Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Article Types

Countries / Regions

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Search Results (624)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = the seismic network

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
19 pages, 7056 KiB  
Article
Seismic Porosity Prediction in Tight Carbonate Reservoirs Based on a Spatiotemporal Neural Network
by Fei Li, Zhiyi Yu, Yonggang Wang, Meixin Ju, Feng Liu and Zhixian Gui
Processes 2025, 13(3), 788; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13030788 (registering DOI) - 8 Mar 2025
Abstract
Porosity prediction from seismic data is of significance in reservoir property assessment, reservoir architecture delineation, and reservoir model building. However, it is still challenging to use traditional model-driven methodology to characterize carbonate reservoirs because of the highly nonlinear mapping relationship between porosity and [...] Read more.
Porosity prediction from seismic data is of significance in reservoir property assessment, reservoir architecture delineation, and reservoir model building. However, it is still challenging to use traditional model-driven methodology to characterize carbonate reservoirs because of the highly nonlinear mapping relationship between porosity and elastic properties. To address this issue, this study proposes an advanced spatiotemporal deep learning neural network for porosity prediction, which uses the convolutional neural network (CNN) structure to extract spatial characteristics and the bidirectional gated recurrent unit (BiGRU) network to gather temporal characteristics, guaranteeing that the model accurately captures the spatiotemporal features of well logs and seismic data. This method involves selecting sensitive elastic parameters as inputs, standardizing multiple sample sets, training the spatiotemporal network using logging data, and applying the trained model to seismic elastic attributes. In blind well tests, the CNN–BiGRU model achieves a 54% reduction in the root mean square error and a 6% correlation coefficient improvement, outperforming the baseline models and traditional nonlinear fitting (NLF). The application of the proposed method to seismic data indicates that the model yields a reasonable porosity distribution for tight carbonate reservoirs, proving the strong generalization ability of the proposed model. This method compensates for the limitations of individual deep learning models by simultaneously capturing the spatial and temporal components of data and improving the estimation accuracy, showing considerable promise for accurate reservoir parameter estimation. Full article
27 pages, 15905 KiB  
Article
Tracking the Seismic Deformation of Himalayan Glaciers Using Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry
by Sandeep Kumar Mondal, Rishikesh Bharti and Kristy F. Tiampo
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(5), 911; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17050911 - 5 Mar 2025
Viewed by 106
Abstract
The Himalayan belt, formed due to the Cenozoic convergence between the Eurasian and Indian craton, acts as a storehouse of large amounts of strain, resulting in large earthquakes from the Western to the Eastern Himalayas. Glaciers also occur over a major portion of [...] Read more.
The Himalayan belt, formed due to the Cenozoic convergence between the Eurasian and Indian craton, acts as a storehouse of large amounts of strain, resulting in large earthquakes from the Western to the Eastern Himalayas. Glaciers also occur over a major portion of the high-altitude Himalayan region. The impact of earthquakes can be easily studied in the plains and plateaus with the help of well-distributed seismogram networks and these regions’ accessibility is helpful for field- and lab-based studies. However, earthquakes triggered close to high-altitude Himalayan glaciers are tough to investigate for the impact over glaciers and glacial deposits. In this study, we attempt to understand the impact of earthquakes on and around Himalayan glaciers in terms of vertical displacement and coherence change using space-borne synthetic aperture radar (SAR). Eight earthquake events of various magnitudes and hypocenter depths occurring in the vicinity of Himalayan glacial bodies were studied using C-band Sentinel1-A/B SAR data. Differential interferometric SAR (DInSAR) analysis is applied to capture deformation of the glacial surface potentially related to earthquake occurrence. Glacial displacement varies from −38.9 mm to −5.4 mm for the 2020 Tibet earthquake (Mw 5.7) and the 2021 Nepal earthquake (Mw 4.1). However, small glacial and ground patches processed separately for vertical displacements reveal that the glacial mass shows much greater seismic displacement than the ground surface. This indicates the possibility of the presence of potential site-specific seismicity amplification properties within glacial bodies. A reduction in co-seismic coherence around the glaciers is observed in some cases, indicative of possible changes in the glacial moraine deposits and/or vegetation cover. The effect of two different seismic events (the 2020 and 2021 Nepal earthquakes) with different hypocenter depths but with the same magnitude at almost equal distances from the glaciers is assessed; a shallow earthquake is observed to result in a larger impact on glacial bodies in terms of vertical displacement. Earthquakes may induce glacial hazards such as glacial surging, ice avalanches, and the failure of moraine-/ice-dammed glacial lakes. This research may be able to play a possible role in identifying areas at risk and provide valuable insights for the planning and implementation of measures for disaster risk reduction. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study area map showing (<b>A</b>) world map with geographical boundary of India, tectonic plate boundaries, and (<b>B</b>) the Himalayan glaciers, tectonic lineaments, Indian–Eurasian plate boundaries, and selected earthquake epicenters (sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin International, and others as mentioned on the map).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Process diagram for estimating atmospherically corrected vertical displacement and coherence of ground and glaciers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Map for 2020 Tibet earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 5.7) showing (<b>A</b>) orthorectified phase interferogram, (<b>B</b>) vertical displacement, (<b>C</b>) vertical displacement for coherence ≥ 0.6, co-seismic image, (<b>D</b>) orthorectified phase interferogram at epicenter location, (<b>E</b>) vertical displacement at epicenter location, and (<b>F</b>) vertical displacement for coherence ≥ 0.6, co-seismic image.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Map showing orthorectified layer of (<b>A</b>) difference between pre- and co-seismic coherence, (<b>B</b>,<b>C</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within glacial bodies derived from unwrapped phase interferogram for 2020 Tibet earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 5.7) within black and brown rectangular regions, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>) orthorectified vertical displacement and (<b>B</b>) vertical displacement with co-seismic coherence ≥ 0.6 for 2020 Leh earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 5.3).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>) difference between pre- and co-seismic coherence and (<b>B</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within glacial bodies derived from unwrapped phase interferogram for 2020 Leh earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 5.3).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>) glacial and ground subset regions, (<b>B</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within glacial subset, and (<b>C</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within ground subset derived from unwrapped phase interferogram for 2020 Leh earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 5.3).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>) orthorectified vertical displacement and (<b>B</b>) vertical displacement with co-seismic coherence ≥ 0.6 for 2017 Thang earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 5.2).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>) difference between pre- and co-seismic coherence and (<b>B</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within glacial bodies derived from unwrapped phase interferogram for 2017 Thang earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 5.2).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>) glacial and ground subset regions, (<b>B</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within glacial subset-I, (<b>C</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within glacial subset-II, (<b>D</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within ground subset-I, and (<b>E</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within ground subset-II.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>) orthorectified vertical displacement and (<b>B</b>) vertical displacement with co-seismic coherence ≥ 0.6 for 2021 Joshimath earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 4.5).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>,<b>B</b>,<b>D</b>) difference between pre- and co-seismic coherence within the influence area, black and red rectangular regions, respectively, and (<b>C</b>,<b>E</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within glacial bodies derived from unwrapped phase interferogram for 2021 Joshimath earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 4.5) for black and red rectangular regions, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>) glacial and ground subset regions, (<b>B</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within glacial subset, and (<b>C</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within ground subset derived from unwrapped phase interferogram for 2021 Joshimath earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 4.5).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Relation between (<b>A</b>) <span class="html-italic">IR</span> and M<sub>w</sub> of earthquakes triggered at hypocenter depth of 10 km and relation between (<b>B</b>) <span class="html-italic">IR<sub>N</sub></span> and M<sub>w</sub> of earthquakes triggered close to hypocenter depth of 49.8 km.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>) difference between pre- and co-seismic coherence and (<b>B</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within influence area derived from unwrapped phase interferogram for 2017 Sikkim earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 4.2).</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Map showing difference between pre- and co-seismic coherence for 2018 Sikkim earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 4.4).</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Relation between IRN and M<sub>w</sub> of earthquakes triggered close to hypocenter depth of 35 km.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>) difference between pre- and co-seismic coherence and (<b>B</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within an influence area derived from unwrapped phase interferogram for 2020 Nepal earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 4.1).</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Map showing (<b>A</b>) difference between pre- and co-seismic coherence and (<b>B</b>–<b>D</b>) vertical displacement (mm) within influence area derived from unwrapped phase interferogram for 2021 Nepal earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 4.1).</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>Map showing vertical displacement (mm) within glacial bodies of common study zone for (<b>A</b>) 2020 Nepal earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 4.1) and (<b>B</b>) 2021 Nepal earthquake (M<sub>w</sub> 4.1).</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>False-color-composite (FCC) map of the common study zone in Nepal.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 3935 KiB  
Article
An Analysis of the Capacity of Outdoor Earthquake Evacuation Sites in Daegu, South Korea: Assessing De Facto Population Dynamics and Accessibility Through the Geographic Information System (GIS)
by Jin-Wook Park
Sustainability 2025, 17(5), 2129; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052129 - 1 Mar 2025
Viewed by 273
Abstract
This study evaluates urban resilience to earthquakes in Daegu Metropolitan City, South Korea, by analyzing outdoor evacuation sites through a dual-axis matrix framework to provide feasible solutions for enhancing urban resilience. Evacuation capacity was assessed by use of resident and de facto population [...] Read more.
