Performance Evaluation of the Earthquake Detection and Classification Algorithm 2(tS–tP) of the Seismic Alert System of Mexico (SASMEX)

Abstract A performance evaluation of the detection and classification algorithm for earthquake early warning 2( t S – t P ) was conducted to test its reliability and robustness. The Seismic Alert System of Mexico (SASMEX) has used this algorithm since 1991. The algorithm estimates the rate of seismic energy released during two times the ( t S – t P ) period. Based on the energy released, it estimates an empirical magnitude range related to m b . Depending on the estimated m b , either preventive or public alerts are issued. In this article, post facto tests are presented for 61 earthquakes for which SASMEX issued an alert. The algorithm was also tested on 31 earthquakes ( M w >6.0) that occurred in the Mexican subduction zone from 1985 to 2014. These earthquakes occurred outside the coverage of the SASMEX instruments at the time. This dataset includes the 19 September 1985 M w  8.1 Michoacan earthquake and the 9 October 1995 M w  8.0 Colima event. The algorithm was tested also on two great earthquakes: the 22 February 2010 M w  8.8 Maule, Chile, earthquake and the 11 March 2011 M w  9.0 Tohoku, Japan, event. The results of the evaluation of 144 acceleration records of the 61 earthquakes detected from the SASMEX network indicate that 92% of the accelerograms of earthquakes with m b >6.0 have errors in the prediction of magnitude of less than ±0.5, and 83% for m b >5.5. Also, the tests conducted on the 59 acceleration records of 31 earthquakes with M w ≥6.0 indicate that in all cases, with the exception of one strong‐motion record, the events are classified as M w ≥6.0. Thus, the algorithm shows a high level of reliability and robustness. Although the algorithm underestimates the magnitudes of large earthquakes, these events are identified and classified as M w ≥6.0. Thus, an alert would be issued for these great earthquakes. Electronic Supplement: Table of earthquake parameters, performance of Seismic Alert System of Mexico (SASMEX), and specific performance evaluation of the 2( t S – t P ) algorithm.

[1]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Strong Ground Motion Attributes of the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile, Earthquake , 2012 .

[2]  K. Pearson.  Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution.—On the law of reversion , 1900, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.

[3]  J. Nocquet,et al.  Slip distribution of the February 27, 2010 Mw = 8.8 Maule Earthquake, central Chile, from static and high‐rate GPS, InSAR, and broadband teleseismic data , 2010 .

[4]  G. Ibarrola,et al.  Mexico City seismic alert system , 1995 .

[5]  Y Nakamura,et al.  REAL-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR SEISMIC HAZARDS MITIGATION UREDAS, HERAS AND PIC , 1996 .

[6]  S. K. Singh,et al.  Seismic gaps and recurrence periods of large earthquakes along the Mexican subduction zone: A reexamination , 1981 .

[7]  K. Pearson.  Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. III. Regression, Heredity, and Panmixia , 1896 .

[8]  John H. Woodhouse,et al.  Determination of earthquake source parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity , 1981 .

[9]  Mitsuyuki Hoshiba,et al.  Outline of the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake (Mw 9.0) —Earthquake Early Warning and observed seismic intensity— , 2011 .

[10]  F. Hirose,et al.  Outline of the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake (Mw 9.0) —Seismicity: foreshocks, mainshock, aftershocks, and induced activity— , 2011 .

[11]  Mario Ordaz,et al.  The Seismic Alert System for Mexico City: An Evaluation of Its Performance and a Strategy for Its Improvement , 2007 .

[12]  J. M. Espinosa-Aranda,et al.  Evolution of the Mexican Seismic Alert System (SASMEX) , 2009 .

[13]  Makoto Saito,et al.  Earthquake Early Warning Starts Nationwide in Japan , 2008 .

[14]  Gerardo Suárez,et al.  Performance Evaluation of the Seismic Alert System (SAS) in Mexico City: A Seismological and a Social Perspective , 2009 .

[15]  R. Quaas,et al.  The Mexico Earthquake of September 19, 1985—Effect of Magnitude on the Character of Strong Ground Motion: An Example from the Guerrero, Mexico Strong Motion Network , 1988 .

[16]  Nobuhito Mori,et al.  Survey of 2011 Tohoku earthquake tsunami inundation and run‐up , 2011 .

[17]  E. Rosenblueth.  The 1985 earthquake : Causes and effects in Mexico City , 1986 .

[18]  Stuart P. Nishenko,et al.  Seismic gaps and plate tectonics: Seismic potential for major boundaries , 1979 .

[19]  A. Dziewoński,et al.  Centroid-moment tensor solutions for April–June, 1998 , 1999 .

[20]  Luis Esteva,et al.  The Mexico Earthquake of September 19, 1985—Consequences, Lessons, and Impact on Research and Practice , 1988 .

[21]  Göran Ekström,et al.  The global CMT project 2004–2010: Centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes , 2012 .

[22]  R. Allen,et al.  Real‐time earthquake detection and hazard assessment by ElarmS across California , 2009 .

[23]  John G. Anderson,et al.  The temporal and spatial evolution of the 19 September 1985 Michoacán earthquake as inferred from near-source ground-motion records , 1991 .