Earthquake and artificial blasting identification based on S-spectrum energy curve and convolutional neural networks
-
摘要:
以震级为ML1.3—3.0的1万2 936条人工爆破微震记录和1万3 215条天然微震波形为研究对象,对其原始地震波形进行1—30 Hz带通滤波以去除长周期干扰,并基于长短时窗均值比(STA/LTA)算法进行P波识别与筛选。对处理后的地震波形数据进行S变换,获取其S谱能量曲线,然后将S谱能量曲线图转换为32×32像素的灰度特征图,并将其作为卷积神经网络的输入进行训练,基于训练好的模型进行10折交叉测试验证。结果显示地震与爆破事件的分类识别准确率高达97.80%,表明利用S谱能量曲线能较好地识别天然地震与人工爆破。
-
关键词:
- 人工爆破 /
- 天然地震 /
- 卷积神经网络(CNN) /
- S变换 /
- 分类识别
Abstract:With the improvement of earthquake monitoring capabilities and the surge of monitoring data, researches on seismology has entered the era of big data. Especially with the increase of mining blasting, engineering demolition, military construction and other activities, seismic stations will collect a large number of natural and artificial blasting waveforms. Accurately and quickly identifying artificial blasting and natural earthquakes from waveforms has become one of the focuses of earthquake warning and prediction research. Numerous scholars have conducted in-depth researches on earthquake event classification and recognition. The use of convolutional neural network (CNN) technology for earthquake event detection and classification is currently one of the research hot-spots, but one of the key challenges is how to capture the different features of artificial blasting and natural earthquakes.
In order to further study the application of CNN in the field of earthquake event automatic detection and improve the efficiency of event automatic detection, a study was conducted on the classification and identification of natural earthquakes and blasting events based on CNN, with 12 936 artificial blasting micro-seismic records and 13 215 natural micro-seismic records with magnitude ML1.3−3.0 as the research objects.
Firstly, the seismic waveforms are preprocessed. The original seismic waveforms are filtered using a band-pass filter with a range of 1−30 Hz to remove long-period interference components, resulting in distinct P- and S-wave records. Based on this, P-wave identification is performed using short-term/long-term average (STA/LTA) algorithm, with STA duration set as 0.2 seconds, LTA duration set as 1 second, and threshold size set as 2. The waveforms from 20 seconds before the first arrival time to 100 seconds after the last arrival time were taken as the screening result for this record, resulting in 12 132 effective natural earthquake screening records and 11 721 artificial blasting screening records.
Secondly, the S-transform is applied to obtain the S-transform spectrum of the preprocessed seismic signals. Based on the obtained S-transform spectrum, the S-spectrum energy curve that varies with frequency is then calculated by integrating the energy across different frequency bands. The S-spectrum energy curve can clearly depict the frequency and energy variation of seismic signals. Moreover, it can more effectively capture the characteristics of the original signals.
Then, based on the classic LeNet5 model, a CNN network model, was constructed, which includes one input layer, three convolutional groups consisting of three convolutional layers and three pooling layers, one fully connected layer, and one output layer. In order to reduce resource loss and time consumption, and improve operational efficiency, the three-channel RGB image of the S-spectrum energy curve is converted into a 32×32 pixel-grayscale feature map, which is used as input for CNN. The CNN model is trained using the training set to obtain the optimal CNN model parameters.
Finally, testing is conducted based on the trained CNN model to verify the identification accuracy of natural earthquakes and artificial blasting events. A certain proportion (50%−90%) of the preprocessed seismic record dataset is randomly extracted as training data, with the remaining data used for testing. The tests show that the more training samples there are, the better the classification and identification performance. When the training sample ratio is 90%, the average identification accuracy is up to 97.57%.
The algorithm performance was tested using the ten-fold cross validation method, with the process repeated 100 times. The average identification result was adopted, and the identification accuracy reached 97.80%. The values of the classification performance indicators, namely sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP), were close, which indicates good identification performance of the CNN algorithm.