This study evaluates urban resilience to earthquakes in Daegu Metropolitan City, South Korea, by analyzing outdoor evacuation sites through a dual-axis matrix framework to provide feasible solutions for enhancing urban resilience. Evacuation capacity was assessed by use of resident and de facto population data, while Geographic Information System (GIS) network analysis identified evacuation-feasible and evacuation-infeasible areas. The matrix categorizes areas along two axes: capacity (x-axis) and evacuation-infeasible areas (y-axis), facilitating targeted improvement strategies. Findings reveal that only 54 of 139 census blocks possess sufficient capacity and no evacuation-infeasible areas. For areas with adequate capacity but extensive infeasible areas, redistributing evacuation sites is recommended to improve accessibility. Areas with limited capacity but no infeasible areas require additional outdoor evacuation sites to accommodate the population. In regions constrained by both capacity and accessibility, establishing new evacuation sites within infeasible areas is essential. For critically low-capacity areas without infeasible areas, multi-use spaces, such as disaster prevention parks, are desirable to address evacuation needs. Lastly, areas lacking both capacity and accessibility urgently require new evacuation sites concentrated in infeasible areas. By simplifying complex variables into a capacity–accessibility matrix, this study integrates population dynamics, spatial accessibility, and site capacity, offering implementable solutions for earthquake preparedness in densely populated urban settings. Additionally, this approach supports urban planning efforts to mitigate seismic damage and enhance urban sustainability. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>A research flowchart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>A distribution map of outdoor evacuation sites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Capacity of outdoor evacuation sites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4 Cont.
<p>Capacity of outdoor evacuation sites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Capacity of outdoor evacuation sites (insufficiency grade).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Evacuation-feasible area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Census blocks with evacuation-infeasible urban areas.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Matrix Analysis (current).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Matrix analysis (revised).</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 4833 KiB  
Article
Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning Methods for Real-Time Estimation of Earthquake Magnitude
by Xuanye Shen, Baorui Hou, Jianqi Lu and Shanyou Li
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(5), 2587; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052587 - 27 Feb 2025
Viewed by 304
Abstract
In recent years, although a variety of deep learning models have been developed for magnitude estimation, the complex and variable nature of earthquakes limits the generalizability and accuracy of these models. In this study, we selected the waveform data of the Japan earthquake. [...] Read more.
In recent years, although a variety of deep learning models have been developed for magnitude estimation, the complex and variable nature of earthquakes limits the generalizability and accuracy of these models. In this study, we selected the waveform data of the Japan earthquake. We applied four deep learning techniques (MagNet combined with bidirectional long- and short-term memory network Bi-LSTM, DCRNN with deepened CNN layers, DCRNNAmp with the introduction of a global scale factor, and Exams with a multilayered CNN architecture) for real-time magnitude estimation. By comparing the estimation errors of each model in the first 3 s after the earthquake, it is found that the DCRNNAmp performs the best, with an MAE of 0.287, an RMSE of 0.397, and an R2 of 0.737 in the first 3 s after the arrival of the P-wave, and the inclusion of S-wave seismic-phase information is found to significantly improve the accuracy of the magnitude estimation, which suggests that S-wave seismic-phase waveform features can enrich the model’s understanding of the relationship between the seismic phases. It shows that S-wave phase waveform features can enrich the model’s knowledge of the relationship between seismic fluctuations and magnitude. The epicentral distance positively correlates with the magnitude estimation, and the model can converge faster with the improved signal-to-noise ratio. Despite the shortcomings of model design and opaque internal mechanisms, this study provides important evidence for deep learning in earthquake estimation, demonstrating its potential to improve the accuracy of on-site earthquake early warning (EEW) systems. The estimation capability can be further improved by optimizing the model and exploring new features. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Machine Learning Approaches for Seismic Data Analysis)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Distribution of earthquake epicenters and station locations in the K-NET and KiK-net networks in Japan.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Distribution of the amount of data with magnitude for the training set (E), validation set (V), and test set (T).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and error bars for the estimation errors of the four models over time.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Plot of the errors of the four models with magnitude in the first 6 s after the arrival of the P-wave.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Rows 1 and 3 show the predicted magnitude and accurate magnitude distribution of DCRNN and DCRNNAmp models. Rows 2 and 4 show the frequency distribution of the error (predicted magnitude and true magnitude) for the DCRNN and DCRNNAmp models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Error variation with epicenter distance at 1–20 s (all events in gray; events larger than magnitude 6 in orange).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Error variation with SNR at 1–20 s (all events in gray; events larger than magnitude 6 in orange).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Error variation with depth at 1–20 s (all events in gray; events greater than magnitude 6 in orange).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Error with magnitude at 1–20 s (all events in gray; average error per magnitude class in blue error bars).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Variation in error with epicenter distance after the appearance of S-wave seismic phase at 1–20 s (gray is all events; black is the appearance of S-wave seismic phase in the station waveform of the current event, Red symbols are error bars for black seismic events, and blue symbols are error bars for gray seismic events).</p>
Full article ">
56 pages, 8605 KiB  
Review
Research Advances on Distributed Acoustic Sensing Technology for Seismology
by Alidu Rashid, Bennet Nii Tackie-Otoo, Abdul Halim Abdul Latiff, Daniel Asante Otchere, Siti Nur Fathiyah Jamaludin and Dejen Teklu Asfha
Photonics 2025, 12(3), 196; https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics12030196 - 25 Feb 2025
Viewed by 434
Abstract
Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) has emerged as a groundbreaking technology in seismology, transforming fiber-optic cables into dense, cost-effective seismic monitoring arrays. DAS makes use of Rayleigh backscattering to detect and measure dynamic strain and vibrations over extended distances. It can operate using both [...] Read more.
Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) has emerged as a groundbreaking technology in seismology, transforming fiber-optic cables into dense, cost-effective seismic monitoring arrays. DAS makes use of Rayleigh backscattering to detect and measure dynamic strain and vibrations over extended distances. It can operate using both pre-existing telecommunication networks and specially designed fibers. This review explores the principles of DAS, including Coherent Optical Time Domain Reflectometry (COTDR) and Phase-Sensitive OTDR (ϕ-OTDR), and discusses the role of optoelectronic interrogators in data acquisition. It examines recent advancements in fiber design, such as helically wound and engineered fibers, which improve DAS sensitivity, spatial resolution, and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Additionally, innovations in deployment techniques include cemented borehole cables, flexible liners, and weighted surface coupling to further enhance mechanical coupling and data accuracy. This review also demonstrated the applications of DAS across earthquake detection, microseismic monitoring, reservoir characterization and monitoring, carbon storage sites, geothermal reservoirs, marine environments, and urban infrastructure surveillance. The study highlighted several challenges of DAS, including directional sensitivity limitations, vast data volumes, and calibration inconsistencies. It also addressed solutions to these problems, such as advances in signal processing, noise suppression techniques, and machine learning integration, which have improved real-time analysis and data interpretability, enabling DAS to compete with traditional seismic networks. Additionally, modeling approaches such as full waveform inversion and forward simulations provide valuable insights into subsurface dynamics and fracture monitoring. This review highlights DAS’s potential to revolutionize seismic monitoring through its scalability, cost-efficiency, and adaptability to diverse applications while identifying future research directions to address its limitations and expand its capabilities. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fundamentals, Advances, and Applications in Optical Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Scattering spectra of an optical fiber modified after Zhu [<a href="#B30-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">30</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Principles of DAS modified after Shatalin and Zhu [<a href="#B30-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">30</a>,<a href="#B37-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">37</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Principle of Coherent Optical Time Domain Reflectometry (COTDR) modified after Shatalin [<a href="#B36-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">36</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Schematic of a simple ϕ-OTDR configuration modified after Muanenda [<a href="#B41-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">41</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Structure of the OTDR modified after Shang [<a href="#B33-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">33</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Intensity versus time and distance of two pulses modified after Lindsey [<a href="#B9-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">9</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>DAS development over the years, modified after Shang [<a href="#B33-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">33</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Experimental set up for temperature and strain measurement modified after Pastor-Graells [<a href="#B87-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">87</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Working principle of chirped-pulse ΦOTDR modified after Costa [<a href="#B126-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">126</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Experimental setup used for the analysis of phase noise in chirped-pulse ΦOTDR modified after Costa [<a href="#B126-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">126</a>]. ECL: External cavity laser; SG: Signal generator; I&amp;T: Intensity and temperature; SOA: Semiconductor optical amplifier; SMF: Single mode fiber; EDFA: Erbium-doped fiber amplifier; FUT: Fiber under test; Piezoelectric transducer (PZT).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Multi-frequency phase coherent OTDR system modified after Hartog [<a href="#B44-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">44</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Schematic showing traditional fiber-optic cable deployment in boreholes alongside a new technique using flexible borehole liners modified after Munn [<a href="#B128-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">128</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>(<b>a</b>) Straight optical fiber in a cable [<a href="#B130-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">130</a>] (<b>b</b>) limitations of a straight fiber modified after Hornman [<a href="#B140-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">140</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Example of a helical optical fiber with its local coordinate system [<a href="#B132-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">132</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Five helical optical fibers, each with a diameter of 2.44 cm and spaced evenly apart, arranged at an angle of 20 degrees. The dots show measurements at the same distance along each fiber, representing the same part of the cable modified after Ning and Sava [<a href="#B66-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">66</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Schematic diagram of cable cross sections: tight-buffered composite (<b>a</b>) and loose-tube composite (<b>b</b>), highlighting the different optical fiber placements modified after Munn [<a href="#B128-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">128</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Illustration showing the arrangement differences between an unmodified standard optical fiber and a modified scattering dot fiber using C-OTDR: (<b>a</b>) standard fiber, (<b>b</b>) scattering dot fiber modified after Hicke [<a href="#B143-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">143</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Block diagram of modules simulating ideal DAS output (Orange) and system noise (Blue) modified after van Putten [<a href="#B144-photonics-12-00196" class="html-bibr">144</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Applications of DAS in Seismology.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 15222 KiB  
Article
Three-Dimensional In Situ Stress Distribution in a Fault Fracture Reservoir, Linnan Sag, Bohai Bay Basin
by Jiageng Liu, Yanzhong Wang, Jing Li, Xiaoyu Meng, Jiayi Teng, Zhicheng Wang, Mingzhi Li and Rui Zhu
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13(3), 436; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13030436 - 25 Feb 2025
Viewed by 235
Abstract
The fault fracture body, consisting of faults, fracture zones, cracks, and the matrix, plays a crucial role in controlling oil and gas accumulation. Understanding its spatial distribution and analyzing the in situ stress field are essential for optimizing well design and fracturing operations. [...] Read more.
The fault fracture body, consisting of faults, fracture zones, cracks, and the matrix, plays a crucial role in controlling oil and gas accumulation. Understanding its spatial distribution and analyzing the in situ stress field are essential for optimizing well design and fracturing operations. This study integrates geological, logging, and seismic data, and employs advanced techniques such as ant tracking to establish a skeletal model of the fault fracture body. Reverse modeling and optimization reconstruction are used to construct a three-dimensional geomechanical model of the fracture system. Machine learning techniques, specifically a back propagation (BP) neural network, are utilized to invert the boundary conditions of the study area. Finite element numerical simulation software is then applied to model the three-dimensional in situ stress field under coupled flow–solid interaction. The reservoirs in the study area are characterized by a dense structure, low porosity, and low permeability. The results indicate that the maximum horizontal principal stress in the fault fracture reservoir ranges from 68.0 to 72.8 MPa, while the minimum horizontal principal stress ranges from 58.2 to 63.1 MPa. The stress at fractures is lower than that in the surrounding matrix, and stress concentrations occur at both ends of the faults. The in situ stress field exhibits distinct subarea characteristics, with significant stress reductions across fault fractures and directional deflections at faults. These findings provide valuable insights for improving reservoir development efficiency and optimizing well operations in similar geological settings. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Geological Oceanography)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Geographical map of the study area (according to the Sinopec Shengli oilfield branch).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The typical sedimentary structures of deepwater gravity flow deposits in the Sha 3 member of the Linnan Sag.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The lithological characteristics of a specific area in the Linnan Sag.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Reservoir space characteristics in Linnan Sag.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) The well stratification data and seismic data were imported into the Petrel 2021 software to establish the horizon model of the middle sub-member of the 3rd member of Shahejie Formation through the well vibration combination method; (<b>b</b>) the horizon model of the lower sub-member of the 3rd member of Shahejie Formation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Cross faults were combined with the “connect” option in the petrel software; (<b>b</b>) the “smooth” option in the petrel software was used to smooth the crossing.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>After completing the combination and smoothing of faults, the fault model of the study area was finally established.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) Renderings of large natural cracks identified in the study area using ant-tracking techniques with different basic tracking methods.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The model extracted from large natural fractures in the study area shows that the fracture model is irregular and flaky, which is consistent with the actual characteristics of fractures under real formation conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Inside the fault, from the inside to the outside, there are fault gouges located in the fault core, a sliding fracture zone filled with cataclastic rock mass, and an induced fracture zone irregularly developed in the periphery.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Reverse generated grid model of the lower Es3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Based on the fault distance of each fault in the study area, the fault plane model was optimized to the fault body model with the fault gouge and sliding fracture zones. Finally, the fault and fracture models in the lower sub-member of the 3rd member of Shahejie Formation shale reservoir were obtained.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>The overall flow of boundary conditions is determined using machine learning methods.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>BP neural network model is used in this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>BP neural network training error curve at step 945 and the training error, showing that it has met the requirements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Fluid–structure coupling model of the fault fracture with applied boundary conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Size and direction of maximum horizontal principal stress.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Distribution and direction of minimum horizontal principal stress.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Maximum horizontal principal stress distribution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>Minimum horizontal principal stress distribution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>Size and direction of maximum horizontal principal stress under fluid–solid coupling effects.</p>
Full article ">Figure 22
<p>Size and direction of minimum horizontal principal stress under fluid–solid coupling effects.</p>
Full article ">Figure 23
<p>Maximum horizontal principal stress distribution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 24
<p>Minimum horizontal principal stress distribution.</p>
Full article ">Figure 25
<p>Distribution curve of maximum horizontal principal stress in the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 26
<p>Minimum horizontal principal stress distribution curve in the study area.</p>
Full article ">
11 pages, 591 KiB  
Article
Research on Seismic Signal Denoising Model Based on DnCNN Network
by Li Duan, Jianxian Cai, Li Wang and Yan Shi
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(4), 2083; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15042083 - 17 Feb 2025
Viewed by 218
Abstract
Addressing the noise in seismic signals, a prevalent challenge within seismic signal processing, has been the focus of extensive research. Conventional algorithms for seismic signal denoising often fall short due to their reliance on manually determined feature functions and threshold parameters. These limitations [...] Read more.
Addressing the noise in seismic signals, a prevalent challenge within seismic signal processing, has been the focus of extensive research. Conventional algorithms for seismic signal denoising often fall short due to their reliance on manually determined feature functions and threshold parameters. These limitations hinder effective noise removal, resulting in suboptimal signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and post-denoising waveform distortion. To address these shortcomings, this study introduces a novel denoising approach leveraging a DnCNN network. The DnCNN framework, which integrates batch normalization with residual learning, is adept at swiftly identifying and eliminating noise from seismic signals through its residual learning capabilities. To assess the efficacy of this DnCNN-based model, it was rigorously tested against a curated test set and benchmarked against other denoising techniques, including wavelet thresholding, empirical mode decomposition, and convolutional auto-encoders. The findings demonstrate that the DnCNN model not only significantly enhances the SNR and correlation coefficient of the processed seismic signals but also achieves superior noise reduction performance. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Residual learning unit.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Structure diagram of seismic signal denoising model based on DnCNN network.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Examples of seismic event signals contained in the dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Labels corresponding to seismic events.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Examples of noise in the dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Test result example of noise with higher frequency: (<b>a</b>) shows the original seismic event signal, (<b>b</b>) shows the noise-added seismic signal, and (<b>c</b>) shows the denoised seismic signal.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Test result example of noise with lower frequency: (<b>a</b>) shows the original seismic event signal, (<b>b</b>) shows the noise-added seismic signal, and (<b>c</b>) shows the denoised seismic signal.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Waveform diagram of the seismic signal with high SNR and noise signal; (<b>a</b>) seismic signal; (<b>b</b>) noise waveform.</p>
Full article ">
14 pages, 3730 KiB  
Article
Near-Real-Time Event-Driven System for Calculating Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) in Earthquake-Affected Areas: A Critical Tool for Seismic Risk Management in the Campi Flegrei Area
by Claudio Martino, Pasquale Cantiello and Rosario Peluso
GeoHazards 2025, 6(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/geohazards6010008 - 15 Feb 2025
Viewed by 403
Abstract
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the maximum ground shaking intensity during an earthquake. The estimation of PGA in areas affected by earthquakes is a fundamental task in seismic hazard assessment and emergency response. This paper presents an automated service capable [...] Read more.
