Demonstrates the effectiveness of spectral amplitude decomposition in discriminating seismic events in Utah, suggesting improved accuracy for seismic networks.
Discrimination between small magnitude (M < 3.5) natural earthquakes and anthropogenic events is a key part of routine seismic network operations for accuracy of earthquake catalogs, seismic hazard analysis, and test-ban treaty verification. However, this remains challenging at local distances (< 125 km) likely because of increased sampling of heterogeneous Earth structure. Thus, correcting for propagation effects and site response is a key step in the discrimination process, and it has been applied at both regional and local distances. We apply a spectral amplitude decomposition technique that allows for a flexible data-driven fitting of site response and a combined geometrical spreading and anelastic attenuation term to discriminate small-magnitude earthquakes (EQs), explosions (EXs), and mining-induced seismicity (MIS) in Utah, United States. We measure root mean square amplitudes in the time domain for Pg and Sg phases in five frequency bands: 2–5, 5–10, 10–15, 15–20, and 20–30 Hz. We evaluate the performance of the site- and propagation-corrected amplitudes in each frequency band using low- to high-frequency Sg and Pg ratios and Pg/Sg cross-spectral ratios. EQs are best separated from anthropogenic events (EX and MIS) using cross-spectral ratios in the 2–5 and 5–10 Hz frequency range, owing to both EX and MIS being comparatively depleted in high-frequency Sg energy. EX and MIS are best separated using Pg/Sg ratios < 10 Hz, with EXs tending toward more Sg energy than MIS at these frequencies. We further analyze suspected single-fired (SFX) and delay- (ripple)-fired EXs and find SFXs separate more strongly from MIS using Pg/Sg ratios < 5 Hz. Finally, we find that the differential values between source excitation terms and reference magnitudes (Mw, ML, and Mc) provide additional discriminatory abilities warranting further study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hutchings et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: