Characteristics of the Earthquakes occurred in Mexico during 2009–2010. Their magnitudes are presented in bold (Catalogue of National Seismological Service, Mexico)
Abstract
Owing to the relevance and severity of damages caused by earthquakes (EQs), the development and application of new methods for seismic activity detection that offer an efficient and reliable diagnosis in terms of processing and performance are still demanding tasks. In this work, the application of the Empirical Wavelet Transform (EWT) for seismic detection in ultralowfrequency (ULF) geomagnetic signals is presented. For this, several ULF signals associated to seismic activities and random calm periods are analysed. These signals have been obtained through a triaxial fluxgate magnetometer at the Juriquilla station localized in Queretaro, Mexico, longitude 100.45° N and latitude 20.70°E. In order to show the advantages of the proposal, a comparison with the discrete wavelet transform (DWT) is presented. The results shown a better detection capability of seismic signals before, during, and after the main shock than the ones obtained by the DWT, which makes the proposal a more suitable and reliable tool for this task. Finally, a fuzzy logic (FL)based system for automatic diagnosis using the variance of the EWT outputs for the triaxial fluxgate magnetometer signals is also proposed.
Keywords
 Empirical Wavelet Transform
 TimeFrequency Analysis
 Earthquake interaction
 forecasting
 prediction
1. Introduction
Among the natural disasters, the EQs have attracted the interest of many researchers around the world due to the huge amount of human, material, and economic losses [1]. They have been focused on finding preseismic precursors for prediction and forecasting tasks [26]. In this regard, different electromagnetic phenomena (EP) encompassing a large frequency range, being the ultralowfrequency (ULF) range one of the most promising, have been associated with EQs because they typically occur during, but sometimes prior to seismic activity [714] Although many detection methods have been proposed, the relevance and severity of EQs damages demand still more efficient and reliable diagnosis methods.
Techniques and methods such as polarization or spectral density ratio analysis [1516], transfer function analysis [17], fractal analysis [1822], singular value decomposition [23], principal component analysis [16, 21], and the discrete wavelet transform (DWT) [2, 24], among others have been proposed to analyse the ULF geomagnetic signals associated to EQs. Yet, despite showing promising results, the inherent characteristics of the ULF geomagnetic signals such as high noise levels, weak amplitude, and interferences from other sources due to the distance between the epicenter and sensor, among others may compromise the performance and reliability of the analysis. From this point of view, the development and application of new detection methods to make a more efficient and reliable diagnosis in terms of processing and performance are still interesting research fields.
In this chapter, the application of the empirical wavelet transform (EWT) to ULF signals for detecting seismic precursor anomalies is presented. Besides, a comparison with the DWT is carried out in order to show the EWT advantages. Moreover, a fuzzy logic (FL) system for automatic diagnosis using the variance of the EWT results is proposed. For this, three ULF signals associated to seismic activities and random calm periods are analysed. The obtained results show the usefulness and effectiveness of the proposed methodology, making it a suitable and reliable tool to detect ULF anomalies.
2. ULF geomagnetic data
In order to investigate the relationships between ULF geomagnetic signals and preseismic anomalies, ULF geomagnetic data from Juriquilla seismic station, located in Queretaro, Mexico, with geographic coordinates: longitude 100.45° N and latitude 20.70° E, are used. The ULF geomagnetic signals are monitored by means of a fluxgate magnetometer. It allows monitoring three mutually orthogonal components of the magnetic field, two horizontal (Mx: NorthSouth and My: EastWest) components and a vertical component (Mz). The three geomagnetic components are measured using a sampling frequency of 1 Hz to obtain 65,000 samples during a time window of 18 hrs, which comprise 9 hours before the main shock and 9 hrs after it. In this research, three recent seismic events with magnitude greater than 6.0 are analysed. Further, for comparison purposes, random analyses during periods of seismic calm are used. Table 1 summarize the characteristics of the studied EQs.
To discriminate the geomagnetic activity of the magnetosphere because of the solar activity and cultural noise, the analysed EQs data are compared with the geomagnetic activity expressed by Dst index (http://wdc.kugi.kyotou.ac.jp/dstdir/), where those indices apparently had no correlation with EQs variation.













1  2009  8  3  13  0  112.24  28.48  6.9  10  1473  2292  0.64 
2  2009  9  24  2  16  107.43  17.72  6.2  21  8052  1109  0.73 
3  2010  6  30  2  22  98.03  16.22  6.0  8  563  684  0.82 
3. Wavelet transform
This section presents the theoretical background of the Discrete Wavelet transform and the Empirical Wavelet Transform used for the analysis of ULF signals.
3.1. Discrete wavelet transform
Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) is a useful method for analysis of nonstationary, no linear and transient signals because it decomposes the time series signal into multiple timefrequency levels retaining the characteristics of the analysed signal [2]. DWT is defined by Eq. (1), where
The DWT is calculated using a set of low and highpass filters bank called approximations (AC_{L}) and details (DC_{L}) into desired levels
According to the Mallat algorithm, the frequency band for the approximations
Different types of wavelet mother function have been proposed to analyse ULF signals in order to find anomalies related with EQs such as Daubechies, Haar, Morlet, Symlets, Coiflets, and Meyer (Figure 2). However, it has been demonstrated that the most effective to analyse ULF signals is the Daubechies mother function [2, 24, 26]. For this reason, Daubechies as mother wavelet is used in this work.
3.2. Empirical wavelet transform
EWT is a new adaptive wavelet transform capable of decomposing a time series signal
Following the idea used in deriving the Meyer’s wavelet, [27] defines the empirical scaling function to estimate the lowpass wavelet filter coefficients according to following Equation:
And an empirical wavelet function to build the
where
After having built the wavelet filters, the signal
where the details
4. EWT and fuzzy logic system
This section presents the proposed methodology. It consists of the ULF geomagnetic signals analysis through the EWT, then a statistical parameter based on the variance is applied and, finally, an automatic diagnosis by means of a FL system is computed as shown in Figure. 4.
4.1. EWT analysis
Generally, the preseismic anomalies are too much weak to be detected by the Fourier transform (Chavez et al., 2010); hence, the frequency bands are selected manually using the EWT. Several experimental using both algorithms are carried out to estimate the best frequency band of the ULF geomagnetic signal to detect anomalies associated to the EQs. After the experimental runs, it is found that for the EWT algorithm the frequency band from 0.0470 to 0.0781 Hz and for the DWT algorithm the frequency band or third decomposition from 0.0625 to 0.125 Hz with a Daubechies wavelet of order 5 generate the best results, enhancing correlation with associated seismic anomalies events. Figure. 5 presents the obtained results for the EWT and the DWT, where both the seismic calm signal (leftside plots) and the seismic activity signal (rightside plots), which corresponds to event 1 (Table 1), can be observed. Figure.5(a) shows that in both analysis, the seismic calm period do not present significant spikes over time, indicating the absence of seismic activity. On the other hand, observing the results shown in Figure. 5(b), both timefrequency analysis can detect the occurrence of peaks prior to seismic (Preseismic event zone) and another peaks after the main shock (Postseismic event zone). These magnetic perturbations occur about 8hrs before the main shock and about 2 hrs after it. Open circles remark perturbations in the signal.. But, it is noticeable that, using the EWT method, it is better noticeable of the preseismic and postseismic anomalies.
In order to evaluate the significance of these results, a complementary statistical analysis based on the variance of the EWT and DWT results is computed to measure the fluctuations between seismic activity and seismic calm period as follows:
where
4.2. Study cases
After showing in the previous section that EWT improves the correlation between the seismic event and the ULF electromagnetic signal, the proposed EWT timefrequency analysis is applied to seismic calm and three seismic events with different geographical location. Figure. 7 shows the EWT timefrequency analysis for seismic calm period and the 3 seismic events. The three components of the magnetic field, Mx, My, and Mz, are analysed as shown in Figure. 7. The main shock position is indicated by an arrow and two circles. It shows the preseismic and postseismic anomalies associated with the EQs. The EWT results for seismic calm period do not present significant spikes over time, indicating the absence of seismic activity, as shown in Figure. 7(ac); unlike the signals with seismic activity where several spikes appear before and after the main shock. All the analysed signals comprise 9 hrs before and 9 hrs after each seismic event, considering the time zero as the specific time of the occurrence of the EQ.
Similar to previous section, to evaluate the significance of the results, a complementary statistical analysis based on the variance of the EWT results is computed to measure the fluctuations between seismic activity and seismic calm period. Figure. 8 shows the variance V results obtained for three analysed seismic events as well as for their three components (Mx, My, and Mz). The results correspond to running data windows each 1000 samples. According to the obtained results in Figure.8(ac), there are important variations of V for the three components that could be associated with occurrence of the EQs. As observed, V increases before, during and, after the seismic event on the three components: Mx (a), My (b), and Mz (c). Observing Figure. 8, the Mx geomagnetic component presents an important variance in three different ranges: from 8 to 5 hrs before seismic event, between 2hr before and 2hr after the main shock, and from 3 to 7 hrs after the main EQs (postseismic zone). The My component shows variance in different ranges, from 8 to 6 hrs before seismic event, between 2 hrs before and 2 hrs after main shock, and from 3 to 8 hrs after the main EQs. Finally, the Mz geomagnetic component also presents variance in three different ranges: from 8 to 6 hrs before seismic event, 2 hrs before and 2 hrs after main shock, and from 4 to 8 hrs after seismic event. In summary, these results show that the EWT is adequate to find electromagnetic seismic precursors related to the variance magnitude.
4.3. Fuzzy logicbased system
Once the variance of the EWT signals is computed, a FLbased system is used for automatically diagnosing the severity of the ULF geomagnetic variations associated to seismic events. A FL system represents a group of rules for reasoning under uncertainty in an imprecise or fuzzy manner. It is usually used when a mathematical model of a process does not exist or does exist but is too difficult to encode and too complex to be evaluated fast enough for real time operation. Besides, it can use several sources of information in order to take a decision according to a particular objective.
The designed and implemented FL system to perform the diagnosis process is a Mamdanitype fuzzy inference system with two inputs, one output, and 16 rules. The system uses Max–Min composition, and the centroid of area method for defuzzification. The inputs are the variance of EWT results for the signals Mx and My, the Mz signal is not considered since it presents a low difference between seismic activity and calm period. These inputs are partitioned into four trapezoidal membership function sets, as shown in Figures. 9(a) and 9(b). They are labelled as NV (normal variance), LV (low variance), MV (medium variance), and HV (high variance). The output is also divided into four trapezoidal membership functions as shown in Figure. 9(c), their labels are NF (normal fluctuations), LF (low fluctuations), MF (medium fluctuations), and HF (high fluctuations). The crisp output of the Mamdani FL system can assume values between 0.5 and 4.5, where normal variations = 1, low variations = 2, medium variations = 3, and high variations = 4. The parameters of membership functions are determined according to the interpretation of the variance results by the authors. The set of rules that classifies the inputs variance is show in Table 2; there, one rule can be read as follows if (variance Mx is NV and variance My is NV) (light gray) then the geomagnetic fluctuations magnitude is NF (dark gray), and so on.



NV  LV  MV  HV  

NV  NF  NF  LF  MF 
LV  LF  LF  MF  HF  
MV  LF  MF  HF  HF  
HV  MF  HF  HF  HF 
The FL output for a calm period signal is shown in Figure. 10(a), where most of the results are Normal and only a few data indicate Low ULF geomagnetic variations. On the other hand, the outputs for the three geomagnetic signals associated to EQs indicate many Medium and High variations as shown in Figure. 10(bd); therefore, if these results are obtained in future data they could be associated to seismic activities.
5. Conclusions
In this chapter, a new timefrequency study based on the EWT for analysing ULF geomagnetic signals, at Juriquilla station in Queretaro Mexico, is presented. In order to prove the effectiveness of the EWT algorithm; three real data of EQs are analysed. The results demonstrate that the proposal has a greater detectability than DWT for detecting anomalies before, during, and after the main shock since EWT allows selecting narrow timefrequency subbands, unlike the DWT where the calculated timefrequency subbands depend on sampling frequency of the time signal. Further, the variance, a statistical complementary analysis, shows that a seismic event can be detected from 8 to 5 hrs before it occurs. It also indicates that relevant information can be obtained from 563 to 1473 km (epicenter distance) to the testing station. Therefore, the proposed timefrequency analysis can extract the abnormal signals in the ULF range of the EP related to different stages of the EQ preparation. Finally, the proposed FL system can automatically classify the magnitude variations of the EP into Normal, Low, Medium, and High variations using both Mx and My signals, where is found that Medium and High variations could be associated to seismic activities.
In a future work, the overall methodology will be implemented into a digital signal processor (DSP) for online and continuous monitoring of ULF geomagnetic variations and possibly used for obtain a implicit correlation between the seismic magnitude and the ULF geomagnetic signals.
References
 1.
Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., Yang, X. Su, B. Automatic Recognition of Seismic Intensity Based on RS and GIS: A Case Study in Wenchuan Ms 8.0 Earthquake of ChinaThe Scientific World Journal 2014201418  2.
Chavez, O., MillanAlmaraz, J. R. PerezEnriquez, R. et al.Detection of ULF geomagnetic signals associated with seismic events in Central Mexico using Discrete Wavelet TransformNatural Hazards and Earth System Sciences2010; 1012)2557–2564.  3.
Moriya, T., Mogi, T., Takada, M.Anomalous preseismic transmission of VHFband radio waves resulting from large earthquakes, and its statistical relationship to magnitude of impending earthquakesGeophysical Journal International2010;1802)858870.  4.
Wei, C., Zhang, Y., Guo, X., et al. Thermal Infrared Anomalies of Several Strong EarthquakesThe Scientific World Journal2013; 2013111.  5.
