Recognizing explosion sites with a self-organizing network for unsupervised learning

Abstract A self-organizing neural network model has been developed for identifying mining explosion locations in different environments in Finland and adjacent areas. The main advantage of the method is its ability to automatically find a suitable network structure and naturally correctly identify explosions as such. The explosion site recognition was done using extracted waveform attributes of various kind event records from the small-aperture array FINESS in Finland. The recognition was done by using P–S phase arrival differences and rough azimuth estimates to provide a first robust epicentre location. This, in turn, leads to correct mining district identification where more detailed tuning was performed using different phase amplitude and signal-to-noise attributes. The explosions studied here originated in mines and quarries located in Finland, coast of Estonia and in the St. Petersburg area, Russia. Although the Helsinki bulletins in 1995 and 1996 listed 1649 events in these areas, analysis was restricted to the 380 (ML≥2) events which, besides, were found in the reviewed event bulletins (REB) of the CTBTO/UN prototype international data centre (pIDC) in Arlington, VA, USA. These 380 events with different attributes were selected for the learning stage. Because no `ground-truth' information was available the corresponding mining, `code' coordinates used earlier to compile Helsinki bulletins were utilized instead. The novel self-organizing method was tested on 18 new event recordings in the mentioned area in January–February 1997, out of which 15 were connected to correct mines. The misconnected three events were those which did not have all matching attributes in the self-organizing maps (SOMs) network.

[1]  R. Blandford Regional Seismic Event Discrimination , 1996 .

[2]  T. C. Bache,et al.  The Intelligent Monitoring System , 1990 .

[3]  Timo Tiira,et al.  Discrimination of nuclear explosions and earthquakes from teleseismic distances with a local network of short period seismic stations using artificial neural networks , 1996 .

[4]  Eystein S. Husebye,et al.  An exercise in automating seismic record analysis and network bulletin production , 1993 .

[5]  Bernd Fritzke,et al.  Growing cell structures--A self-organizing network for unsupervised and supervised learning , 1994, Neural Networks.

[6]  P. Shearer Application to the Whittier Narrows California aftershock sequence , 1997 .

[7]  E. S. Husebye,et al.  A new three-component detector and automatic single-station bulletin production , 1992 .

[8]  Axel Plešinger,et al.  Discrimination between local microearthquakes and quarry blasts by multi-layer perceptrons and Kohonen maps , 1996 .

[9]  Jay J. Pulli Extracting and Processing Signal Parameters for Regional Seismic Event Identification , 1996 .

[10]  Björn Heincke,et al.  Recognizing explosion sites without seismogram readings: neural network analysis of envelope-transformed multistation SP recordings 3–6 Hz , 1998 .

[11]  Farid U. Dowla Neural Networks in Seismic Discrimination , 1996 .

[12]  C. Macilwain Seismologists claim quake data being ‘mis-read’ as bomb test , 1997, Nature.

[13]  Farid U. Dowla,et al.  Seismic discrimination with artificial neural networks: Preliminary results with regional spectral data , 1990 .

[14]  Florence Riviere-Barbier,et al.  Identification and location of closely spaced mining events , 1993 .

[15]  Won-Young Kim,et al.  Testing the nuclear test-ban treaty , 1997, Nature.

[16]  Manfred Joswig,et al.  Clustering and location of mining induced seismicity in the Ruhr basin by automated master event comparison based on dynamic waveform matching (DWM) , 1993 .

[17]  T. C. Bache,et al.  Initial results from the Intelligent Monitoring System , 1990 .

[18]  David B. Harris,et al.  A waveform correlation method for identifying quarry explosions , 1991, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.