Earthquake

Early Warning Feasibility Study for the New Madrid Seismic Zone
Ogweno, L.P., M. Withers and C.H Cramer

Center for Earthquake Research and Informa@on (CERI) - The University of Memphis
Network op<miza<on
ABSTRACT
Table 1Technical requirements for an EEWS seismological network. Adapted 37˚
Research in the last decade on Earthquake Early Warning Systems (EEWSs) has undergone rapid development from Auclair et al., (2015) GUAM
CHRM
Designing EEW systems requires systematic evaluation and optimization. The purpose of
(in terms of theoretical and methodological advances in real-time data analysis, and improved telemetry and # Basic requirements Recommended requirements MATM
DWDM network optimization for EEWS is to find the optimal station locations (optimal or
computer technology) and is becoming a useful tool for practical real time seismic hazard mitigation. The 1 Seismic sensor BROM
BRNM
BACM
COKM
KEWM
HENM EPRM
upgrade), optimal ground motion trigger thresholds and the minimum necessary numbers
New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) (Figure 1) covers a wide area with several heavily populated cities, vital o Should be adequate for monitoring
PARM

of near-field earthquakes in terms of

o Priority for strong-motion BETM
MLDM
CATM
NMDM
SJBM
of stations that would give maximum warning times to a specific target from a given
infrastructures, and facilities located within a radius of less than 70 km from the epicenters of the 1811-1812
NMEM
sensors WALK HICK
earthquake source. Different researchers to this respect have used several methods.
bandwidth, dynamic range, TOPM MARM

earthquakes. One of the challenges associated with the NMSZ is that while low to moderate level of seismic o Redundancy
protection against ambient Several methods have been applied to achieve this end; Kijko (1977) method for seismic
PGVM PENM
NWCT FLPT

activity is common, larger earthquakes are rare, i.e. there is no instrumental data for earthquakes with
POBMPPLM
conditions, etc.
network optimization , Hardt and Scherbaum (1994)optimizing for aftershock seismic
WADM
WYBT
STAMMORT
magnitudes between M5.5 and M7.0 in the NMSZ, hence, in order to analyze any event within this magnitude 2 Data acquisition system
HOPT
LEPT
MADT

network, D’Alessandro et al. (2013) seismic network evaluation through simulation (SNES),
GLAT
GLST
o Should be adequate for the kind of
RDGT

range synthetic seismograms are required. The main focus of this study is to undertake a feasibility study of BRGM
CACT
CTCT

seismic signal to record in terms of

GOBM

Oth et al. (2010), Stankiewicz et al. (2013), and Picozzi et al. (2013) used micro-genetic
MIST
TNMT LFRT
an EEWS for the NMSZ. We examine the stations within the NMSZ in order to answer the question “What bandwidth, sample rate, dynamic
o Redundancy PEBM MCAM
LNXT MFRT
NBNT

changes should be applied to the NMSZ network to make it suitable for earthquake early warning (EEW)”. We range, adequate signal/noise ratios, HOVM CHNM RELT
RELT algorithm etc. We use the method developed by Hotovec, et al. (2017) known as the
explore the optimization of the NMSZ network in order to maximize warning times and identify target areas resolution, and local archiving 36˚ GNARGSAR
NNAR
CWPT
CWPT
FPST
Upgrade Score method (sum of the improvements in warning times and azimuthal gap,
LVAR
3 Communication systems o Redundancy
HALT

where it is beneficial to make modifications to the spatial distribution of stations to improve its adaptability
PLAR

o Minimum latency:
ASAR
BFAR EDIT
multiplied by distance to the nearest station) to evaluate the NMSZ network for stations to
for early warning purposes. The stations within the NMSZ do not globally meet the technical requirements
BOAR
o Must be ‘‘real-time’’
DLAR

upgrade. Results of example warning times from an event similar to 1811-1812 events is
NHAR MSAR
priority for continuous ARPT

proposed by Auclair et al., (2015), i.e. there are no redundancies in data sensors and acquisition system, or o Rugged to support remote site
‘‘sample by sample’ TMAR RVAR
shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the 10 stations that can be initially upgraded
climatic conditions HTAR
power supply systems but some redundancy has been implemented in communication systems. The data
QUAR
‘transmission rather than JHAR LPAR