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the maximum ground shaking intensity during an earthquake. The estimation of PGA in areas affected by earthquakes is a fundamental task in seismic hazard assessment and emergency response. This paper presents an automated service capable of rapidly calculating the PGA’s values in regions impacted by seismic events and publishing its results on an interactive website. The importance of such a service is discussed, focusing on its contribution to timely response efforts and infrastructure resilience. The necessity for automatic and real-time systems in earthquake-prone areas is emphasized, enabling decision-makers to assess damage potential and deploy resources efficiently. Thanks to a collaboration agreement with the Civil Protection Department, we are able to acquire accelerometric data from the Italian National Accelerometric Network (RAN) in real time at the monitoring center of the Osservatorio Vesuviano. These data, in addition to those normally acquired by the INGV network, enable us to utilize all available accelerometric data in the Campi Flegrei area, enhancing our capacity to provide timely and accurate PGA estimates during seismic events in this highly active volcanic region. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The red triangles represent the INGV-OV seismic stations of the permanent seismic network, the blue triangles indicate the RAN accelerometers, and the yellow ones represent the accelerometers temporarily installed by INGV, which integrate the seismic network with proprietary dataloggers and high-quality MEMS accelerometers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Architecture of UrbanSM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Main page of UrbanSM. The page is also available on mobile devices with a simpler interface. The red star represents event location.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Example of Pseudo-Spectral Acceleration for POZA site. ** they represent square power.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Popup to show information on a single seismic station. The red star represents event location.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 8347 KiB  
Article
Shallow Subsurface Wavefield Data Interpolation Method Based on Transfer Learning
by Danfeng Zang, Jian Li, Chuankun Li, Hengran Zhang, Zhipeng Pei and Yixiang Ma
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(4), 1964; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15041964 - 13 Feb 2025
Viewed by 361
Abstract
The deployment density of surface sensors can significantly impact the accuracy of subsurface shallow seismic field energy inversion. With finite budget constraints, it is often not feasible to deploy a large number of sensors, resulting in limited seismic signal acquisition that hinders accurate [...] Read more.
The deployment density of surface sensors can significantly impact the accuracy of subsurface shallow seismic field energy inversion. With finite budget constraints, it is often not feasible to deploy a large number of sensors, resulting in limited seismic signal acquisition that hinders accurate inversion of the shallow subsurface explosions. To address the challenge of insufficient sensor signals needed for inversion, we conducted a study on a subsurface shallow wavefield data interpolation method based on transfer learning. This method is designed to increase the overall signal acquisition by interpolating signals at target locations from limited measurement points. Our research employs neural networks to interpolate real seismic data, supplementing the sampled signals. Given the lack of extensive samples from actual data collection, we devised a training approach that combines numerically simulated signals with real collected signals. Initially, we performed conventional interpolation training using a deep interpolation network with complete synthetic gather images obtained from numerical simulations. Subsequently, the feature extraction part was frozen, and the interpolation network was transferred to real datasets, where it was trained using incomplete gather images. Finally, these incomplete gather images were re-input into the trained network to obtain interpolated results at the target locations. Our study demonstrates the superiority of our method by comparing it with two other interpolation networks and validating the effectiveness of transfer learning through four sets of ablation experiments in the actual test. This method can also be applied to other shallow geological structures to generate a large number of seismic signals for energy inversion. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Overall schematic of transfer learning.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Overall schematic of the depth interpolation model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Schematic diagram of the down-sampling block.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Haar wavelet experimental results: (<b>a</b>) original data (1024 × 64); (<b>b</b>) the approximation (low-low) component (512 × 32); (<b>c</b>) the horizontal detail (low-high) component (512 × 32); (<b>d</b>) the vertical detail (high-low) component (512 × 32); (<b>e</b>) the diagonal detail (high-high) component (512 × 32).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Schematic diagram of the multi-scale convolution block.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Schematic diagram of the up-sampling block.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Target domain training framework.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Simulation of layout diagrams (the dashed line represents the location of the seismic source that needs to be deployed in the text).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Two of the signaling effects: (<b>a</b>) the fifth signal; (<b>b</b>) the 121st signal.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Experimental results: (<b>a</b>) complete data; (<b>b</b>) missing 60% of data; (<b>c</b>) results obtained from migration learning; (<b>d</b>) Method 1: Results of migration learning without wavelet up- and down-sampling; (<b>e</b>) Method 2: Results of migration learning without multi-scale convolutional module; (<b>f</b>) Method 3: Results obtained from training in source domain only; (<b>g</b>) Method 4: Results obtained from training in target domain only.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The <span class="html-italic">f-k</span> spectrum of the experimental results: (<b>a</b>) complete data; (<b>b</b>–<b>f</b>) represent the above five training modalities in turn.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11 Cont.
<p>The <span class="html-italic">f-k</span> spectrum of the experimental results: (<b>a</b>) complete data; (<b>b</b>–<b>f</b>) represent the above five training modalities in turn.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Comparison of extracted signals (the blue curve represents the original signal, and the red curve represents the interpolated signal): (<b>a</b>) transfer learning; (<b>b</b>) Method 2: transfer learning without multi-scale convolutional modules.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Experimental results: (<b>a</b>) complete data; (<b>b</b>) missing 60% of data; (<b>c</b>) results from our network; (<b>d</b>) results from U-resnet; (<b>e</b>) results from CAE; (<b>f</b>) results from MWCNN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The <span class="html-italic">f-k</span> spectrum of the experimental results (the red ellipse indicates areas different from the original image): (<b>a</b>) complete data; (<b>b</b>–<b>e</b>) represent the above five training modalities in turn.</p>
Full article ">
29 pages, 22165 KiB  
Article
Shake Table Tests on Scaled Masonry Building: Comparison of Performance of Various Micro-Electromechanical System Accelerometers (MEMS) for Structural Health Monitoring
by Giuseppe Occhipinti, Francesco Lo Iacono, Giuseppina Tusa, Antonio Costanza, Gioacchino Fertitta, Luigi Lodato, Francesco Macaluso, Claudio Martino, Giuseppe Mugnos, Maria Oliva, Daniele Storni, Gianni Alessandroni, Giacomo Navarra and Domenico Patanè
Sensors 2025, 25(4), 1010; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25041010 - 8 Feb 2025
Viewed by 507
Abstract
This study presents the results of an experimental investigation conducted on a 2:3 scale model of a two-story stone masonry building. We tested the model on the UniKORE L.E.D.A. lab shake table, simulating the Mw 6.3 earthquake ground motion that struck L’Aquila, Italy, [...] Read more.
