It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
We use seismic waves that pass through the hypocentral region of the 2016 M6.5 Norcia earthquake together with Deep Learning (DL) to distinguish between foreshocks, aftershocks and time-to-failure (TTF). Binary and N-class models defined by TTF correctly identify seismograms in test with > 90% accuracy. We use raw seismic records as input to a 7 layer CNN model to perform the classification. Here we show that DL models successfully distinguish seismic waves pre/post mainshock in accord with lab and theoretical expectations of progressive changes in crack density prior to abrupt change at failure and gradual postseismic recovery. Performance is lower for band-pass filtered seismograms (below 10 Hz) suggesting that DL models learn from the evolution of subtle changes in elastic wave attenuation. Tests to verify that our results indeed provide a proxy for fault properties included DL models trained with the wrong mainshock time and those using seismic waves far from the Norcia mainshock; both show degraded performance. Our results demonstrate that DL models have the potential to track the evolution of fault zone properties during the seismic cycle. If this result is generalizable it could improve earthquake early warning and seismic hazard analysis.
Artificial Intelligence technique based on Deep Learning is used to differentiate seismic waves before and after a M6.5 earthquake. The model classifies foreshocks, aftershocks, and time-to-failure, providing insights into how fault zone properties change before and after earthquakes.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details






1 Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Rome, Italy (GRID:grid.7841.a)
2 Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Earth Sciences, Rome, Italy (GRID:grid.7841.a)
3 Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Computer Science, Rome, Italy (GRID:grid.7841.a)
4 Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Earth Sciences, Rome, Italy (GRID:grid.7841.a); Pennsylvania State University, Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania, USA (GRID:grid.29857.31) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 4281)