To further test the effectiveness of the S-spectrum energy curve as a feature for seismic signal classification and identification, the S-spectrum, wavelet spectrum, short-time Fourier transform (STFT) spectrum, and fast Fourier transform (FFT) spectrum were used as inputs for CNN model training and testing. The results showed that in comparison to other signal spectra, the S-spectrum energy curve can intuitively reflect the energy magnitude and variations of each frequency component within the signal, with a higher recognition accuracy of over 97%.
The experimental results show that the S-spectrum energy curve can serve as an effective and reliable basis for classifying natural earthquakes and artificial blasting events, and the CNN model in this paper is reliable with good stability and accuracy.
It should be noted that, using simple binary classification problems such as natural earthquakes and artificial blasting alone is not enough to describe the complexity of earthquake event classification and recognition. In the next step, we will collect sample data from different regions and earthquake events, optimize the structural model of CNN training networks, and make the model for earthquake event detection and identification more accurate and the identification effect more intelligent.
-
-
表 1 不同训练样本比例下运行10次的地震事件分类平均识别结果
Table 1 Average identification results of seismic events when running 10 times with different proportions of training samples
训练样本所占比例 准确率 敏感度 特异性值 50% 90.35% 89.98% 90.93% 60% 92.34% 93.10% 91.67% 70% 95.63% 95.12% 95.94% 80% 96.05% 97.01% 96.03% 90% 97.57% 98.82% 97.09% 表 2 100次10折交叉验证的地震事件分类识别结果
Table 2 Indentification results of seismic events from 100 runs of 10-fold cross-validation
准确率 敏感度 特异性值 最大值 99.06% 100% 100% 最小值 96.82% 96.03% 97.12% 平均值 97.80% 97.25% 98.16% 表 3 本文S谱能量曲线与其它时频谱图的CNN分类效果对比
Table 3 Comparison of CNN classification effect by the S-spectrum energy curve in this study with that by other spectrograms
准确率 S谱能量曲线 S谱 小波谱 STFT时频谱 FFT时频谱 97.80% 97.67% 93.07% 96.34% 90.53% -
陈润航,黄汉明,柴慧敏. 2018. 地震和爆破事件源波形信号的卷积神经网络分类研究[J]. 地球物理学进展,33(4):1331–1338. doi: 10.6038/pg2018BB0326 Chen R H,Huang H M,Chai H M. 2018. Study on the discrimination of seismic waveform signals between earthquake and explosion events by convolutional neural network[J]. Progress in Geophysics,33(4):1331–1338 (in Chinese).
董新桐,李月,刘飞,冯黔堃,钟铁. 2021. 基于卷积神经网络的井中分布式光纤传感器地震数据随机噪声压制新技术[J]. 地球物理学报,64(7):2554–2565. doi: 10.6038/cjg2021O0274 Dong X T,Li Y,Liu F,Feng Q K,Zhong T. 2021. New suppression technology for the random noise in the DAS seismic data based on convolutional neural network[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics,64(7):2554–2565 (in Chinese).
段刚. 2021. 基于卷积神经网络的天然地震与人工爆破识别研究[J]. 地球物理学进展,36(4):1379–1385. doi: 10.6038/pg2021EE0496 Duan G. 2021. Research on identification of natural earthquake and artificial blasting based on convolutional neural network[J]. Progress in Geophysics,36(4):1379–1385 (in Chinese).
黎炳君,黄汉明,王婷婷,王鹏飞,王梦琪,施佳朋,薛思敏. 2021. 基于STFT和CNN的地震信号分类识别研究[J]. 地球物理学进展,36(4):1404–1411. doi: 10.6038/pg2021EE0262 Li B J,Huang H M,Wang T T,Wang P F,Wang M Q,Shi J P,Xue S M. 2021. Research on seismic signal classification and recognition based on STFT and CNN[J]. Progress in Geophysics,36(4):1404–1411 (in Chinese).
孟娟,张家声,李亚南. 2022. 基于改进EWT和LogitBoost集成分类器的地震事件分类识别算法[J]. 地震工程学报,44(5):1233–1242. Meng J,Zhang J S,Li Y N. 2022. Classification and recognition algorithm for earthquake events based on the improved EWT and LogitBoost ensemble classifier[J]. China Earthquake Engineering Journal,44(5):1233–1242 (in Chinese).
