Volume 34 (2021) Earthquake Science doi: 10.

29382/eqs-2021-0011

Review

Recent advances in earthquake monitoring I: Ongoing

revolution of seismic instrumentation
Zefeng Li1,2,*
1
Laboratory of Seismology and Physics of Earth’s Interior, School of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Science and
Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230026, China
2
Mengcheng National Geophysical Observatory, University of Science and Technology of China, Mengcheng, 233500, China

Corresponding author Li ZF, email: zefengli@ustc.edu.cn

Key points:
• Ultra-dense seismic instruments, including nodes and fiber-optic sensing technologies, are revolutionizing regional and
local earthquake monitoring.
• Distributed acoustic sensing can operate in real time and fill the submarine observation gap, exhibiting the potential as
next-generation permanent networks.
• To make full use of ultra-dense instrumentation, challenges remain in the understanding of data characteristics, software
infrastructure building, and development of processing techniques.

Abstract Seismic networks have significantly
improved in the last decade in terms of coverage density, data
quality, and instrumental diversity. Moreover, revolutionary
advances in ultra-dense seismic instruments, such as nodes
and fiber-optic sensing technologies, have recently provided
unprecedented high-resolution data for regional and local
earthquake monitoring. Nodal arrays have characteristics such
as easy installation and flexible apertures, but are limited in
power efficiency and data storage and thus most suitable as
temporary networks. Fiber-optic sensing techniques, inclu-
ding distributed acoustic sensing, can be operated in real time
with an in-house power supply and connected data storage,
thereby exhibiting the potential of becoming next-generation
permanent networks. Fiber-optic sensing techniques offer a
powerful way of filling the observation gap particularly in
submarine environments. Despite these technological
advancements, various challenges remain. First, the data
characteristics of fiber-optic sensing are still unclear. Second,
it is challenging to construct software infrastructures to store,
transfer, visualize, and process large amount of seismic data.
Finally, innovative detection methods are required to exploit
the potential of numerous channels. With improved
knowledge about data characteristics, enhanced software
infrastructures, and suitable data processing techniques, these
innovations in seismic instrumentation could profoundly
impact observational seismology.
Received 1 April 2021; received in revised form 28 May 2021;
accepted 17 June 2021; available online 23 June 2021.
© The Seismological Society of China and Institute of Geophysics,
China Earthquake Administration 2021.
Keywords: earthquake monitoring; seismic instrumentation;
dense array; distributed acoustic sensing.
Citation: Li ZF (2021). Recent advances in earthquake
monitoring I: Ongoing revolution of seismic
instrumentation. Earthq Sci 34 (2): 177–188, doi:
10.29382/eqs-2021-0011.
1. Introduction
Seismology is a data-driven science, in which major
advancements typically result from improvements in our
observation ability (Shearer, 2009). Earthquake monito-
ring, at its most fundamental form, is the extraction of
basic earthquake information (e.g., occurrence time,
location, and magnitude) from continuous seismic
waveforms. It targets not only large earthquakes but also
small shocks with vibration amplitudes beyond human
perception limit. Earthquake catalogs, which are major
products of global and regional seismic network opera-
tions, are essential for understanding earthquake pheno-
mena and probing the Earth’s subsurface structures. In
source studies, they are critical for understanding
earthquake mechanism and potential seismic hazards, such
as background seismicity (Hutton et al., 2010), earthquake
sequence evolution (Peng ZG and Zhao P, 2009; Trugman
and Ross, 2019), earthquake triggering (Ross et al., 2019),

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

178 doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0011
and fault zone mapping (Hauksson, 2005; Ross et al.,
2019). Meanwhile, in structural studies, earthquake
catalogs are typically used as a basis for seismic
tomography. Thus, earthquake monitoring is the basis of
observational seismology.
Earthquake monitoring can be generalized as the
detection of natural and human-induced seismic events that
have trackable seismic footprints. This typically includes,
but is not limited to, volcanic unrest (Buurman and West,
2010), landslides (Ekström and Stark, 2013; Lin CH et al.,
2010), nuclear tests (Stump, 1991), chemical explosions
(Ma X et al., 2020), traffic flow (Wang X et al., 2020), and
building collapses (Kim et al., 2001). In these fields,
seismological approaches are employed to analyze non-
conventional targets, which then develop into new
interdisciplinary branches, such as forensic (Meng HR and
BenZion, 2018), environmental (Ekström and Stark, 2013),
and urban seismology (Lindsey et al., 2020a; Riahi and
Gerstoft, 2015). Owing to the development of local and
regional seismic arrays, these new branches have received
increasing attention from seismological research
communities. Therefore, this review focuses on earthquake
seismology and discusses other relevant interests to the
broad seismological research community.
Although earthquake monitoring has been prevalent
since the birth of modern seismology in the late nineteenth
century, the pace of improvement has accelerated
significantly in the past decade. Numerous seismological
findings, including the discoveries of tectonic tremors,
understanding foreshocks and aftershocks, earthquake
triggers, and improved fault mapping, have benefited from
the improvements in monitoring ability. These improve-
ments primarily exist in two areas: seismic instrumentation
(hardware side) and data processing techniques (software
side), owing to the rapid development of the
manufacturing industry and computer science. This review
will focus on the advances in seismic instrumentation,
emphasizing on nodes and fiber-optic sensing. The
advances in data processing techniques will be reviewed in
the second paper.
First, the present status of traditional seismic arrays of
broadband and other types of seismometers is briefly
introduced, and their strengths and limitations are discus-
sed. Subsequently, a discussion is provided on ultra-dense
seismic arrays, also known as large-N arrays, including
nodes, micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS), and
distributed acoustic sensing (DAS), which typically have
hundreds to thousands of sensors with spacings ranging
from meters to kilometers. Focus will be given to
emerging fiber-optic sensing for submarine monitoring.
These novel technologies represent important advances in
Li ZF
observational seismology and have the potential to
transform our way of conducting seismology research.
Notably, there are several review papers discussing the
history and current status of specific seismic networks
(Peterson and Hutt, 2014; Hutton et al., 2010) and the
applications of emerging seismic instruments (e.g. Zhan
ZW, 2020). However, unlike previous reviews, this review
emphasizes the overall trends in seismic instrumentation
and compares their advantages and disadvantages with
respect to earthquake monitoring.
2. Traditional seismic arrays
2.1. Present status
Seismic networks have been in existence for appro-
ximately a century, and in 1929, seven Wood-Anderson
seismometers first formed the Southern California Seismic
Network (SCSN). Modern seismic networks typically
consist of broadband and strong-motion seismometers.
Broadband seismometers have wide recording ranges from
hundreds of seconds to hundreds of hertz and are sensitive
to ground motions of up to a minimum of 10–10 m/s2
(Clinton and Heaton, 2002). Such broad ranges and high
sensitivities render them the optimal option as permanent
seismic networks. Thus, they are vital to global
seismological studies and are indispensable in cases that
require long-period and high-frequency signals (e.g.,
studies of remote earthquake triggering). Contrastingly,
strong-motion seismometers measure ground accelerations
up to 2 g, complementing the near-field monitoring ability
in large earthquakes, wherein broadband seismometers
tend to saturate. A comprehensive discussion regarding the
abilities of broadband and strong-motion seismometers can
be found in Clinton and Heaton (2002).
The SCSN, as an exemplary seismic network, has
developed from seven seismometers in 1929 to more than
600 seismometers in 2021 (Figure 1a; Hauksson et al.,
2020). In 1929, each station consisted of a horizontal
Wood-Anderson component and a high-gain short-period
vertical component (Hutton et al., 2010). Presently, each
station is typically equipped with co-located three-
component broadband and strong-motion seismometers.
These different sensors are employed to cover the entire
range of frequency content and dynamic amplitude,
thereby providing great expediency for diverse seismo-
logical and engineering research.
The SCSN has been producing local earthquake
catalogs for a magnitude of completeness of M3.25 from
1932, presently reaching as low as M1.7. The present
Li ZF doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0011
(b)
(a)
−120° −118° −116° −114°
38°
SCSN
36°
34°
100 km
32°
Figure 1. Regional seismic networks in southern California and Japan. (a) Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN)
and (b) High-sensitivity seismograph network (Hi-Net).
routine detection method is short-term-average/long-term
average (STA/LTA) (Allen, 1982) combined with manual
review. STA/LTA only tracks amplitude changes without
completely utilizing the complex waveform features,
thereby typically failing at low signal-to-noise ratios.
Comparatively, using a more sophisticated method, such as
template matching (Gibbons and Ringdal, 2006), the
magnitude of completeness can reach M0.3 (Ross et al.,
2019). The errors in absolute locations in southern
California estimated using HypoInverse (Klein, 2002) or
SIMULPS (Thurber, 1983) are <0.75 km horizontally and
1.25 km vertically. Moreover, the errors in relative
locations using waveform cross-correlation are one order
of magnitude smaller (Hauksson et al., 2012). Microear-
thquakes relocated using double difference methods
(Trugman and Shearer, 2017; Waldhauser and Ellsworth,
2000) reveal intricate details about numerous small faults
in southern California (Hauksson, 2005; Hauksson et al.,
2012; Ross et al., 2019) and enable high-resolution travel-
time regional tomography (e.g. Allam and Ben-Zion,
2012).
A similar design has been adopted for seismic
networks in Japan. After the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the
Japanese government initiated the Headquarters for
Earthquake Research Promotion project aiming to
construct a national shaking map and promote understan-
