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/developments-after-1996/2016-sept-dprk-announced-nuclear-test/technical-findings/. Accessed 30 April 2019
  13. 13.
    Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (2017) 3 September 2017 – North Korea – Announced Nuclear Test – Technical Findings. https://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/developments-after-1996/2017-sept-dprk/technical-findings/. Accessed 30 April 2019
  14. 14.
    Murphy JR, Stevens JL, Kohl BC et al (2013) Advanced Seismic Analyses of the Source Characteristics of the 2006 and 2009 North Korean Nuclear Tests. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 103(3):1640–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carluccio R, Giuntini A, Materni V et al (2014) A Multidisciplinary Study of the DPRK Nuclear Tests. Pure Appl Geophys 171(3–5):341–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim SG, Gitterman Y, Lee S et al (2017) Accurate Depth Determination and Source Characterization of the DPRK Nuclear Tests (2006, 2009, 2013, 2016J (01/06/2016) and 2016S (09/09/2016)) Using Regional and Teleseismic Arrays. In: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Science and Technology Conference 2017, Vienna, 26–30 June 2017. https://ctnw.ctbto.org/DMZ/event/3239/programme/2017-06-27. Accessed 30 April 2019
  17. 17.
    Le Pichon A, Blanc E, Hauchecorne A (eds) (2010) Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Christie DR, Campus P (2010) The IMS Infrasound Network: Design and Establishment of Infrasound Stations. In: Le Pichon A, Blanc E, Hauchecorne A (eds) (2010) Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 29–75Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walker KT, Hedlin MAH (2010) A Review of Wind-Noise Reduction Methodologies. In: Le Pichon A, Blanc E, Hauchecorne A (eds) (2010) Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 141–182Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brachet N, Brown D, Le Bras R et al. (2010) Monitoring the Earths’s Atmosphere with the Global IMS Infrasound Network. In: Le Pichon A, Blanc E, Hauchecorne A (eds) (2010) Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 77–118Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Le Pichon A, Vergoz J, Blanc E et al (2009) Assessing the performance of the International Monitoring System infrasound network: geographical coverage and temporal variabilities. J Geophys Res 114 (D8):D08112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Ford SR, Labak P (2016) An Explosion Aftershock Model with Application to On-Site Inspection. Pure Appl Geophys 173(1):173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gestermann N, Sick B, Häge M et al (2015) The Seismic Aftershock Monitoring System (SAMS) for On-Site Inspection: Experience from IFE14. In: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Science and Technology Conference 2015, Vienna, Austria, 22–26 June 2015. https://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/user_upload/SnT2015/SnT2015_Posters/T2.1-P18.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2019
  25. 25.
    Sick B, Walter M, Joswig M (2014) Visual Event Screening of Continuous Seismic Data by Supersonograms. Pure Appl Geophys 171(3–5):549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joswig M (2008) Nanoseismic monitoring fills the gap between microseismic networks and passive seismic. First Break 26(6):117–124Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Altmann J, Gorschlüter F, Liebsch M (2012) Investigations of Periodic Disturbances on Seismic Aftershock Recording. In: European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 23–27 April 2012. http://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU2012-11993_presentation.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2019
  28. 28.
    Gorschlüter F, Altmann J (2014) Suppression of Periodic Disturbances in Seismic Aftershock Recordings for Better Localisation of Underground Explosions. Pure Appl Geophys 171(3–5):561–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gorschlüter F (2014) Sinusoids with linear frequency shift in time series – precise characterisation and removal. PhD Dissertation, Technische Universität DortmundGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liebsch M, Altmann J (2016) Acoustic-seismic coupling for a wide range of angles of incidence and frequencies using signals of jet-aircraft overflights. J Sound Vib 385:202–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liebsch M (2017) Acoustic-Seismic Coupling of Broadband Signals – Support for On-Site Inspections under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban-Treaty. PhD Dissertation, Technische Universität DortmundGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Altmann J (2004) Acoustic and Seismic Signals of Heavy Military Vehicles for Co-operative Verification. J Sound Vib 273(4–5):713–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blumrich R, Altmann J (2000) Medium-range localisation of aircraft via triangulation. Appl Acoust 61(1):65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Altmann J (2005) Acoustic-Seismic Detection of Ballistic-Missile Launches for Cooperative Early Warning of Nuclear Attack. Sci Glob Secur 13(3):129–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Altmann J (2013) Seismic Monitoring of an Underground Repository in Salt – Results of the Measurements at the Gorleben Exploratory Mine. ESARDA Bull 50:61–78Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Altmann J (2015) Modelling Seismic-Signal Propagation at a Salt Dome for Safeguards Monitoring. ESARDA Bull 52:60–79Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Komatitsch D, Vilotte JP (1998) The spectral-element method: an efficient tool to simulate the seismic response of two-dimensional and three-dimensional geological structures. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 88(2):368–392Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Komatitsch D, Tromp J (1999) Introduction to the spectral element method for three-dimensional seismic wave propagation. Geophys J Int 139(3):806–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Experimentelle Physik IIITechnische Universität DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations