Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (7) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lockman, A. B. Articles by Allen, R. M. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Single-Station Earthquake Characterization for Early Warning

¹ Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Wisconsin, Madison
1215 West Dayton Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
 (A.B.L.)

Correspondence: ^* Present address: Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, 307 McCone Hall, Berkeley, California 94720-4767; rallen{at}berkeley.edu.

We use data from 50 earthquakes in southern California to test the accuracy of event parameter determination using single seismic stations for the purpose of early warning. Earthquake magnitude, hypocentral distance, and backazimuth are all estimated using P-wave arrivals only. There is a wide range in the accuracy of event parameters determined by different seismic stations. One quarter of the stations produced magnitude estimates with errors less than ±0.3 magnitude units, hypocentral distances within ±15 km, and backazimuth calculations within ±20°. This accuracy is sufficient to provide useful early warning. Using P-wave arrivals is the most rapid method of delivering earthquake early warning and may permit a few seconds notice of impending ground motion even in the epicentral region. Our results show that networks using a P-wave detection approach for early warning can increase the accuracy of magnitude estimations by determining station-specific scaling relations between the predominant period of the P wave and event magnitude and by utilizing stations with optimal relations. Further, because individual stations are able to deliver an accurate early warning, the option of utilizing the technology in regions that lack a dense seismic network but are in need of seismic hazard mitigation becomes possible.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. M. Brown, R. M. Allen, and V. F. Grasso Testing ElarmS in Japan Seismological Research Letters, September 1, 2009; 80(5): 727 - 739. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. W. Hildyard, S. E. J. Nippress, and A. Rietbrock Event Detection and Phase Picking Using a Time-Domain Estimate of Predominate Period Tpd Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2008; 98(6): 3025 - 3032. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Bose, F. Wenzel, and M. Erdik PreSEIS: A Neural Network-Based Approach to Earthquake Early Warning for Finite Faults Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 2008; 98(1): 366 - 382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. B. Lockman and R. M. Allen Magnitude-Period Scaling Relations for Japan and the Pacific Northwest: Implications for Earthquake Early Warning Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 2007; 97(1B): 140 - 150. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J. Wolfe On the Properties of Predominant-Period Estimators for Earthquake Early Warning Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2006; 96(5): 1961 - 1965. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. M. Allen Probabilistic Warning Times for Earthquake Ground Shaking in the San Francisco Bay Area Seismological Research Letters, May 1, 2006; 77(3): 371 - 376. [Full Text] [PDF]