ding of the long-term possibility of earthquake occurrences
(Okada et al., 2004). This project led to the construction of
three nationwide seismic networks, which include high-
179
130° 135° 140° 145°
Hi-Net
45°
40°
35°
100 km
30°
sensitivity seismographs (Hi-net, Figure 1b), broadband
seismographs (F-net), and strong-motion seismographs
(K-net). The Hi-net stations involve boreholes with a depth
of 100–200 m to reduce the impact of anthropogenic noise.
Each station is equipped with short-period velocity
seismometers, accelerometers, and tiltmeters. To date, the
total number of high-sensitivity seismographs is >1000
with an interstation spacing of 20 km across Japan. The
magnitude of completeness is approximately M1.9 (Nanjo
et al., 2010), comparable to that in southern California.
Dense networks enable various scientific discoveries
and novel seismological techniques. For example, Obara
(2002) discovered non-volcanic tremors in the subduction
zone of southwestern Japan. Although non-volcanic
tremors appear spuriously noisy with sparse network, they
emerge remarkably well on a dense network. Using Hi-net
data, Obara (2002) located the tremors at the subduction
interface and confirmed that they are associated with
subduction dynamics. Furthermore, Ishii et al. (2005)
developed the back projection method, which utilize the
dense nature of the Hi-net to illuminate the rupture process
of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. This technique
is now standard for imaging the rupture of large
earthquakes. There are more examples of seismological
advancements alike that benefited from highly dense and
high-quality seismic networks.
2.2. Trends and limitations
The major trend in permanent seismic networks is the
180 doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0011
accelerated increase in the number of stations to improve
density and coverage. Another key feature is using mul-
tiple types of seismometers such as broadband, short
periods, strong-motion, strainmeter, and tiltmeter.
Specifically, co-located instruments at the same site can
help obtaining a comprehensive measurement of the
wavefields. The trend of adding more and diverse sensors
is presently one of the driving forces for the accumulation
of large seismic data.
Although traditional seismic networks are the
backbone of global and regional earthquake monitoring,
they exhibit various limitations. First, the networks of
sophisticated instruments are expensive, and they are
unlikely to cover a wide area with sub-kilometer
interstation spacing. Thus, temporary dense arrays are
required on several occasions. For example, following a
large earthquake, seismologists typically deploy additional
sensors surrounding the aftershock zone to obtain high
resolution. However, the shipment and deployment of
broadband seismometers can take days to weeks, thereby
missing critical measurements immediately following the
mainshock.
Another limitation is that most seismic networks are
located on continents and not seafloors. There are only
scattered stations on islands and scattered ocean-bottom
seismometers on seafloors globally. This not only leads to
unknowns regarding the seismicity and structure of the
oceanic lithosphere but also unbalanced imaging of the
Earth’s deep interior. Efforts have been made to improve
this biased coverage, particularly in risky near-trench
regions of subduction zones, using real-time seafloor
monitoring networks, such as the Japanese S-net (Uehira et
al., 2018), and floating hydrophones, such as the Mermaid
array (Simons et al., 2006). However, these networks are
expensive in terms of infrastructure construction and
routine maintenance. Overall, limited by the current
observational techniques, the oceanic area, which accounts
for 70.9% of the Earth’s surface, is largely untapped in
seismic monitoring.
Finally, traditional seismometers have inherently
limited sensing ranges. For example, static offset cannot be
measured using either broadband or strong-motion
seismometers. In this regard, global navigation satellite
systems are indispensable (Bock et al., 2000; Larson et al.,
2003). These systems are increasingly being used to study
large earthquakes, such as for rupture imaging (Yue H and
Lay, 2011), and magnitude estimation in earthquake early
warning (Ruhl et al., 2017), which is a rapidly growing
field called seismogeodesy. In addition, traditional
seismometers measure translational motions and ignore
rotational motions. Some studies suggest that the rotational
Li ZF
component could play a role in seismic hazards and could
be useful to image earthquake processes and the Earth’s
subsurface structures (Lin CJ et al., 2011; Reinwald et al.,
2016). Although there have been long-term efforts for
designing rotational seismometers (Evans et al., 2016;
Schreiber et al., 2009), they are far from being common in
routine seismological research.
3. Large-N arrays
3.1. Nodes
A large gap existed in the resolution limits between
earthquake and exploration seismology is partly because of
the distinct spatial scales of interest in the two fields.
However, some critical zones of interest in earthquake
seismology, such as fault zones and induced seismicity
regimes, are similar to those in oil and gas sites. In these
areas, seismologists require similar high resolutions and
search for shortcuts to ultra-dense seismic networks at an
affordable cost. Since 2011, there have been rapid
developments in this technology, including short-period
standalone nodes (e.g. Ben-Zion et al., 2015; Brenguier et
al., 2015; Hansen and Schmandt, 2015; Lin FC et al.,
2013), MEMS and smartphones (e.g. Kong et al., 2016;
Wu YM et al., 2016), and the recently emerging optic fiber
sensing (e.g. Lindsey et al., 2017; Wang HF et al., 2018;
Yu CQ et al., 2019).
Nodes are seismic systems that integrate a geophone,
digitizer, and battery into a standalone unit. They are
lightweight and compact, thereby allowing quick
deployment. A pioneering example of such arrays in
passive source seismology can be traced back to the Long
Beach array in 2011 (Lin FC et al., 2013; Schmandt and
Clayton, 2013). The Long Beach array contained 5200
nodes with an average spacing of 100 m and was operated
for six months (Figure 2a). By applying ambient noise
tomography to this array, Lin FC et al. (2013) obtained
high-resolution 3D near-surface structures including
Rayleigh waves up to 4 Hz. Schmandt and Clayton (2013)
analyzed the patterns of teleseismic travel times to estimate
the upper mantle depth. Using downward continued array
data, Inbal et al. (2015; 2016) detected numerous small
earthquakes in the lower crust and upper mantle beneath
the Long Beach area. However, their conclusions were
challenged by Li ZF et al. (2018) and Yang L et al. (2021),
who detected earthquakes without downward continuation
and found no evidence of deep events. Despite the
discrepancy, these studies validated the strong detection
capability of dense arrays.
Li ZF doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0011 181

−118°14' −118°12' −118°10' −118°08' −118°06' −118°04'

(a)
LB node (b)
119°30' 120°00' 120°30' 121°00' 121°30' 122°00' 122°30'
California 33°50'
25°30'

50 km
33°48' P-Alert MEMS 25°00'

24°30'
33°46'
1 km

24°00'
−119°01'00" −119°00'30" −119°00'00" −118°59'30"
(c)
PoroTomo DAS 39°49'00"
0.2 km 23°30'

23°00'

39°48'30"
22°30'

22°00'
Nevada
39°48'00"
21°30'

California

Figure 2. Large-N arrays with nodes, micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS), and distributed acoustic sensing (DAS).
(a) Long Beach array with 5200 nodes, (b) P-Alert network with more than 700 MEMS sensors in Taiwan, and (c) Porotomo
DAS array with 8720 channels in the Brady Hot Springs area, Nevada. Note that the scales of the three arrays vary.

Inspired by the success of the Long Beach array, the
applications of nodal arrays in passive source studies have
increased rapidly. Nodal arrays have been used to monitor
induced seismicity [e.g., Sweetwater, Texas (Sumy et al.,
2015)], volcanoes [Yellowstone (Huang HH et al., 2015),
Mount St. Helens (Hansen and Schmandt, 2015), and Piton
de la Fournaise volcano in La Reunion (Brenguier et al.,
2015)], and fault zone imaging [the San Jacinto Fault in
California, (Ben-Zion et al., 2015)]. Nodal sensors have
also become a part of rapid response systems in aftershock
monitoring to obtain better coverage around rupture zones
(Beskardes et al., 2019; Catchings et al., 2020; Pankow et
al., 2021). A focus section in Seismological Research
Letters (Karplus and Schmandt, 2018) demonstrated a
collection of large-N applications.
Numerous sensors provided by the ultra-dense arrays
not only allow noise reduction via stacking but also
warrant new analysis approaches are inapplicable to sparse
arrays. For example, Li ZF et al. (2018) proposed a
function called neighboring station similarity for
earthquake detection, which utilizes the highly similar
earthquake waveforms but different local noise of
neighboring stations. This approach exhibited promising
detection results for the Long Beach array (Li ZF et al.,
2018) and the Incorporated Research Institute for
Seismology (IRIS) wavefield demonstration experiment
(Li CY et al., 2018). Large-N arrays also provide high
resolution in imaging the source properties of earthquakes
within or near the array. For example, Fan WY and
McGuire (2018) used 350-sensor arrays in Oklahoma to
analyze an M2 event. They demonstrated that the dense
coverage tightly constrains various properties of such a
small event, including the rupture velocity, rupture length
and width, and stress drop. These results demonstrate
the potential of large-N arrays for monitoring microear-
thquakes.
In addition to earthquakes, nodal arrays have been used
to monitor anthropogenic seismic signals. Specifically,
Riahi and Gerstoft (2015) utilized the Long Beach array to
analyze metro train activity, arrival and departure of
aircrafts, and city highway traffic, thereby demonstrating
the applicability of the array in monitoring human
activities within a typical city block. Meng HR and Ben
Zion (2018) identified air traffic events on a 1108-sensor
182 doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0011
array and managed to invert the flying track. Li ZF et al.
(2018) applied the local similarity method to the IRIS
wavefield experiment in Oklahoma and detected long-
duration signals produced from nearby rail train
movement. They used these signals to invert the near-
surface attenuation beneath the array. These results not
only demonstrate the potential of large-N arrays for smart-
city monitoring but also reveal that anthropogenic signals
could be a useful source for subsurface imaging, which
may contribute to city seismic hazard mapping.
3.2. MEMS and smartphones
MEMS, which are common in smartphones and
laptops, are another type of inexpensive sensor that can be
used to construct ultra-dense arrays. The Quake Catcher
Network attempts connecting external or internal
(smartphones, tablets, and laptops) MEMS accelerometers
forming a seismic network mainly for seismological
studies (Cochran et al., 2009). Raspberry Shake, another
popular low-cost seismic sensor with MEMS, offers both
one- and three-component types and can not only be used
for individual scientific education purposes (Walter et al.,
2019) but also for scientific monitoring in challenging
working environments (Winter et al., 2021).
Kong et al. (2016) developed a smartphone application
called MyShake, which crowdsources real-time MEMS
recordings from the smartphones of the users. They used a
machine-learning model to distinguish earthquakes from
everyday human motions and demonstrated that the
magnitude and location of earthquakes can be reasonably
derived from MEMS waveforms. However, practical
difficulties to ensure continuous internet connection and
power supply remain in the real-time transmission of
voluminous data from private users. In comparison, Wu
YM et al. (2013) initiated a P-alert project in the Taiwan
region to deploy a network of MEMS sensors with plug-in
power (Figure 2b), which developed to 757 stations in
May 2021. This network exhibited reliable early warning
capability for the 2016 M6.4 Meinong earthquake in
southwestern Taiwan (Wu YM et al., 2016).
However, smartphone MEMS sensors typically have
high self-noise, thereby limiting their applicability in small
earthquake detection. Although some high-end MEMS
sensors (e.g., HP MEMS) have self-noise levels
comparable to those of broad seismometers, they are too
expensive for widespread use in seismology (Kong et al.,
2016). Inbal et al. (2019) investigated the feasibility of
using the MyShake array to detect and locate local small
earthquakes. They revealed that the S wave spectra stacked
from 100 smartphones exceeded the ambient nighttime
noise level for local earthquakes of 1.5 < M < 2 with an
Li ZF
epicentral distance <5 km. However, these constraints are
not feasible for high-resolution earthquake monitoring, as
the primary monitoring targets are M < 2 events in most
scenarios. Therefore, MEMS and crowdsourced smartp-
hone data are most suitable for the detection and
characterization of moderate to large earthquakes.
4. Fiber-optic sensing
4.1. DAS
Since 2017, DAS has emerged as a novel technology to
obtain numerous seismic sensors at a relatively low cost.
Essentially, DAS transforms a long optical fiber into
thousands of vibration sensors with a spacing as small as
1 m. This is achieved by sending light into the fiber and
measuring the backscatter from the inherent impurities in
fiberglass [additional technical details can be found in
Masoudi and Newson (2016)]. Unlike inertial seismome-
ters that measure particle velocity or acceleration, DAS
measures the dynamic strain or strain rate longitudinally
along the fiber.
The concept of DAS was proposed in the 1990s
followed by applications in various fields. However, its
applicability in earthquake seismology has only begun
recently. Lindsey et al. (2017) revealed a high correlation
between the amplitude and phase of DAS waveforms with
a co-located inertial seismometer. Using a fiber in telecom-
munication conduits, they demonstrated that the detection
of teleseismic waves requires little cable-to-soil coupling.
In addition, Jousset et al. (2018) showed that DAS can
record earthquake signals and microseisms with quality
comparable to that of geophones. They also applied an
Akaike information criteria phase picker to obtain P and S
arrivals and located an earthquake within the array. Wang