This study presents the results of an experimental investigation conducted on a 2:3 scale model of a two-story stone masonry building. We tested the model on the UniKORE L.E.D.A. lab shake table, simulating the Mw 6.3 earthquake ground motion that struck L’Aquila, Italy, on 6 April 2009, with progressively increasing peak acceleration levels. We installed a network of accelerometric sensors on the model to capture its structural behaviour under seismic excitation. Medium-to lower-cost MEMS accelerometers (classes A and B) were compared with traditional piezoelectric sensors commonly used in Structural Health Monitoring (SHM). The experiment assessed the structural performance and damage progression of masonry buildings subjected to realistic earthquake inputs. Additionally, the collected data provided valuable insights into the effectiveness of different sensor types and configurations in detecting key vibrational and failure patterns. All the sensors were able to accurately measure the dynamic response during seismic excitation. However, not all of them were suitable for Operational Modal Analysis (OMA) in noisy environments, where their self-noise represents a crucial factor. This suggests that the self-noise of MEMS accelerometers must be less than 1 µg/√Hz, or preferably below 0.5 µg/√Hz, to obtain good results from the OMA. Therefore, we recommend ultra-low-noise sensors for detecting differences in the structural behaviour before and after seismic events. Our findings provide valuable insights into the seismic vulnerability of masonry structures and the effectiveness of sensors in detecting damage. The management of buildings in earthquake-prone areas can benefit from these specifications. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Design dimensions of the four facades of the specimen (units: mm).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Plan view (units: mm) and construction of the wooden floors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Shaking table system at L.E.D.A. Research Institute: (<b>a</b>) single tables; (<b>b</b>) connected tables.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Specimen under test placed on the shaking table. From left to right: (<b>a</b>) facades 1 and 4; (<b>b</b>) facades 3 and 2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of the power spectral densities (PSDs) of self-noise for the three MEMS accelerometers used: Analog Device ADXL355 (red line), Safran-Colibrys VS1002 (blue line), and Seiko-Epson M-A352 QMEMS (orange line). The PSDs of self-noises for the Safran-Colibrys SI1003 (grey line) and of the Episensor ES-T force balance accelerometer (grey line), commonly used for seismology and SHM measurements, are also shown. Lastly, the seismic low-noise model and seismic high-noise model curves (thick black lines) are shown, along with the spectra of earthquakes of different sizes that were measured 10 km from the epicentre (point lines) (modified after Patanè et al. 2024 [<a href="#B2-sensors-25-01010" class="html-bibr">2</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Distribution of the sensors installed on the individual facades of the building under testing: (<b>a</b>) facade 1; (<b>b</b>) facade 2; (<b>c</b>) facade 3; (<b>d</b>) facade 4. Refer to <a href="#sensors-25-01010-t004" class="html-table">Table 4</a> for the sensor codes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Scaled reference accelerograms for a seismic input at 50% of ZPA and the associated Fourier Amplitude Spectra (FAS).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Average HVSR curves at the nine accelerometric stations equipped with Seiko-Epson M-A352 sensors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Stabilization diagram of estimation state space models of sensors with (<b>a</b>) 0.2 µg/√Hz, (<b>b</b>) 18-6-2 µg/√Hz @ 1-10-100 Hz, (<b>c</b>) 7 µg/√Hz, and (<b>d</b>) 25 µg/√Hz during the hydraulic pumps’ activation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Stabilization diagram of estimation state space models of sensors with 0.2 µg/√Hz and modal shape.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of the first frequency (<b>a</b>) before shaking test, and (<b>b</b>) at the end of shaking test.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Seismic signal recorded during the experiment with different inputs from 10% to 50% (<b>a</b>). Stockwell transform, non-normalized (<b>b</b>) and normalized (<b>c</b>), for the signal inputs of 10%, 30%, and 50% recorded at accelerometer M5.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>PFAs and PSAs measured at the stations installed at the first (<b>a</b>) and second (<b>b</b>) levels of the structure, normalized with respect to the ground-level PGAs (measured at station M8), for the different percentages of ZPA (%g) experienced during the shaking table test.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Elastic response spectra calculated for increasing seismic input at the stations installed along the vertical V1 of the structure and for the three directions of motion. In each plot, the values of the period corresponding to the PSA at stations M5 and M6 (arbitrarily chosen as the reference for levels 2 and 1, respectively) are also shown.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Normalized response spectra with respect to the values measured at the M8 station installed at the ground level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Qualitative damage distribution on all four facades.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Details of two damaged areas: (<b>a</b>) the lower right corner of facade 3, and (<b>b</b>) the right masonry wall of facade 4.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Planar seismic response for each sensor type on vertical V1 at each level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18 Cont.
<p>Planar seismic response for each sensor type on vertical V1 at each level.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 3622 KiB  
Article
Analysis of Aftershocks from California and Synthetic Series by Using Visibility Graph Algorithm
by Alejandro Muñoz-Diosdado, Ana María Aguilar-Molina, Eric Eduardo Solis-Montufar and José Alberto Zamora-Justo
Entropy 2025, 27(2), 178; https://doi.org/10.3390/e27020178 - 8 Feb 2025
Viewed by 445
Abstract
The use of the Visibility Graph Algorithm (VGA) has proven to be a valuable tool for analyzing both real and synthetic seismicity series. Specifically, VGA transforms time series into a network representation in which structural properties such as node connectivity, clustering, and community [...] Read more.
The use of the Visibility Graph Algorithm (VGA) has proven to be a valuable tool for analyzing both real and synthetic seismicity series. Specifically, VGA transforms time series into a network representation in which structural properties such as node connectivity, clustering, and community structure can be quantitatively measured, thereby revealing underlying correlations and dynamics that may remain hidden in traditional linear or spectral analyses. The time series transformation into complex networks with VGA provides a new approach to analyze seismic dynamics, allowing scientists to extract trends and behaviors that may not be possible by classical time-series analysis. On the other hand, many studies attempt to find viable trends in order to identify preparation mechanisms prior to a strong earthquake or to analyze the aftershocks. In this work, the seismic activity of Southern California Earthquake was analyzed focusing only on the significant earthquakes. For this purpose, seismic series preceding and following each earthquake were constructed using a windowing method with different overlaps and the slope of the connectivity (k) versus magnitude (M) graph (k-M slope) and the average degree were computed from the mapped complex networks. The results revealed a significant decrease in these parameters after the earthquake, due to the contribution of the aftershocks from the main event. Interestingly, the study was extended to synthetic seismicity series and the same behavior was observed for both k-M slope and average degree. This finding suggests that the spring-block model reproduces a relaxation mechanism following a large-magnitude event like those of real seismic aftershocks. However, this conclusion contrasts with conclusions drawn by other researchers. These results highlight the utility of VGA in studying events that precede and follow major earthquakes. This technique may be used to extract some useful trends in seismicity, which could eventually be employed for a deeper understanding and possible forecasting of seismic behavior. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Time Series Analysis in Earthquake Complex Networks)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Explanation of the visibility graph algorithm. Each event is represented by a node in the visibility graph. Two nodes are connected if the straight line joining them is not intersected by another event. In this figure, it can be seen the connected events (green dashed line).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The map showing the locations of earthquakes with a magnitude of 7 or greater from the southern California catalog.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Illustration of the windowing process applied to the seismicity series. The series was divided into overlapping windows of 1024 events before and after the earthquake of great magnitude, with labels 1st W-B and 1st W-A for the first windows before and after the event, and 2nd W-B and 2nd W-A for the second windows before and after.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Illustration of the spatial variation of the events included (<b>a</b>) before and (<b>b</b>) after the 2019 earthquake. Only events with a magnitude of 2.5 or greater are shown.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Illustration of the complex network and connectivity vs. magnitude graph formed by the seismicity series from California (<b>a</b>) before and (<b>b</b>) after a great earthquake, as well as the complex network and <span class="html-italic">k-M</span> plots formed by synthetic seismicity series (<b>c</b>) before and (<b>d</b>) after the earthquake. It can be observed that before the earthquake, the networks form fewer clusters of larger size, while those networks after the earthquake form a greater number of clusters with fewer nodes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p><span class="html-italic">k-M</span> slope and average degree values obtained from California seismicity series of the (<b>a</b>) 1992, (<b>b</b>) 1999, (<b>c</b>) 2010, and (<b>d</b>) 2019 earthquakes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p><span class="html-italic">k-M</span> slope and average degree values obtained from synthetic seismicity series of the (<b>a</b>) earthquake 1, (<b>b</b>) earthquake 2, and (<b>c</b>) earthquake 3.</p>
Full article ">
27 pages, 4232 KiB  
Article
Data-Driven Machine-Learning-Based Seismic Response Prediction and Damage Classification for an Unreinforced Masonry Building
by Nagavinothini Ravichandran, Butsawan Bidorn, Oya Mercan and Balamurugan Paneerselvam
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(4), 1686; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15041686 - 7 Feb 2025
Viewed by 698
Abstract
Unreinforced masonry buildings are highly vulnerable to earthquake damage due to their limited ability to withstand lateral loads, compared to other structures. Therefore, a detailed assessment of the seismic response and resultant damage associated with such buildings becomes necessary. The present study employs [...] Read more.