‘‘data-packaging’’(or
LRAR
processing system currently in place is robust but still requires a dedicated server for an EEW algorithm. In a o Adequate for data transmission
HBAR
MTAR
MKAR
TYAR
CPAR
CVTN

packet-length as short as × 10 4
performance analysis, the telemetry data latency average is 2.8 s in the NMSZ network of 31 high-gain, high- requirements in terms of bandwidth, possible)
BVAR NFAR
12
sample-rate weak and strong motion, vertical channels used in this study. SLA, and reliability o Use of non-terrestrial TWAR BLAR SFTN

communication system
GILT 10
4 Power supply system RDST
o Rugged to support remote site MCAR EBZ

o Redundancy
STUDY AREA
CBHTNAIT
climatic conditions TUMT Memphis
COLT 8
o UPS or equivalent system installed 35˚ CUET

38˚ 5 Data processing systems −91˚ −90˚ −89˚ Stations for initial upgrade
o Must be robust enough for the 6
Figure 3: Network Configuration within NMSZ. Black solid line

1605
continuous processing of data
1500
coming from real-time stations
o Centralized analysis by a data-center
or not centralized thanks to a pre-
37
Score
is data transmission line (microwave), Triangles are SP
o Redundancy
Stations that can be upgrade
stations , Square are BB stations, Diamond are SM stations 4
o Minimum latency and Inverted triangle are SP-digital. Red lines are the Other stations that can also improve
detection if upgraded

transmission line from station to the node stations and in the

Earthquake Number

analysis at each station 2

37˚ 1000 6 Dissemination of the early warning background is seismicity delineating several fault line.
956
o Rugged communication
o Redundancy
NF

o Robust means of dissemination 0

NM

NL
P-Latency
F
o Minimum latency
Latitude

RF
adapted to each user T-Latency
7.4
X702 7.8
500
519 X601 6.8
X502 6.5 -2
36

418 UTMT
Network data packet length and Latency

OLIL
SLM
NHIN
CG11
NHAR
GUAM
BLAR
BOAR
ARPT
TMAR
TWAR
CHRM
BETM
NFAR
CG14
MSAR
CG17
EBZ
BRNM
MTAR
LVAR
BROM
JHAR
CG08
CG20
BVAR
EDIT
TOPM
HCAR
HTAR
RVAR
QUAR
LRAR
TYAR
MATM
MLDM
DLAR
BACM
NBNT
EPRM
CPAR
PLAR
CWPT
DWDM
BFAR
RELT
FPST
KEWM
GOBM
RDGT
NNAR
SFTN
MCAM
LFRT
TNMT
CATM
MFRT
WADM
NMDM
HOVM
COKM
LEPT
GRAT
MIST
BRGM
MORT
MARM
SJBM
WYBT
WALK
CHNM
STAM
HOPT
FLPT
PGVM
TIPT
PPLM
GLST
POBM
PWLA
PLAL
TUMT
USIN 1.8
36˚ UALR 1.9
1.8
203 SLM 1.6
SIUC
F

1.9
CG

102 PVMO 7.5

26 43
13 11 2 PENM 5.5
0 PEBM 1.6 Stations
PBMO

Stations
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 7
M
d Latency is the single most important parameter PARM
MPHB 2.6 Figure 6: Stations that can be upgraded. The stations are ranked according to the scores from the highest priority to the
2.7
MPH 1.6 least station.
Figure 2: Catalog from 1995 – 2016 illustrating the lack in the EEWS. Latency occurs due to data
CONCLUSIONS
Memphis MGMO
35

LPAR 6.8
35˚ of major earthquakes >M 4.5 within NMSZ since the LNXT 5.6

1811 – 1812 major events apart from the 1843 Marked

acquisition (packetization), transmission and HICK
HENM
3.4
6.6
3.9
Tree event. computer analysis time. Data latency is HDBT 3.6
HDAR2
HBAR 7.2
NMSZ is technically ready for EEW system. Most broadband and strong motion seismic
described as the length of time between the end HALT 6.9
7.7
0

10

20

30

−91˚ −90˚ −89˚ −88˚ GNAR 6.9 stations within the NMSZ meets the basic technical requirements listed in Table 1 as most
0 of the packet and "now" (i.e., time difference GLAT
FVM 1.9

GOAL: FFIL 5
9 of these stations are used for routine real-time event detection and seismic alert within
Depth (km) between when the seismic signal is recorded at CLTN 4.5
q  Explore the current NMSN sta@on
CGM3 1.8 the NMSZ. The recommended technical requirements are not globally achieved. We have
Depth (km)