盛立,徐西龙,王维波,高明. 2021. 基于时频分析和卷积神经网络的微地震事件检测[J]. 中国石油大学学报(自然科学版),45(5):54–63. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5005.2021.05.006 Sheng L,Xu X L,Wang W B,Gao M. 2021. Detection of microseismic events based on time-frequency analysis and convolutional neural network[J]. Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Natural Science),45(5):54–63 (in Chinese).
孙甲宁,夏爱国,苏乃秦. 2005. 地震和爆破时频域能量分布特征的对比分析[J]. 华南地震,25(2):68–74. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8662.2005.02.009 Sun J N,Xia A G,Su N Q. 2005. A contrastive study on energy distribution characteristics of earthquake and explosion in T-F domain[J]. South China Journal of Seismology,25(2):68–74 (in Chinese).
隗永刚,杨千里,王婷婷,蒋长胜,边银菊. 2019. 基于深度学习残差网络模型的地震和爆破识别[J]. 地震学报,41(5):646–657. doi: 10.11939/jass.20190030 Wei Y G,Yang Q L,Wang T T,Jiang C S,Bian Y J. 2019. Earthquake and explosion identification based on deep learning residual network model[J]. Acta Seismologica Sinica,41(5):646–657 (in Chinese).
赵明,陈石,Yuen D. 2019. 基于深度学习卷积神经网络的地震波形自动分类与识别[J]. 地球物理学报,62(1):374–382. doi: 10.6038/cjg2019M0151 Zhao M,Chen S,Yuen D. 2019. Waveform classification and seismic recognition by convolution neural network[J]. Chinese Journal of Geophysics,62(1):374–382 (in Chinese).
Dong L J,Tang Z,Li X B,Chen Y C,Xue J C. 2020. Discrimination of mining microseismic events and blasts using convolutional neural networks and original waveform[J]. Journal of Central South University,27(10):3078–3089. doi: 10.1007/s11771-020-4530-8
Giudicepietro F,Esposito A M,Ricciolino P. 2017. Fast discrimination of local earthquakes using a neural approach[J]. Seismol Res Lett,88(4):1089–1096. doi: 10.1785/0220160222
Huang L Q,Li J,Hao H,Li X B. 2018. Micro-seismic event detection and location in underground mines by using Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and deep learning[J]. Tunn Undergr Space Technol,81:265–276. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2018.07.006
Kortström J,Uski M,Tiira T. 2016. Automatic classification of seismic events within a regional seismograph network[J]. Comput Geosci,87:22–30. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2015.11.006
Li X B,Shang X Y,Peng K. 2017. Classification of seismic events and quarry blasts using singular value decomposition and support vector machine[J]. J Test Eval,45(1):140–151. doi: 10.1520/JTE20160136
Rodriguez A B,Luzón M T,Martinez L G,Benitez C,Ibáñez J M. 2017. Automatic seismic-event classification with convolutional neural networks[C]//AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. New Orleans:AGU:S21E-03.
Tang L L,Zhang M,Wen L X. 2020. Support vector machine classification of seismic events in the Tianshan Orogenic Belt[J]. J Geophys Res:Solid Earth,125(1):e2019JB018132. doi: 10.1029/2019JB018132
Titos M,Bueno A,García L,Benítez C. 2018. A deep neural networks approach to automatic recognition systems for volcano-seismic events[J]. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens,11(5):1533–1544. doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2803198
Titos M,Bueno A,García L,Benítez M C,Ibañez J. 2019. Detection and classification of continuous volcano-seismic signals with recurrent neural networks[J]. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens,57(4):1936–1948. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2018.2870202
Xiong W,Ji X,Ma Y,Wang Y X,AlBinHassan N M,Ali M N,Luo Y. 2018. Seismic fault detection with convolutional neural network[J]. Geophysics,83(5):O97–O103. doi: 10.1190/geo2017-0666.1