Unreinforced masonry buildings are highly vulnerable to earthquake damage due to their limited ability to withstand lateral loads, compared to other structures. Therefore, a detailed assessment of the seismic response and resultant damage associated with such buildings becomes necessary. The present study employs machine learning models to effectively predict the seismic response and classify the damage level for a benchmark unreinforced masonry building. In this regard, eight regression-based models, namely, Linear Regression (LR), Stepwise Linear Regression (SLR), Ridge Regression (RR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), and Neural Networks (NN), were used to predict the building’s responses. Additionally, eight classification-based models, namely, Naïve Bayes (NB), Discriminant Analysis (DA), K-Nearest Neighbours (KNN), Adaptive Boosting (AB), DT, RF, SVM, and NN, were explored for the purpose of categorizing the damage states of the building. The material properties of the masonry and the earthquake intensity were considered as the input parameters. The results from the regression models indicate that the GPR model efficiently predicts the seismic response with larger coefficients of determination and smaller root mean square error values than other models. Among the classification-based models, the RF, AB, and NN models effectively classify the damage states with accuracy levels of 92.9%, 91.1%, and 92.6%, respectively. In conclusion, the overall performance of the non-parametric models, such as GPR, NN, and RF, was found to be better than that of the parametric models. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Structural Seismic Design and Evaluation)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Methodology of the study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Typical URM building with reinforced concrete slab in India.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Plan of the benchmark URM building [<a href="#B30-applsci-15-01686" class="html-bibr">30</a>,<a href="#B31-applsci-15-01686" class="html-bibr">31</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) FE model of the benchmark URM building; (<b>b</b>) normal stress–strain curve; and (<b>c</b>) shear stress–strain curve.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Variation of PGA for the selected ground-motion records with (<b>a</b>) moment magnitude; and (<b>b</b>) epicentral distance.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Limit-states definition of the URM building.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Distribution of the damage states in the developed database.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Actual response and predicted response by the regression models: (<b>a</b>) LR, (<b>b</b>) SLR, (<b>c</b>) RR, (<b>d</b>) DT, (<b>e</b>) RF, (<b>f</b>) SVM, (<b>g</b>) GPR, and (<b>h</b>) NN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison of results of training and test sets of regression models: (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mrow> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>2</mn> </mrow> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> values and (<b>b</b>) RMSE values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Percentage variations for the (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mrow> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>2</mn> </mrow> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> and (<b>b</b>) RMSE values of the training and test sets of the regression models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Confusion matrices for the classification models in terms of damage state identification: (<b>a</b>) NB, (<b>b</b>) DA, (<b>c</b>) KNN, (<b>d</b>) DT, (<b>e</b>) RF, (<b>f</b>) AB, (<b>g</b>) SVM, and (<b>h</b>) NN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Comparison of results of the classification models: (<b>a</b>) accuracy, (<b>b</b>) F1 score, (<b>c</b>) precision, and (<b>d</b>) recall.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Relative importance of input parameters affecting the Random Forest classification model.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 7208 KiB  
Article
Statistical Characteristics of Strong Earthquake Sequence in Northeastern Tibetan Plateau
by Ying Wang, Rui Wang, Peng Han, Tao Zhao, Miao Miao, Lina Su, Zhaodi Jin and Jiancang Zhuang
Entropy 2025, 27(2), 174; https://doi.org/10.3390/e27020174 - 6 Feb 2025
Viewed by 407
Abstract
As the forefront of inland extension on the Indian plate, the northeastern Tibetan Plateau, marked by low strain rates and high stress levels, is one of the regions with the highest seismic risk. Analyzing seismicity through statistical methods holds significant scientific value for [...] Read more.
As the forefront of inland extension on the Indian plate, the northeastern Tibetan Plateau, marked by low strain rates and high stress levels, is one of the regions with the highest seismic risk. Analyzing seismicity through statistical methods holds significant scientific value for understanding tectonic conditions and assessing earthquake risk. However, seismic monitoring capacity in this region remains limited, and earthquake frequency is low, complicating efforts to improve earthquake catalogs through enhanced identification and localization techniques. Bi-scale empirical probability integral transformation (BEPIT), a statistical method, can address these data gaps by supplementing missing events shortly after moderate to large earthquakes, resulting in a more reliable statistical data set. In this study, we analyzed six earthquake sequences with magnitudes of MS ≥ 6.0 that occurred in northeastern Tibet since 2009, following the upgrade of the regional seismic network. Using BEPIT, we supplemented short-term missing aftershocks in these sequences, creating a more complete earthquake catalog. ETAS model parameters and b values for these sequences were then estimated using maximum likelihood methods to analyze parameter variability across sequences. The findings indicate that the b value is low, reflecting relatively high regional stress. The background seismicity rate is very low, with most mainshocks in these sequences being background events rather than foreshock-driven events. The p-parameter of the ETAS model is high, indicating that aftershocks decay relatively quickly, while the α-parameter is also elevated, suggesting that aftershocks are predominantly induced by the mainshock. These conditions suggest that earthquake prediction in this region is challenging through seismicity analysis alone, and alternative approaches integrating non-seismic data, such as electromagnetic and fluid monitoring, may offer more viable solutions. This study provides valuable insights into earthquake forecasting in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Time Series Analysis in Earthquake Complex Networks)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The spatial distribution of six earthquake sequences with a mainshock of <span class="html-italic">M</span><sub>S</sub> ≥ 6.0 in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau since 2010. The seismic events are represented by red dots, scaled according to their magnitudes. The mainshocks of each sequence are distinguished by yellow five-pointed stars, and the individual focal mechanisms of the mainshocks are marked. Tectonic blocks are delineated by solid blue lines, while tectonic fractures are depicted by solid black lines. Additionally, observation stations are denoted by light blue triangles in the diagram. The focal mechanism results were obtained from the Global CMT Catalog (<a href="http://www.globalcmt.org" target="_blank">www.globalcmt.org</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The supplementary results of the aftershock data of the 2021 <span class="html-italic">M</span><sub>S</sub>7.4 Maduo earthquake obtained by using BEPIT. (<b>a</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual seismic events and missing event ranges; (<b>b</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time after the double-scale transformation technique (Step 1); (<b>c</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 5); (<b>d</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time outside of the missing event range after the double-scale transformation technique (Steps 2 and 3); (<b>e</b>) shows the cumulative number of earthquakes in the original data set (gray curve) and the supplementary data set (black curve); and (<b>f</b>) shows the empirical distribution of the magnitude and timing of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 4). The blue polygon on (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) is the region where the missing event is located, and its corresponding mapping and the green dots on (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>) are the supplementary events. The <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis and <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis in (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) are the empirical time and empirical magnitude transformed from time and magnitude by BEPIT.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The supplementary results of the aftershock data of the 2013 <span class="html-italic">M</span><sub>S</sub>6.6 Minxian earthquake obtained by using BEPIT. (<b>a</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual seismic events and missing event ranges; (<b>b</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time after the double-scale transformation technique (Step 1); (<b>c</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 5); (<b>d</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time outside of the missing event range after the double-scale transformation technique (Steps 2 and 3); (<b>e</b>) shows the cumulative number of earthquakes in the original data set (gray curve) and the supplementary data set (black curve); and (<b>f</b>) shows the empirical distribution of the magnitude and the timing of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 4). The blue polygon in (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) is the region where the missing event is located, and its corresponding mapping and the green dots in (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>) are the supplementary events. The <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis and <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis in (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) are the empirical time and empirical magnitude transformed from time and magnitude by BEPIT.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The supplementary results of aftershock data of the 2016 <span class="html-italic">M</span><sub>S</sub>6.4 Menyuan earthquake obtained by using BEPIT. (<b>a</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual seismic events and missing event ranges; (<b>b</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time after the double-scale transformation technique (Step 1); (<b>c</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 5); (<b>d</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time outside of the missing event range after the double-scale transformation technique (Steps 2 and 3); (<b>e</b>) shows the cumulative number of earthquakes in the original data set (gray curve) and the supplementary data set (black curve); and (<b>f</b>) shows the empirical distribution of the magnitude and the timing of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 4). The blue polygon in (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) is the region where the missing event is located, and its corresponding mapping and the green dots in (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>) are the supplementary events. The <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis and <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis in (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) are the empirical time and empirical magnitude transformed from time and magnitude by BEPIT.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The supplementary results of aftershock data of the 2017 <span class="html-italic">M</span><sub>S</sub>7.0 Jiuzhaigou earthquake obtained by using BEPIT. (<b>a</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual seismic events and missing event ranges; (<b>b</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time after the double-scale transformation technique (Step 1); (<b>c</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 5); (<b>d</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time outside of the missing event range after the double-scale transformation technique (Steps 2 and 3); (<b>e</b>) shows the cumulative number of earthquakes in the original data set (gray curve) and the supplementary data set (black curve); and (<b>f</b>) shows the empirical distribution of the magnitude and timing of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 4). The blue polygon in (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) is the region where the missing event is located, and its corresponding mapping and the green dots in (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>) are the supplementary events. The <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis and <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis in (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) are the empirical time and empirical magnitude transformed from time and magnitude by BEPIT.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The supplementary results of aftershock data of the 2022 <span class="html-italic">M</span><sub>S</sub>6.9 Menyuan earthquake obtained by using BEPIT. (<b>a</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual seismic events and missing event ranges; (<b>b</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time after the double-scale transformation technique (Step 1); (<b>c</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 5); (<b>d</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time outside of the missing event range after the double-scale transformation technique (Steps 2 and 3); (<b>e</b>) shows the cumulative number of earthquakes in the original data set (gray curve) and the supplementary data set (black curve); and (<b>f</b>) shows the empirical distribution of the magnitude and timing of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 4). The blue polygon in (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) is the region where the missing event is located, and its corresponding mapping and the green dots in (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>) are the supplementary events. The <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis and <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis in (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) are the empirical time and empirical magnitude transformed from time and magnitude by BEPIT.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The supplementary results of aftershock data of the 2022 <span class="html-italic">M</span><sub>S</sub>6.0 Maerkang earthquake obtained by using BEPIT. (<b>a</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual seismic events and missing event ranges; (<b>b</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time after the double-scale transformation technique (Step 1); (<b>c</b>) shows the magnitude and occurrence time of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 5); (<b>d</b>) shows the empirical distribution of magnitude and the event occurrence time outside the missing event range after the double-scale transformation technique (Steps 2 and 3); (<b>e</b>) shows the cumulative number of earthquakes in the original data set (gray curve) and the supplementary data set (black curve); and (<b>f</b>) shows the empirical distribution of the magnitude and timing of actual and supplementary seismic events (Step 4). The blue polygon in (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) is the region where the missing event is located, and its corresponding mapping and the green dots in (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>) are the supplementary events. The <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis and <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis in (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) are the empirical time and empirical magnitude transformed from time and magnitude by BEPIT.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The <span class="html-italic">b</span> values of the six seismic sequences. The histogram represents the magnitude–frequency distribution of the sequence, the blue dots represent the magnitude–frequency distribution under the logarithmic relationship, and the black dashed lines represent the results of fitting using the G-R.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 1522 KiB  
Article
Frequency Response Extension Method of MET Vector Hydrophone Based on Dynamic Feedback Network
by Fang Bian, Ang Li, Hongyuan Yang, Fan Zheng, Dapeng Yang, Huaizhu Zhang, Linhang Zhang and Ruojin Li
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(3), 1620; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031620 - 5 Feb 2025
Viewed by 421
Abstract
Hydrophone is a key component of marine seismic exploration systems, divided into a scalar hydrophone and vector hydrophone. The electrochemical vector hydrophone has attracted much attention due to its high sensitivity and low-frequency detection capability. With the development of noise reduction technology, high-frequency [...] Read more.