HF et al. (2018) scrutinized an M4.3 event recorded by co-
located DAS and geophone arrays at Brady Hot Springs,
Nevada (Figure 2c). They revealed that the differences in
the signal-to-noise ratios of the DAS and geophones are
generally within a factor of five. They also found good
correspondence among the DAS waveforms, finite differe-
nces in the geophone waveforms, and the synthetics. Li ZF
and Zhan ZW (2018) applied template matching to the
Brady array and detected 20 times more earthquakes than
those detected from a regional catalog. They demonstrated
that, although below the noise level, half of the new events
could be verified via thousands of channel-to-channel
correlations. Although still in the early stages, these
preliminary results demonstrate that DAS can record high-
fidelity wavefields of local and regional small earthquakes
(Figure 3).
Li ZF
China Lake Acres
15.0
20.0
Time after occurrence (s)
25.0
30.0
35.0
1200
Figure 3. DAS wavefield of an M3.9 aftershock of the 2019 M7.1 Ridgecrest, CA sequence (After Li et al., 2021).
Regarding urban seismology, DAS exhibits more
potential applicability than nodal arrays because optical
fibers are pervasive in modern cities. Using a DAS array
with Pasadena City telecommunication fibers, Wang X et
al. (2020) observed the broadband seismic signatures of
various celebration activities during the Rose Parade, an
annual event in Pasadena that celebrates the New Year.
Lindsey et al. (2020a) used a local optical fiber DAS array
to monitor traffic changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Their results showed that DAS could become an important
component of smart-city sensing systems.
Moreover, DAS has a unique ability to operate on
seafloor fibers with the measurement unit on land. Lindsey
et al. (2019) used a DAS array in Monterey Bay,
California, to delineate submarine faults that have not been
identified previously. They observed various interesting
seismic signatures associated with ocean dynamics, such
as the generation of secondary microseisms and sediment
transport induced by storms. Similarly, Williams et al.
(2019) and Sladen et al. (2019) reported the observations
of microseisms and surface gravity waves from submarine
DAS arrays in Belgium and France, respectively. These
results demonstrate the capability of DAS in monitoring
seafloor seismicity and delineating unmapped faults and
ocean dynamics. Hence, DAS could possibly become a
new paradigm of submarine seismic networks.
4.2. Other optic sensing techniques for submarine
monitoring
Although increasing applications of DAS are expected
to fill the monitoring gap in continental shelves and near
trench areas, the length of DAS (< 100 km) appears too
short to cover wide oceanic areas. Two different optical
sensing technologies have recently been proposed to
doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0011 183
10 km distance Ridgecrest
Loops or bad channels
P wave
S wave
20 s window
1000 800 600 400 200
Channel No.
mitigate this problem. Marra et al. (2018) proposed a
frequency metrology technique that injects a laser signal to
the fiber and measures the output from the other end. The
seismic perturbation can then be extracted by comparing
the phase difference between the input and output signals.
As the measured perturbation is the integration of the
entire fiber, identifying the event location requires two or
more corroborating arrays. Alternatively, Zhan ZW et al.
(2021) analyzed the light polarization changes in daily
telecommunication signals and revealed that the polari-
zation changes correspond well to nearby ocean-floor
earthquakes. This new method avoids the requirement of
injecting an extra laser to the fiber and is highly attractive
for earthquake monitoring because the infrastructure and
signal sources already exist. They applied this method to a
10,000-km long Curie cable, offshore from southern Cali-
fornia to central Chile Figure 3a, and detected multiple
moderate to large earthquakes along the route. However,
both these optic sensing techniques encounter the same
problem of lacking spatial resolution and thus do not pro-
vide convenient ways to locate events. Despite this limit-
ation, they can work over a considerably longer distance
than DAS and utilize the current submarine fiber networks.
Thus, their potential of widespread applications to existing
submarine cables worldwide is promising.
5. Challenges and future directions
The applicability of low-cost ultra-dense arrays has
achieved numerous important results and has greatly
supplemented the monitoring gap of traditional seismic
networks at regional and local scales. Their enhanced
spatial sampling and azimuth coverage have increased the
resolution of earthquake seismology to approximately that
184 doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0011
of exploration seismology. However, there are certain
limitations. Specifically, the sensitivity and bandwidth of
low-cost sensors cannot match with that of sophisticated
broadband seismometers. In addition, some fundamental
characteristics of the new instruments are not yet clear,
thereby hindering the maximum exploitation of the data.
Therefore, the strengths and limitations of each type of
instrument must be considered while designing earthquake
monitoring networks (Table 1).
Nodes produce measurements similar to traditional
seismometers that are familiar to seismologists. The array
aperture is sufficiently flexible to fit different study scales.
However, presently, nodes can operate autonomously for
approximately one month, and most lack real-time data
telemetry because of limited battery capacity and data
storage. Hence, nodes are mostly used as temporary
networks. An emerging type of node utilizes a 4G
telecommunication network for real-time telemetry, such
as UGL-3C from the University of Science and
Technology of China, and IMU-3C from SmartSolo
(personal communications with Junlun Li, and Hongwei
Xu). Although data transmission typically relies on battery
performance, this feature makes them particularly useful
for rapid responses to large earthquakes to monitor
ongoing aftershocks.
In comparison, DAS has several advantages. First, it
provides denser spatial sampling than nodes, enabling an
unaliased recording of high-frequency wavefields. Second,
it can be operated in real time as its power and data storage
units are in the interrogator end, which is an indispensable
feature for permanent networks. Third, it can avoid the
cost of infrastructure construction through utilizing
existing telecommunication fiber optics (without
interfering with their routine functionality). As optical
Table 1. Comparison of traditional and emerging seismic instruments.
Micro-electromechanical
Feature Broadband Nodes
systems (MEMS)
Typical spacing 1–100 km 100 m–10 km
# of sensors 10–100 100–1 000
Array Aperture Flexible Flexible
Sensitivity High Intermediate
Power Cable/solar Battery
Real-time telemetry Yes Mostly no
Ocean Bottom
Submarine No
Seismometer
Note: M2018 and Z2021 represent Marra et al. (2018) and Zhan ZW et al., (2021), respectively.
Li ZF
fibers are widespread globally, it is reasonable to visualize
a world wherein every city converts its existing
telecommunication fiber optics to DAS seismic networks,
which could drastically improve earthquake monitoring
and elucidate seismic hazards in the most populous
metropolitan areas.
Despite its advantages, it is still challenging to build a
purely DAS-based earthquake catalog from scratch.
Although many studies have shown that DAS is broadband