BLO
10 any station and when the digitized signal is
distribu@on that will maximize the warning
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 identified several short period stations that can be upgraded to meet EEWs standards.
received at the processing hub in Memphis). The Latencies (s)
20 @mes Figure 4: Data Latencies within NMSZ. This is a stacked There is also a need to upgrade the operating algorithm to meet EEW system standards.
packet length and telemetry data latency
q  Iden@fy target areas where it would be bar graph illustrating the telemetry latency for the stations
together gives the total telemetry delay time in
30
−91 −90 −89 −88 beneficial to make modifica@ons to the the NMSZ network, which averages 2.8 s for the
that are ready for EEW. Note, some stations (strong
motion/in HNx channels ) do not have the P-latency DATA AND RESOURCES
Figure 1: Study Longitude
area with seismicity from 1974-2017 in the spa@al distribu@on of sta@ons in the 31 HHZ and HNZ channels in the NMSZ network computed as they are currently not used in the earthworm
background (blue dots).The Seismicity delineates several faults i.e., network in order to assess its adaptability locator but are used in post-processing and not in real- We used GMT (https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/gmt/), Matlab (https://www.mathworks.com) and
RF (Reelfoot), CGF (Cotton Groove Fault), NMNF(New Madrid North with a minimum data latency of 0.9 s at the MPH time currently.
Fault), and Risco Fault. Most of the seismicity in NMSZ is located to early warning purposes station, maximum of 6.5 s at UTMT station and a Adobe Illustrator (http://www.adobe.com/products/illustrator.html) to prepare figures. Seismic
between 4.8-25 km beneath the Earth’s surface with concentration q  Analyze redundancy issues, network median of 2.8 s for the network. The telemetry hazard data from USGS (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/) were used as input for the
at 5 to 12 km depth and between longitude 91W and 89W and coverage, data processing, and @me latency latency time is measured at an interval of ten 20 Upgrade Score method. All data were accessed lastly on April 2017.
latitude of 35.5 N and 37 N.
of the exis@ng real-@me system
20

minutes each hour for 72 hrs. Figure 4 shows the

data telemetry latencies for transmission to the 15 REFERENCES
o

waveform-processing site (Memphis) by each

37 N

Technical Feasibility of EEW system in NMSZ 10

Figure 5: Contour Map ²  Auclair, S., Goula, X., Jara, J. A., & Colom, Y. (2015). Feasibility and Interest in Earthquake Early
seismic station. We evaluate P-wave latency 20
of approximate warning
In order to assess the adaptability of the exis@ng NMSZ seismic monitoring network for early warning purposes, Warning Systems for Areas of Moderate Seismicity: Case Study for the Pyrenees. Pure and Applied
15

(Figure 4) by collecting all triggers from all times from an event Geophysics, 172(9), 2449–2465. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-014-0957-x
we adopted Table 1 of Auclair et al. (2015). It first defines two dis@nct categories of technical requirements that 5
similar to 1811-1812
broadband channels/stations in the NMSZ ²  Elnashai, A. S., Cleveland, L. J., Jefferson, T., & Harrald, J. (2008). Impact of Earthquakes on
10

have to be considered when implemen@ng an EEWS (Table 1). It defines those requirements that are essen@al event on the Cotton the Central USA. MAE Center Report 08-02. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?
networks for 72 hours as the difference in
to an EEWS defined as ‘‘basic requirements’’, and others defined as ‘‘recommended requirements’’. The Grove Fault. Triangles hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Impact+of+Earthquakes+on+the+Central+USA#0
o
36 N

seconds between pick time and logged time. The

0

are SP stations, ²  Hotovec-Ellis, A. J., Bodin, P., Thelen, W., Okubo, P., & Vidale, J. E. (2017). Improving the
recommended requirements are not mandatory but can significantly improve the reliability and efficiency of an
median P-wave latency for stations analyzed is 5 Diamond are EEW Hawaiian Seismic Network for Earthquake Early Warning. Seismological Research Letters, 88(2A),
EEWS and these may be cri@cal for its opera@onal use. The seismic sta@ons within the NMSZ (Figure 3) meets 10
5
ready stations 326–334. http://doi.org/10.1785/0220160187
3.5 ± 1.32s with minimum of 1.4s at station LNXT
15

the basic technical requirements listed in Table 1 as most of these sta@ons are used for rou@ne real-@me event
and maximum of 6.6s at station CLTN. 10
detec@on and seismic alert within the NMSZ. The recommended technical requirements are not globally 15

achieved. Par@cularly, not many sta@ons have duplicate or redundant data sensor (some have six channels both
35 o N
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
broadband and strong mo@on), data acquisi@on system, or power supply system. 20 15 0 20 40 60 80 100 km Thanks to Center for Earthquake Research and Information (CERI) for financial support
20
o
91 W 90 W
o
89 W o o
88 W e-mail: logweno@memphis.edu, mwithers@memphis.edu or ccramer@memphis.edu