Lin, J.W.Ionospheric Anomalies Related to the (M = 7.3), August 27, 2012, Puerto Earthquake, (M = 6.8), August 30, 2012 Jan Mayen Island Earthquake, and (M = 7.6), August 31, 2012, Philippines Earthquake: TwoDimensional Principal Component AnalysisThe Scientific World Journal2013;201318.  6.
Gambino, S., Laudani, A. Manglagli, S.Seismicity Pattern Changes before the M=4.8 Aeolian Archipelago (Italy) Earthquake of August 16, 2010The Scientific World Journal2014; 201418.  7.
Warwick, J. W., Stoker, C. Meyer, T. R.Radio emission associated with rock fracture: Possible application to the great Chilean earthquake of May 22, 1960Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth1982; 87B4)2851–2859.  8.
Johnston, M. J. S. Review of electric and magnetic fields accompanying seismic and volcanic activitySurveys in Geophysics1997;185)441–475.  9.
Hayakawa, M. Molchanov, O.Seismo Electromagnetics Lithosphere AtmosphereAtmosphereIonosphere Coupling. TERRAPUB Tokyo Japan2002; 477.  10.
Otha, K., Watanabe, N. Hayakawa, M. The observation of ultra‐low frequency emissions at Nakatsugawa, Japan, in possible association with the Sumatra, Indonesia, earthquake.International Journal of Remote Sensing 2007; 28(1314) 31213131.  11.
Molchanov, O. A. Hayakawa, M.SeismoElectromagnetics and Related Phenomena, History and latest results. TERRAPUB Tokyo Japan2008; 189.  12.
Kushwah, V., Singh, V. Singh, B. Ultra low frequency (ULF) amplitude observed at Agra (India) and their association with regional earthquakes. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth2009; 34(6) 367–272.  13.
Karia, S., Sarkar, S., Pathak, K., et al. Analysis of space and groundbased parameters prior to an earthquake on 12 December 2009. International Journal of Remote Sensing 2013;34(21), 77797795.  14.
Borovsky, J. E. Denton, M. H. Exploring the cross correlations and autocorrelations of the ULF indices and incorporating the ULF indices into the systems science of the solar winddriven magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics2014; 119(6) 43074334.  15.
Hayakawa, M., Kawate, R., Molchanov, O. Yumoto. K. Results of ultralow frequency magnetic field measurements during the Guam earthquake of 8 August 1993. Geophysical Research Letters1996: 23(3) 241–244.  16.
Hattori, K., Serita, A., Gotoh, K., et al. ULF geomagnetic anomaly associated with 2000 Izu islands earthquake swarm. Japan. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 2004; 29(4) 425–436.  17.
Harada, M., Hattori, K. Isezaki, N. Transfer function analysis approach for anomalous ULF geomagnetic field change detection. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth2004; 29(4) 409– 417.  18.
Smirnova, N., Hayakawa, M.Gotoh. K. Precursory behavior of fractal characteristics of the ULF electromagnetic fields in seismic active zones before strong earthquakes. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth2004; 29(4) 445–451.  19.
Ida, Y., Hayakawa, M., Adalev, A.Gotoh, K. Multifractal analysis for the ULF geomagnetic data during the 1993 Guam earthquake. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics2005; 12(2) 157–162.  20.
Ida, Y. Hayakawa, M. Fractal analysis for the ULF data during the 1993 Guam earthquake to study prefracture criticality. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 2006; 13(4) 409–412.  21.
Kotsarenko, A., Molchanov, O., Hayakawa, M., et al. Investigation of ULF magnetic anomaly during Izu earthquake swarm and Miyakejima volcano eruption at summer 2000, Japan. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences2005; 5 63–69.  22.
Kotsarenko, A., PerezEnriquez, R.,Lopez CruzAbeyro, J. A., et al. ULF geomagnetic anomalies of possible seismogenic origin observed at Teoloyucan station, Mexico, in 1999–2001: Intermediate and ShortTime Analysis. Tectonophysics2007; 431(1) 249–262.  23.
Hattori, K., Serita, A., Yoshino, C., et al. Singular spectral analysis and principal component analysis for signal discrimination of ULF geomagnetic data associated with 2000 Izu Island earthquake swarm. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth2006; 31(4) 281–291.  24.
Han, P., Hattori, K., Hirokawa, M., et al. Statistical analysis of ULF seismomagnetic phenomena at Kakioka, Japan, during 2001–2010. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 2014; 119(6) 49985011.  25.
AmezquitaSanchez, J. P., Adeli, H. Signal Processing Techniques for VibrationBased HealthMonitoring of Smart Structures. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s1183101491357.  26.
Jach, A. P., Kokoszka, Sojka, J., Zhu, L. Waveletbased index of magnetic storm activity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 2006; 111(A9) 111.  27.
Gilles, J. Empirical wavelet transform. IEEE Transaction on Signal. Processing2013; 61(16) 39994010.