(Lindsey et al., 2020b; Wang X et al., 2020; Yu CQ et al.,
2019), the amount of self-noise, exact amplitude and phase
responses, and their dependence on cable coupling, laser
stability, and fiber types are largely unknown. Without this
knowledge, magnitude calibration and other amplitude-
based calculations cannot be performed. Similar problems
exist in other optical sensing techniques, including the
frequency metrology (Marra et al., 2018) and polarization
methods (Zhan ZW et al., 2021). Second, the channel
locations of DAS cannot be accurately mapped. Although
the channel distance from the laser port can be calculated
using the flight time, the cable can have sags or loops.
Therefore, tap tests are practically required to locate
specific channels. Convenient methods for mapping of all
the channels are still lacking. Third, DAS only records the
longitudinal direction and lacks three-component
information. For a curved fiber, this direction changes with
fiber strike, which is different from the consistent east or
north components of inertial seismometers. Finally, limited
by the fading light power, current DAS arrays can only be
<100 km long, which is shorter than the rupture zone of a
typical M7 earthquake, unlike the flexible aperture of
nodal arrays. In very large earthquakes, multiple DAS
arrays are required.
To further leverage ultra-dense instrumentation for
Distributed acoustic Other optic sensing
sensing (DAS) (M2018, Z2021*)
1–10 km 1–10 m N/A
100–1 000 1 000–10 000 N/A
Depend on fiber
Flexible <100 km
length
Low Intermediate Intermediate
Cable/battery Cable Cable
Yes/No Yes Yes
No Yes Yes
Li ZF doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0011
improving earthquake monitoring ability, four directions
are proposed herein:
1) Understanding data characteristics of new instru-
ments (e.g., self-noise, instrument response, bandwidth,
and impact of cable coupling). This will require a series of
experiments under well-controlled conditions, as well as a
systematic comparison with different types of co-located
instruments (e.g., DAS, nodes, and broadband
seismometers).
2) Exploring the best practices of instrument combi-
nations for different application scenarios. For example, to
record the early aftershocks in aftershock monitoring,
DAS could be employed because of its easy shipment
and deployment. Afterward, nodes and broadband
seismometers can be used to obtain a broader aperture and
better azimuthal coverage. In submarine environments,
optic sensing can be combined with scattered ocean-
bottom seismometers for developing a comprehensive
system with detection, location, and magnitude calibration
abilities.
3) Developing data storage and transmission, proces-
sing, and visualization solutions for large-N datasets. An
individual experiment can easily produce terabytes of data
because of the numerous sensors. This is a grand challenge
in data sharing for typical seismological data centers and
for traditional processing and visualization tools (e.g.,
Seismic Analysis Code (Goldstein et al., 2003)). Thus,
next-generation software infrastructures are urgently
needed to fulfill the drastic changes in the size of modern
seismic data.
4) Developing new earthquake detection methodolo-
gies that maximize the use of ultra-dense sampling.
Traditional methods, such as STA/LTA (Allen, 1982),
were invented during the period of sparse seismic data and
did not fully exploit new forms of data. For example, the
observations from numerous channels naturally form 2D
images, in which earthquake signals could be more
efficiently and accurately detected. Future research
directions should consider the development of advanced
machine learning and image processing techniques for
detection and phase picking. The overarching goal is
establishing a workflow for the construction of a DAS-
based earthquake catalog from scratch.
6. Summary
Seismology has witnessed great improvements in
permanent seismic networks over the past decade. The
increasingly dense coverage, enhanced data quality, and
instrumental diversity have significantly improved our
185
earthquake monitoring abilities. Ultra-dense seismic
instruments, including nodes and fiber-optic sensing
approaches, provide remarkable dense coverage in regional
and local earthquake monitoring. Nodes offer simple
installation and flexible apertures and produce data similar
to traditional seismometers. However, they are limited in
power efficiency and data storage and are thus only
suitable for temporary networks. In comparison, DAS can
be operated in real time using an in-house power supply.
Real-time data telemetry is also possible through internet.
Thus, DAS has the potential to become a next-generation
permanent network. DAS and other fiber sensing
techniques can fill the observation gap in submarine
environments and could have a profound impact on the
comprehensive branches of observational seismology.
However, owing to the limitations of different types
of instruments, it is unrealistic to expect one all-
encompassing solution. The designing of monitoring
systems depends on the different application scenarios, for
example, on continents or ocean floor, regional or local
scale, temporary or permanent, and frequency/sensitivity
ranges of interest. Moreover, we need to understand the
data characteristics of the emerging instruments, explore
the best practice of instrument combinations in different
application scenarios, develop new software infrastructures
suitable for large data sizes, and design new methods to
maximize the use of numerous channels. Future progress
in these directions will facilitate the improvement of
modern earthquake monitoring and eventually contribute
to an improved understanding of earthquake phenomena
and the Earth’s interior.
Acknowledgments
The study is supported by the USTC Research Funds
of the Double First-Class Initiative (No. YD2080002006).
I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for
their constructive comments, which helped improve this
manuscript. I would also like to thank Xin Cui for helping
with the figures. The network data of the SCSN, Hi-Net,
and P-Alert were accessed from the Southern California
Seismic Data Center (https://scedc.caltech.edu/, doi:10.
7909/C3WD3xH1, last accessed March 25, 2021), Nati-
onal Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster
Resilience (https://www.hinet.bosai.go.jp/, last accessed
March 25, 2021), and the P-Alert Team (https://palert.
earth.sinica.edu.tw/, last accessed March 25, 2021),
respectively. The data of the world’s submarine cables
were accessed from TeleGeography (https://www.submar-
inecablemap.com, last accessed March 25, 2021).
186 doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0011
References
Allam AA, and Ben-Zion Y (2012). Seismic velocity structures
in the southern California plate-boundary environment from
double-difference tomography. Geophys J Int 190(2): 1 181–
1196.
Allen R (1982). Automatic phase pickers: Their present use and
future prospects. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 72(6B):
S225–S242.
Ben-Zion Y, Vernon FL, Ozakin Y, Zigone D, Ross ZE, Meng
HR, White M, Reyes J, Hollis D, and Barklage M (2015).
Basic data features and results from a spatially dense seismic
array on the San Jacinto fault zone. Geophys J Int 202(1):
370–380.
Beskardes GD, Wu Q, Hole JA, Chapman MC, Davenport KK,
Brown LD, and Quiros DA (2019). Aftershock sequence of
the 2011 Virginia Earthquake derived from the dense AIDA
array and backprojection. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 109(1):
19–33.
Bock Y, Nikolaidis RM, Jonge PJ de, and Bevis M (2000).
Instantaneous geodetic positioning at medium distances with
the Global Positioning System. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth
105(B12): 28 223–28 253.
Brenguier F, Kowalski P, Ackerley N, Nakata N, Boué P,
Campillo M, Larose E, Ramboud S, Pequegnat C, Lecocq T,
Roux P, Ferrazzini V, Villeneuve N, Shapiro NM, and
Chaput J (2015). Toward 4D noise-based seismic probing of
volcanoes: Perspectives from a large-N experiment on Piton
de la Fournaise Volcano. Seismol Res Lett 87(1): 15–25.
Buurman H, and West ME (2010). Seismic precursors to volcanic
explosions during the 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano:
Chapter 2. USGS Numbered Series No. 1769–2, p. 4157.
Catchings RD, Goldman MR, Steidl JH, Chan JH, Allam AA,
Criley CJ, Ma ZN, Langermann DS, Huddleston GJ,
McEvilly AT, Mongovin DD, Berg EM, and Ben-Zion Y
(2020). Nodal seismograph recordings of the 2019 Ridgecrest
earthquake sequence. Seismol Res Lett 91(6): 3 622−3 633.
Clinton JF, and Heaton TH (2002). Potential advantages of a
strong-motion velocity meter over a strong-motion
accelerometer. Seismol Res Lett 73(3): 332–342.
Cochran ES, Lawrence JF, Christensen C, and Jakka RS (2009).
The Quake-Catcher Network: Citizen science expanding
seismic horizons. Seismol Res Lett 80(1): 26–30.
Ekström G, and Stark CP (2013). Simple scaling of catastro-
phic landslide dynamics. Science 339(6126): 1 416–1 419.
Evans JR, Kozák JT, and Jedlička P (2016). Developments in
new fluid rotational seismometers: Instrument performance
and future directions. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 106(6): 2 865–
2876.
Fan WY, and McGuire JJ (2018). Investigating microearthquake
finite source attributes with IRIS Community wavefield
demonstration experiment in Oklahoma. Geophys J Int
214(2): 1 072–1 087.
Gibbons SJ, and Ringdal F (2006). The detection of low
magnitude seismic events using array-based waveform
Li ZF
correlation. Geophys J Int 165(1): 149–166.
Goldstein P, Dodge D, Firpo M (2003). SAC2000: Signal
processing and analysis tools for seismologists and engineers.
In: Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings PC, and Kisslinger C
eds. IASPEI International Handbook of Earthquake and
Engineering Seismology. Academic Press, London.
Hansen SM, and Schmandt B (2015). Automated detection and
location of microseismicity at Mount St. Helens with a large-
N geophone array. Geophys Res Lett 42(18): 7 390–7 397.
Hauksson E (2005). Southern California hypocenter relocation
with waveform cross-correlation. Part 1: Results using the
double-difference method. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 95(3):
896–903.
Hauksson E, Yang W, and Shearer PM (2012). Waveform
relocated earthquake catalog for Southern California (1981 to
June 2011). Bull Seismol Soc Amer 102(5): 2 239–2 244.
Hauksson E, Yoon C, Yu E, Andrews JR, Alvarez M, Bhadha R,
and Thomas V (2020). Caltech/USGS Southern California
Seismic Network (SCSN) and Southern California
Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC): Data availability for the
2019 Ridgecrest sequence. Seismol Res Lett 91(4): 1 961–
1970.
Huang HH, Lin FC, Schmandt B, Farrell J, Smith RB, and Tsai
VC (2015). The Yellowstone magmatic system from the
mantle plume to the upper crust. Science 348(6236):
773–776.
Hutton K, Woessner J, and Hauksson E (2010). Earthquake
monitoring in Southern California for seventy-seven Years
(1932-2008). Bull Seismol Soc Amer 100(2): 423–446.
Inbal A, Ampuero JP, and Clayton RW (2016). Localized seismic
deformation in the upper mantle revealed by dense seismic
arrays. Science 354(6308): 88–92.
Inbal A, Clayton RW, and Ampuero JP (2015). Imaging
widespread seismicity at midlower crustal depths beneath
Long Beach, CA, with a dense seismic array: Evidence for a
depth-dependent earthquake size distribution. Geophys Res
Lett 42(15): 6 314–6 323.
Inbal A, Kong Q, Savran W, and Allen RM (2019). On the
feasibility of using the dense MyShake smartphone array for
earthquake location. Seismol Res Lett 90(3): 1 209–1 218.
Ishii M, Shearer PM, Houston H, and Vidale JE (2005). Extent,
duration and speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman
earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. Nature 435(7044):
933–936.
Jousset P, Reinsch T, Ryberg T, Blanck H, Clarke A, Aghayev R,
Hersir GP, Henninges J, Weber M, and Krawczyk CM
(2018). Dynamic strain determination using fibre-optic cables
allows imaging of seismological and structural features.
Nature Communications 9(1): 1–11.
Karplus M, and Schmandt B (2018). Preface to the focus section
on geophone array seismology. Seismol Res Lett 89(5): 1 597–
1600.
Kim WY, Sykes LR, Armitage JH, Xie JK, Jacob KH, Richards
PG, West M, Waldhauser F, Armbruster J, Seeber L, Du WX,
Lerner-Lam A (2001). Seismic waves generated by aircraft
Li ZF doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0011
impacts and building collapses at World Trade Center, New
York City. Eos Trans AGU 82(47): 565–571.
Klein FW (2002). User’s guide to HYPOINVERSE-2000, A
Fortran program to solve for earthquake locations and
magnitudes. U SGS, Vol. 2002–171, p. 123.
Kong QK, Allen RM, Schreier L, and Kwon YW (2016).
MyShake: A smartphone seismic network for earthquake
early warning and beyond. Science Advances 2(2):
e1501055.
Larson KM, Bodin P, and Gomberg J (2003). Using 1-Hz GPS
data to measure deformations caused by the denali fault
earthquake. Science 300(5624): 1 421–1 424.
Li CY, Li ZF, Peng ZG, Zhang CY, Nakata N, and Sickbert T
(2018). Long-period long-duration events detected by the
IRIS Community wavefield demonstration experiment in
Oklahoma: Tremor or train signals. Seismol Res Lett 89(5): 1
652–1 659.
Li ZF, and Zhan ZW (2018). Pushing the limit of earthquake
detection with distributed acoustic sensing and template
matching: A case study at the Brady geothermal field.
Geophys J Int 215(3): 1 583–1 593.
Li ZF, Peng ZG, Hollis D, Zhu LJ, and McClellan J (2018).
High-resolution seismic event detection using local similarity
for Large-N arrays. Scientific Reports 8(1): 1 646.
Li ZF, Shen ZC, Yang Y, Williams E, Wang X, and Zhan ZW
(2021). Rapid response to the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake
with distributed acoustic sensing. AGU Advances 2(2):
e2021AV000395.
Lin CH, Kumagai H, Ando M, and Shin TC (2010). Detection of
landslides and submarine slumps using broadband seismic
networks. Geophys Res Lett 37(22): L22309.
Lin CJ, Huang, HP, Pham ND, Liu CC, Chi WC, and Lee WHK
(2011). Rotational motions for teleseismic surface waves.
Geophys Res Lett 38(15): L15301.
Lin FC, Li D, Clayton RW, and Hollis D (2013). High-resolution
3D shallow crustal structure in Long Beach, California:
Application of ambient noise tomography on a dense seismic
array. Geophysics 78(4): Q45–Q56.
Lindsey NJ, Martin ER, Dreger DS, Freifeld B, Cole S, James
SR, Biondi BL, Ajo-Franklin JB (2017). Fiber-Optic network
observations of earthquake wavefields. Geophys Res Lett
44(23): 11 792–11 799.
Lindsey NJ, Dawe TC, and Ajo-Franklin JB (2019). Illuminating
seafloor faults and ocean dynamics with dark fiber distributed
acoustic sensing. Science 366(6469): 1 103–1 107.
Lindsey NJ, Yuan SY, Lellouch A, Gualtieri L, Lecocq T, and
Biondi BL (2020a). City-scale dark Fiber DAS measurements
of infrastructure use during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Geophys Res Lett 47(16): e2020GL089931.