Hydrophone is a key component of marine seismic exploration systems, divided into a scalar hydrophone and vector hydrophone. The electrochemical vector hydrophone has attracted much attention due to its high sensitivity and low-frequency detection capability. With the development of noise reduction technology, high-frequency noise has been effectively suppressed, while low-frequency noise is still difficult to control, which has become a key issue in the monitoring of underwater target radiation noise. The traditional electrochemical vector hydrophone based on the molecular electron transfer (MET) principle is limited in the working bandwidth in the low-frequency band, which affects the detection capability of low-frequency radiation signals from underwater targets. In order to solve this problem, a frequency response extension method of a MET electrochemical vector hydrophone based on dynamic feedback network is proposed. By introducing a dynamic force balance negative feedback system based on a digital signal processor (DSP), the working bandwidth of the hydrophone is extended, and the detection capability of low-frequency signals is enhanced. At the same time, the system has field adjustability and can resist the long-term system frequency characteristic drift. Experimental results show that the proposed method effectively improves the frequency response performance of the electrochemical vector hydrophone, providing a new technical solution for its application in the monitoring of low-frequency radiation noise from underwater targets. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic diagram of electrochemical hydrophone.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>METH electrode principle; (<b>a</b>) concentration distribution without external pressure changes, (<b>b</b>) concentration distribution <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>c</mi> <mo>(</mo> <mi>x</mi> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> affected by the incoming liquid flow.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Schematic of the digital force balance feedback METH; (<b>a</b>) The internal structure showing magnetic rubber and coil components. (<b>b</b>) The physical image of the device.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Block diagram of the METH system without force balance feedback.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Block diagram of the METH system with force balance feedback.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Implementation of the digital force balance feedback system.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Schematic diagram of the preamplifier circuit.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Hydrophone sensitivity test environment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Hydrophone closed-loop frequency response.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Hydrophone directivity test.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Hydrophone closed-loop frequency response adaptive adjustment after drift.</p>
Full article ">
35 pages, 18876 KiB  
Article
Spatio-Temporal Correlation Between Radon Emissions and Seismic Activity: An Example Based on the Vrancea Region (Romania)
by David Montiel-López, Sergio Molina, Juan José Galiana-Merino, Igor Gómez, Alireza Kharazian, Juan Luís Soler-Llorens, José Antonio Huesca-Tortosa, Arianna Guardiola-Villora and Gonzalo Ortuño-Sáez
Sensors 2025, 25(3), 933; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25030933 - 4 Feb 2025
Viewed by 862
Abstract
Radon gas anomalies have been investigated as potential earthquake precursors for many years. In this work, we have studied the possible correlations between radon emissions and the seismic activity rate for a given region to test if the existing correlation may be later [...] Read more.
Radon gas anomalies have been investigated as potential earthquake precursors for many years. In this work, we have studied the possible correlations between radon emissions and the seismic activity rate for a given region to test if the existing correlation may be later used to forecast the occurrence of earthquakes larger than a given magnitude. The Vrancea region (Romania) was chosen as a study area since it is being surveilled by a multidisciplinary real-time monitoring network, and at least seven earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 4.5 Mw have occurred in this area in the period from 2016 to 2020. Our research followed several steps: First, the recorded radon signals were preprocessed (detrended, deseasoned and smoothed). Then, the station’s signals were correlated in order to check which stations are recording radon anomalies due to the same regional tectonic process. On the other hand, the seismic activity rate was computed using the earthquakes in the main catalogue of the region that are able to generate radon emissions and can be registered at several stations. The obtained results indicate a significant correlation between the seismic activity rate and the temporal series of radon anomalies. A temporal lag between the seismic activity rate and the radon anomalies was found, which can be related to the proximity to the epicentre of the main earthquake in each of the studied subperiods. Changes in the regional tectonic stress field could explain why the seismic activity rate and radon anomalies are correlated over time. Further research could focus on obtaining a function to forecast the seismic activity rate using the following as dependent variables: the radon anomalies recorded at several stations, the distance from the stations, and tectonic factors such as the fault system, azimuth, type of soil, etc. Full article
(This article belongs to the Collection Seismology and Earthquake Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The ROMPLUScatalogue for the Vrancea region (Romania) from 1984 to 2023. The colour of the markers depends on the magnitude of the events. Regarding size, the events with magnitudes of less than 4.5 are represented by 0.1 cm markers, whereas a 0.2 cm diameter was chosen for events with greater magnitudes. The blue squares mark the location of the multi-parametric stations in the Vrancea region. The blue rectangle in the inset represents the area of study in the main plot, whereas the red polygon represents Romania.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The <sup>222</sup><span class="html-italic">Rn</span> signal time series for the preselected multi-parametric stations located inside the area of study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The <sup>222</sup><span class="html-italic">Rn</span> signal without gaps for the selected stations. The green sections of the data plot show the periods with gaps in the original signal. The dashed lines constrain the values within the plus/minus standard deviation. The stars mark the strong earthquakes listed in <a href="#sensors-25-00933-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> that are within the period covered by the radon time series.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The <math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mo>Δ</mo> <mn>222</mn> </msup> </semantics></math><span class="html-italic">Rn</span> signal for the selected stations. The solid black line marks the median value and the dashed black lines constrain the values within the plus/minus standard deviation. The stars mark the strong earthquakes listed in <a href="#sensors-25-00933-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> that are within the period covered by the radon time series.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>A 2D histogram plot for the Depth–Magnitude distribution of Vrancea’s seismic catalogue for events with quality better than or equal to C. The inset in the bottom right corner shows the number of earthquakes in each depth bin.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The circles around the blue squares (station locations) represent the 30 km influence area. The colour of the markers depends on the magnitude of the events. Regarding size, the events with magnitudes of less than 4.5 are represented by 0.1 cm markers, whereas a 0.2 cm diameter was chosen for events with greater magnitudes. The stars mark the earthquakes from <a href="#sensors-25-00933-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Seismic activity rate for magnitudes greater than or equal to the 3.0 Mw computed for the selected multi-parametric stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>A cross-correlation matrix for the period from August 2016 to December 2016 with a 15-day moving average filter applied to the radon residuals. The upper triangular matrix represents the correlation plot for the stations where the solid red line is the fit for the correlation coefficient, the main diagonal represents the histogram and distribution for each of the stations, and the lower triangular matrix represents the Kernel Density Estimate (KDE) plot for the bivariate distributions. The asterisk notation in the correlation coefficient (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ρ</mi> </semantics></math>) indicates the <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value range, meaning that **** equals a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value of less than 0.0001, and no asterisk means a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value &gt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Radon signal compared with annual seismic activity. The solid red line marks the median value for the radon residual, and the dashed red lines constrain the standard deviation for the radon residual. The yellow line marks the date of the 23 September 2016 earthquake, and the golden line the 27 December 2016 earthquake.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Foreach of the three stations, the radon residual signal is shown with coloured circles according to the maximum correlation value achieved during the correlation analysis that spans from that point to the end of the correlation window. The black lines represent the seismic activity rate for each of the station locations. The first row presents the raw (non-smoothed) signals, the second row shows both signals with a 15-day moving average filter applied, and the third row shows them with a 30-day moving average filter. The vertical red line marks the date of the earthquake, 23 September 2016.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>A map showing the lag between the radon residual and the seismic activity rate for each of the studied stations in the region for the period in which the 23 September 2016 earthquake occurred in Vrancea. The colour inside the circles is related to the lag value through the shown colour bar.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>(<b>Top</b>): Time–Distance plot for the Mw ≥ 3 earthquakes from August 2016 until September 2016 projected along the A-A′ cross-section. The colour indicates the depth of the events and the size is proportional to the magnitude. (<b>Bottom</b>): Map with the epicentres, station location and cross-section trace.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Map showing the lag between the radon residual and the seismic activity rate for each of the studied station in the region for the period in which the 8 February 2017 earthquake occurred in Vrancea. The colour inside the circles is related with the lag value through the shown colour bar. It can be seen that the closer to the epicentre location, the more negative the lag, meaning the radon peak is reached earlier than the seismic activity rate peak.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>(<b>Top</b>): A Time–Distance plot for the Mw ≥ 3 earthquakes from December 2016 to February 2017 projected along the A-A′ cross-section. The colour indicates the depth of the events, and the size is proportional to the magnitude. (<b>Bottom</b>): A map with the epicentres, station location and cross-section trace.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14 Cont.
