Monthly Archives: May 2024

Daily analysis of seismic events investigates the sources of seismic signals

The Institute of Seismology frequently receives inquiries from the media and citizens about various shaking observations.

The Institute has several channels to report or send inquiries on these observations. In addition to calling the info-phone of the Institute of Seismology, you can send an email or fill out an observation form on our website. Links and other contact information can be found on the Institute’s website. Every observation will be examined, and if necessary, we will carry out an analysis of the event. An explanation cannot always be found simply by looking seismograms, as some of the event sources are very weak and local. In these cases, only a very close seismic station can detect the signal. On the other hand, the source may be elsewhere than in bedrock, for example, an air-borne pressure wave can also cause windows to vibrate.

Based on the observation sent to us, we check the data from the nearest seismic stations for the time indicated. If the seismic event is strong enough, it may already be visible on our website “Seismic bulletins” where you can find “Local explosions and earthquakes today“. This page contains a map and a list of seismic events automatically detected and located by our software system. Because it is an automated list, i.e. a person has not checked it, the locations can be inaccurate at times, and there may even be incorrect events when the software combines signal peaks caused by frost, for example.

An analyst, i.e. a seismic data analyzer, searches for data from seismic stations at the requested observation time. Data is searched for a possible seismic event, the source of which is usually an explosion or an earthquake, but sometimes cave-in, landslide or frost quake can cause a signal. The first signal is marked as the longitudinal wave or P wave, and a slightly slower wave is marked as transverse wave or S wave. When these waves have been determined for several seismic stations, the difference in the velocity between P and S waves can be used to calculate the distance between the source and the station, and the source of the signal is likely to be found at or near the intersection of these distances. The more seismic stations are available around the source, the more precise location can be determined for the event. For example, seismic events in Finland tend to be located closer to the real source than seismic events outside Finland.

The analyst will also try to determine the seismic event mechanism as best as possible. Most seismic events observed in Finland (about 18,000 per year) are explosions at mines, quarries or construction sites. Explosions in mines and quarries are typically made as a series of multiple blasts, where bets are placed at certain distances from each other and are detonated with a slight delay. For explosions such as these, the signal is characterized by a steady distribution of energy in all directions and the typical waveforms generated by different blasting techniques (Figure 1). The explosions aim to dampen some energy frequencies and typically form a striped pattern in energy spectra (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Typical signal from an explosion observed in seismograms.

Figure 2. Typical striped energy distribution caused by an explosion. The left vertical axis denotes frequency, and the color scale describes the signal strength (i.e. the amount of energy). The image shows the OUF station’s observation of the explosion at Kaustinen.

However, with earthquakes, energy is distributed in different directions depending on the type of movement in the bedrock that caused the signal (Figure 3). In the energy spectra of the earthquake, energy has been distributed evenly across all frequencies, especially at closer seismic stations (Figure 4). A small seismic event, overlying locations, or duplication of another seismic event can make it more difficult to determine the source.

Figure 3. Earthquake happened in Kuusamo on 2 May 2024. Figure shows registrations from different seismic stations in Finland.

Figure 4. The energy distribution produced by the Kuusamo quake (from MSF station) is characteristic of the earthquake. The left vertical axis denotes frequency, and the color scale describes the signal strength (i.e. the amount of energy).

Finally, the analyst determines the magnitude of the event by measuring the amplitude of the strongest signal at different stations, from which the local magnitude is calculated to the seismic event. Once all parameters have been obtained, the result will be published on our website. Earthquakes are immediately visible through an earthquake search. In addition, earthquakes will appear within a few working days after the remaining seismic events of that day have been analysed, “Seismic bulletins” from the tab “Analyst-reviewed bulletins” of the page “daily bulletins of seismic events in Northern Europe” with explosions and other seismic events.

Kati Oinonen, seismologist

Environmental Seismology – Monitoring More than Earthquakes

Over the last 100 years, the sensitivity of seismic instruments has improved by many orders of magnitude.

A modern seismometer, like the ones installed in the permanent monitoring network in Finland, is capable of measuring movements in the earth as small as nanometers per second (0.000000001 meters/s). Such incredible sensitivity allows seismologists at the Institute of Seismology to detect signals from earthquakes all over the world or see small explosions from mining operations in Sweden. In between earthquakes, though, there exists an entire world of signals recorded on seismometers, hidden in what we used to call background noise.”

When Noise is not Noise

As more and more sensitive instruments were installed around the world, seismologists noticed that, instead of being quiet, the earth was constantly humming with energy. This energy was usually quieter than signals generated by earthquakes, but easily detected with high-quality instruments.

Figure 1: Energy recorded at different seismic periods over 5 years of data from station KEV in Finland and station WRAB in Australia. Peak values at periods of 3-5 seconds (red arrows) are related to energy generated by ocean waves. Plots were generated using EarthScope MUSTANG web services [1].

Figure 1 [1] shows the energy recorded at two different seismometers over 5 years. Station KEV is located near the village of Kevo in Lapland, and station WRAB is in central Australia. Even though they are in two very different places geologically, the energy pattern looks quite similar, with a peak of energy around 3-5 seconds period (0.2-0.33 Hz in frequency). This energy pattern is seen every day, on nearly every seismic station on earth, and while scientists long suspected that this noise is coming from waves interacting in the oceans [2], it was only recently that this was able to be accurately verified [3].

Air, Ice, and Rock

Other earth processes also generate signals that either older seismic equipment could not measure, or we lacked the necessary number of stations nearby, or we did not have the necessary computational power to decode the signals until recently. For example, scientists have been able to track thunderstorms moving across the southern United States [4], and calculate the strength of cyclones in the Pacific Ocean [5], using only seismic data.

As glaciers have been rapidly retreating due to climate change, seismology can also be used to detect glacial surges [6] or small caving events, even being able to determine the direction that the ice fell [7].

Seismic data is even being used to monitor for landslides in near real-time, watching for a landslide that could generate a potentially dangerous tsunami (figure 2) [8]. Monitoring for signals like these are similar in theory to how regular earthquakes are detected and located but using completely new methods to interpret the seismic data and doing it rapidly enough to potentially alert people in danger before the threat arrives.

Figure 2: From Karasözen and West (2024), nine automatically detected landslides at fjords in Alaska using seismic data.

We are in an exciting era of seismology, where many of the technological limitations of previous generations have been lifted. We can use seismology to move past only monitoring for earthquakes and use the tools and our creativity to learn more about the earth system as a whole – the atmosphere, the oceans, and the rock beneath our feet.

Matt Gardine, seismologist

References

[1] Casey, Robert, Mary E. Templeton, Gillian Sharer, Laura Keyson, Bruce R. Weertman, and Tim Ahern. “Assuring the Quality of EarthScope Data with MUSTANG”. Seismological Research Letters 89 (2A) (2018): 630-639. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170191

[2] Longuet-Higgins, Michael. S. “A theory of the origin of microseisms”. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 243 (1950): 1–35.

[3] Kedar, Sharon, Michael Longuet-Higgins, Frank Webb, Nicholas Graham, Robert Clayton, and Cathleen Jones. “The origin of deep ocean microseisms in the North Atlantic Ocean”. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 464 (2008): 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2007.0277

[4] Tytell, Jonathan, Frank Vernon, Michael Hedlin, Catherine de Groot Hedlin, Juan Reyes, Bob Busby, Katrin Hafner, and Jennifer Eakins. “The USArray Transportable Array as a Platform for Weather Observation and Research”. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 97.4 (2016): 603-619. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00204.1

[5] Gualtieri, Lucia, Suzana J. Camargo, Salvatore Pascale, Flavio M.E. Pons, and Göran Ekström. “The persistent signature of tropical cyclones in ambient seismic noise”. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 484 (2018): 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2017.12.026

[6] Nettles, Meredith, and Göran Ekström. “Glacial earthquakes in Greenland and Antarctica”. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 38:1 (2010): 467-491. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-040809-152414

[7] Olsen, Kira G., and Meredith Nettles. “Constraints on terminus dynamics at Greenland glaciers from small glacial earthquakes”. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 124 (2019): 1899–1918 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JF005054

[8] Karasözen, Ezgi, and Michael E. West. “Toward the Rapid Seismic Assessment of Landslides in Coastal Alaska”. The Seismic Record 4 (1) (2024): 43–51 https://doi.org/10.1785/0320230044