Lindsey NJ, Rademacher H, and Ajo-Franklin JB (2020b). On the
broadband instrument response of fiber-optic DAS arrays.
J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 125(2): e2019JB018145.
Ma X, Zhao LF, Xie XB, He X, and Yao ZX (2020). Regional
seismic characteristics of chemical explosions on the eastern
margin of the Junggar Basin, Northwest China, and of
187
historical semipalatinsk nuclear tests. Bull Seismol Soc Amer
111(1): 606–620.
Marra G, Clivati C, Luckett R, Tampellini A, Kronjäger J,
Wright L, Mura A, Levi F, Robinson S, Xuereb A,
Baptie B, and Calonico D (2018). Ultrastable laser
interferometry for earthquake detection with terrestrial and
submarine cables. Science 361(6401): 486–490.
Masoudi A, and Newson TP (2016). Contributed review:
Distributed optical fibre dynamic strain sensing. Review of
Scientific Instruments 87(1): 011 501.
Meng HR, and Ben-Zion Y (2018). Characteristics of airplanes
and helicopters recorded by a dense seismic array near Anza
California. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 123(6): 4 783–4 797.
Nanjo KZ, Ishibe T, Tsuruoka H, Schorlemmer D, Ishigaki Y,
and Hirata N (2010). Analysis of the completeness magnitude
and seismic network coverage of Japan. Bull Seismol Soc
Amer 100(6): 3 261–3 268.
Obara K (2002). Nonvolcanic deep tremor associated with sub-
duction in Southwest Japan. Science 296(5573): 1 679–1 681.
Okada Y, Kasahara K, Hori S, Obara K, Sekiguchi S, Fujiwara
H, and Yamamoto A (2004). Recent progress of seismic
observation networks in Japan —Hi-net, F-net, K-NET and
KiK-net—. Earth Planet Space 56(8): xv–xxviii.
Pankow KL, Rusho J, Pechmann JC, Hale JM, Whidden K,
Sumsion R, Holt J, Mesimeri M, Wells D, and Koper KD
(2021). Responding to the 2020 Magna, Utah, earthquake
sequence during the COVID-19 Pandemic Shutdown.
Seismol Res Lett 92(1): 6–16.
Peng ZG, and Zhao P (2009). Migration of early aftershocks
following the 2004 Parkfield earthquake. Nature Geoscience
2(12): 877–881.
Peterson JR, and Hutt CR (2014). World-Wide Standardized
Seismograph Network: A Data Users Guide. U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 2014-1218, p. 74.
Reinwald M, Bernauer M, Igel H, and Donner S (2016).
Improved finite-source inversion through joint measurements
of rotational and translational ground motions: A numerical
study. Solid Earth 7(5): 1 467–1 477.
Riahi N, and Gerstoft P (2015). The seismic traffic footprint:
Tracking trains, aircraft, and cars seismically. Geophys Res
Lett 42(8): 2 674–2 681.
Ross ZE, Trugman DT, Hauksson E, and Shearer PM (2019).
Searching for hidden earthquakes in Southern California.
Science 364(6442): 767–771.
Ruhl CJ, Melgar D, Grapenthin R, and Allen RM (2017). The
value of real-time GNSS to earthquake early warning.
Geophys Res Lett 44(16): 8 311–8 319.
Schmandt B, and Clayton RW (2013). Analysis of teleseismic P
waves with a 5200-station array in Long Beach, California:
Evidence for an abrupt boundary to Inner Borderland rifting.
J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 118(10): 5 320–5 338.
Schreiber KU, Hautmann JN, Velikoseltsev A, Wassermann J,
Igel H, Otero J, Vernon F, and Wells JPR (2009). Ring Laser
measurements of ground rotations for seismology. Bull
Seismol Soc Amer 99(2B): 1 190–1 198.
188 doi: 10.29382/eqs-2021-0011
Shearer PM (2009). Introduction to Seismology. The 2nd ed.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1−412 .
Simons FJ, Nolet G, Babcock JM, Davis RE, and Orcutt JA
(2006). A future for drifting seismic networks. Eos Trans
AGU 87(31): 305–307.
Sladen A, Rivet D, Ampuero JP, De Barros L, Hello Y, Calbris
G, and Lamare P (2019). Distributed sensing of earthquakes
and ocean-solid Earth interactions on seafloor telecom cables.
Nature Communications 10(1): 5 777.
Stump BW (1991). Nuclear explosion seismology: Verification,
source theory, wave propagation and politics. Reviews of
Geophysics 29(S2): 734–742.
Sumy DF, Woodward R, Barklage M, Hollis D, Spriggs N,
Gridley JM, and Parker T (2015). Sweetwater, Texas Large N
Experiment. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, San Francisco,
CA, 14-18 Dec, S41A–2703.
Thurber CH (1983). Earthquake locations and three-dimensional
crustal structure in the Coyote Lake Area, central California.
J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 88(B10): 8 226–8 236.
Trugman DT, and Ross ZE (2019). Pervasive foreshock activity
across Southern California. Geophys Res Lett 46(15): 8 772–
8 781.
Trugman DT, and Shearer PM (2017). GrowClust: A hierarchical
clustering algorithm for relative earthquake relocation, with
application to the Spanish Springs and Sheldon, Nevada,
earthquake sequences. Seismol Res Lett 88(2A): 379–391.
Uehira K, Mochizuki M, Kanazawa T, Shiomi K, Kunugi T, Aoi
S, Matsumoto T, Sekiguchi S, Yamamoto N, Takahashi N,
Shinohara M, and Yamada T (2018). S-net project:
Construction of large-scale seismic and tsunami observation
system on seafloor along the Japan Trench, 20, 12000.
Geophysical Research Abstracts 20: 12000.
Waldhauser F and Ellsworth WL (2000). A double-difference
earthquake location algorithm: Method and application to the
Northern Hayward Fault, California. Bull Seismol Soc Amer
90(6): 1 353–1 368.
Walter JI, Ogwari P, Thiel A, Ferrer F, Woelfel I, Chang JC,
Darold AP, and Holland AA (2019). The Oklahoma
Geological Survey Statewide Seismic Network. Seismol Res
Lett 91(2A): 611–621.
Wang HF, Zeng X, Miller DE, Fratta D, Feigl KL, Thurber CH,
Li ZF
and Mellors RJ (2018). Ground motion response to an ML4.3
earthquake using co-located distributed acoustic sensing and
seismometer arrays. Geophys J Int 213(3): 2 020–2 036.
Wang X, Williams EF, Karrenbach M, Herráez MG, Martins HF,
and Zhan ZW (2020). Rose Parade Seismology: Signatures of
Floats and Bands on Optical Fiber. Seismol Res Lett 91(4):
2 395–2 398.
Williams EF, Fernández-Ruiz MR, Magalhaes R, Vanthillo R,
Zhan ZW, González-Herráez M, and Martins H F (2019).
Distributed sensing of microseisms and teleseisms with
submarine dark fibers. Nature Communications 10(1): 5778.
Winter K, Lombardi D, Diaz-Moreno A, and Bainbridge R
(2021). Monitoring icequakes in East Antarctica with the
Raspberry Shake. Seismol Res Lett, doi:
10.1785/0220200483.
Wu YM, Liang WT, Mittal H, Chao WA, Lin CH, Huang BS,
and Lin CM (2016). Performance of a low-cost earthquake
early warning system (P-Alert) during the 2016 ML6.4
Meinong (Taiwan) Earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 87(5):
1050–1 059.
Wu YM, Chen DY, Lin TL, Hsieh CY, Chin TL, Chang WY, Li
WS, Ker SH (2013). A high-density seismic network for
earthquake early warning in Taiwan based on low cost
sensors. Seismol Res Lett 84(6): 1 048–1 054.
Yang L, Liu X, and Beroza GC (2021). Revisiting evidence for
widespread seismicity in the upper mantle under Los
Angeles. Science Advances 7(4): eabf2862.
Yu CQ, Zhan ZW, Lindsey NJ, Ajo-Franklin JB, and Robertson
M (2019). The potential of DAS in teleseismic studies:
Insights from the Goldstone experiment. Geophys Res Lett
46(3): 1 320–1 328.
Yue H, and Lay T (2011). Inversion of high-rate (1 sps) GPS data
for rupture process of the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake
(MW9.1). Geophys Res Lett 38(7): L00G09.
Zhan ZW (2020). Distributed acoustic sensing turns fiber-optic
cables into sensitive seismic antennas. Seismol Res Lett
91(1): 1–15.
Zhan ZW, Cantono M, Kamalov V, Mecozzi A, Müller R, Yin S,
and Castellanos JC (2021). Optical polarization-based
seismic and water wave sensing on transoceanic cables.
Science 371(6532): 931–936.