<p>(<b>Top</b>): A Time–Distance plot for the Mw ≥ 3 earthquakes from December 2016 to February 2017 projected along the A-A′ cross-section. The colour indicates the depth of the events, and the size is proportional to the magnitude. (<b>Bottom</b>): A map with the epicentres, station location and cross-section trace.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>A map showing the lag between the radon residual and the seismic activity rate for each of the studied stations in the region for the period in which the 28 October 2018 earthquake occurred in Vrancea. The colour inside the circles is related to the lag value through the shown colour bar.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>(<b>Top</b>): A Time–Distance plot for the Mw ≥ 3 earthquakes from August 2018 to October 2018 projected along the A-A′ cross-section. The colour indicates the depth of the events, and the size is proportional to the magnitude. (<b>Bottom</b>): A map with the epicentres, station location and cross-section trace.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>The 15-day moving average applied to the <math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mo>Δ</mo> <mn>222</mn> </msup> </semantics></math><span class="html-italic">Rn</span> signal for the selected stations. The solid black line marks the median value, and the dashed black lines constrain the values within the plus/minus standard deviation. The stars mark the strong earthquakes listed in <a href="#sensors-25-00933-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> that are within the period covered by the radon time series.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>The 30-day moving average applied to the <math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mo>Δ</mo> <mn>222</mn> </msup> </semantics></math><span class="html-italic">Rn</span> signal for the selected stations. The solid black line marks the median value, and the dashed black lines constrain the values within the plus/minus standard deviation. The stars mark the strong earthquakes listed in <a href="#sensors-25-00933-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a> that are within the period covered by the radon time series.</p>
Full article ">Figure A3
<p>A cross-correlation matrix for all the periods with non-smoothed radon residuals. The upper triangular matrix represents the correlation plot for the stations where the solid red line is the fit for the correlation coefficient, the main diagonal represents the histogram and distribution for each of the stations, and the lower triangular matrix represents the Kernel Density Estimate (KDE) plot for the bivariate distributions. The asterisk notation in the correlation coefficient (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ρ</mi> </semantics></math>) indicates the <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value range, meaning that * equals a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value less than 0.05, ** a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value less than 0.01, *** a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value less than 0.001, **** a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value less than 0.0001, and no asterisk a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value &gt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure A4
<p>A cross-correlation matrix for all the periods with 15-day moving averaged radon residuals. The upper triangular matrix represents the correlation plot for the stations where the solid red line is the fit for the correlation coefficient, the main diagonal represents the histogram and distribution for each of the stations, and the lower triangular matrix represents the Kernel Density Estimate (KDE) plot for the bivariate distributions. The asterisk notation in the correlation coefficient (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ρ</mi> </semantics></math>) indicates the <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value range, meaning that * equals a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value less than 0.05, ** a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value less than 0.01, **** a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value less than 0.0001, and no asterisk a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value &gt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure A5
<p>A cross-correlation matrix for all the periods with 15-day moving averaged radon residuals. The upper triangular matrix represents the correlation plot for the stations where the solid red line is the fit for the correlation coefficient, the main diagonal represents the histogram and distribution for each of the stations, and the lower triangular matrix represents the Kernel Density Estimate (KDE) plot for the bivariate distributions. The asterisk notation in the correlation coefficient (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ρ</mi> </semantics></math>) indicates the <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value range, meaning that, **** a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value less than 0.0001, and no asterisk a <span class="html-italic">p</span>-value &gt; 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure A6
<p>For each of the three stations, the radon residual signal is shown with coloured circles according to the maximum correlation value achieved during the correlation analysis that spans from that point to the end of the correlation window. The black lines represent the seismic activity rate for each of the stations. The first row presents the raw (non-smoothed) signals, the second row shows both signals with a 15-day moving average filter applied, and the third row shows them with a 30-day moving average filter. The vertical red line marks the date of the earthquake, 27 December 2016.</p>
Full article ">Figure A7
<p>For each of the three stations, the radon residual signal is shown with coloured circles according to the maximum correlation value achieved during the correlation analysis that spans from that point to the end of the correlation window. The black lines represent the seismic activity rate for each of the stations. The first row presents the raw (non-smoothed) signals, the second row shows both signals with a 15-day moving average filter applied, and the third row shows them with a 30-day moving average filter. The vertical red line marks the date of the earthquake, 8 February 2017.</p>
Full article ">Figure A8
<p>For each of the three stations, the radon residual signal is shown with coloured circles according to the maximum correlation value achieved during the correlation analysis that spans from that point to the end of the correlation window. The black lines represent the seismic activity rate for each of the stations. The first row presents the raw (non-smoothed) signals, the second row shows both signals with a 15-day moving average filter applied, and the third row shows them with a 30-day moving average filter. The vertical red line marks the date of the earthquake, 2 August 2017.</p>
Full article ">Figure A9
<p>For each of the three stations, the radon residual signal is shown with coloured circles according to the maximum correlation value achieved during the correlation analysis that spans from that point to the end of the correlation window. The black lines represent the seismic activity rate for each of the stations. The first row presents the raw (non-smoothed) signals, the second row shows both signals with a 15-day moving average filter applied, and the third row shows them with a 30-day moving average filter. The vertical red line marks the date of the earthquake, 28 October 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure A10
<p>For each of the three stations, the radon residual signal is shown with coloured circles according to the maximum correlation value achieved during the correlation analysis that spans from that point to the end of the correlation window. The black lines represent the seismic activity rate for each of the stations. The first row presents the raw (non-smoothed) signals, the second row shows both signals with a 15-day moving average filter applied, and the third row shows them with a 30-day moving average filter. The vertical red line marks the date of the earthquake, 31 January 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure A11
<p>A map showing the lag between the radon residual and the seismic activity rate for each of the studied stations in the region for the period in which the 2 August 2017 earthquake occurred in Vrancea. The colour inside the circles is related with the lag value through the shown colour bar. It should be noted that, as pointed out in the discussion, some of these lag values are not correctly computed due to the miscorrelation of signals.</p>
Full article ">Figure A12
<p>(<b>Top</b>): A Time–Distance plot for the Mw ≥ 3 earthquakes from June 2017 to August 2017 projected along the A-A′ cross-section. The colour indicates the depth of the events, and the size is proportional to the magnitude. (<b>Bottom</b>): A map with the epicentres, station location and cross-section trace.</p>
Full article ">Figure A13
<p>A map showing the lag between the radon residual and the seismic activity rate for each of the studied stations in the region for the period in which the 31 January 2020 earthquake occurred in Vrancea. The colour inside the circles is related to the lag value through the shown colour bar. It should be noted that, as pointed out in the discussion, some of these lag values are not correctly computed due to the miscorrelation of signals.</p>
Full article ">Figure A14
<p>(<b>Top</b>): A Time–Distance plot for the Mw ≥ 3 earthquakes from November 2019 to January 2020 projected along the A-A′ cross-section. The colour indicates the depth of the events, and the size is proportional to the magnitude. (<b>Bottom</b>): A map with the epicentres, station location and cross-section trace.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop