RECOVERY OF THE AFTERSHOCK SEQUENCE OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC EARTHQUAKE USING WAVEFORM CROSS-CORRELATION

A short sequence of aftershocks of the mb=4.2 earthquake associated with volcanic and tectonic processes in the North Atlantic was used to evaluate the efficiency of the waveform cross-correlation method (WCC) in detecting weak signals and events at teleseismic distances. The results of the WCC application are compared with those obtained at the International Data Center (IDC) and presented in the Standard Event Bulletin (SEB). The WCC method allows spatially close repeating-signal detection threshold to be several times lower when compared to energy detectors. It has already been applied at the IDC to aftershock sequences of large and moderate earthquakes with relatively high signal-to-noise ratios for event-associated signals. 50 to 70 percent of events, defined as true by the IDC, were found in addition to those listed in the SEB. All hypotheses, automatically generated for the earthquake under consideration by the WCC, were processed by an experienced IDC analyst, which made it possible to generate events according to strict IDC quality criteria. 38 seismic events listed in the SEB were supplemented with 26 aftershocks trough the WCC method, with an iterative procedure applied to search for all possible sources using the newly found aftershocks for the repeated application of the WCC. High efficiency in detection of low-magnitude events in the North Atlantic at teleseismic distances from the recording stations applies also to seismicity studies in other regions, including subarctic and arctic.

1. Adushkin V.V., Bobrov D.I., Kitov I.O., Rozhkov M.V., Sanina I.A., 2017. Remote Detection of Aftershock Activity as a New Method of Seismic Monitoring. Doklady Earth Sciences 473, 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X17030011.

2. Adushkin V.V., Kitov I.O., Sanina I.A., 2025. Aftershock Emission at the DPRK Punggye-Ri Test Site Continues to the Present. Doklady Earth Sciences 521, 21. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X25605759.

3. Arrowsmith S.J., Eisner L., 2006. A Technique for Identifying Microseismic Multiplets and Application to the Valhall Field, North Sea. Geophysics 71 (2), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2187804.

4. Baisch S., Ceranna L., Harjes H.-P., 2008. Earthquake Cluster: What Can We Learn from Waveform Similarity? Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 98 (6), 2806–2814. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080018.

5. Besedina A.N., Vinogradov E.A., 2016. Identification of Weak Seismic Events Within the East European Platform. Dynamic Processes in Geospheres 8, 76–85 (in Russian)

6. Bobrov D., Kitov I., Zerbo L., 2014. Perspectives of Cross Correlation in Seismic Monitoring at the International Data Centre. Pure and Applied Geophysics 171, 439–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-012-0626-x.

7. Bobrov D.I., Kitov I.O., Rozhkov M.V., Friberg P., 2016. Towards Global Seismic Monitoring of Underground Nuclear Explosions Using Waveform Cross Correlation. Part I: Grand Master Events. Seismic Instruments 52, 43–59. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0747923916010035.

8. Burnaby T., 1953. A Suggested Alternative to the Correlation Coefficient for Testing the Significance of Agreement Between Pairs of Time Series, and Its Application to Geological Data. Nature 172, 210–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/172210b0.

9. Cesca S., Metz M., Büyükakpınar P., Dahm T., 2023. The Energetic 2022 Seismic Unrest Related to Magma Intrusion at the North Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Geophysical Research Letters 50 (13), e2023GL102782. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL102782.

10. Coyne J., Bobrov D., Bormann P., Duran E., Grenard P., Haralabus G., Kitov I., Starovoit Yu., 2012. CTBTO: Goals, Networks, Data Analysis and Data Availability. In: P. Bormann (Ed.), New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice 2 (NMSOP-2). Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ, Potsdam, p. 1–41. https://doi.org/10.2312/GFZ.NMSOP-2_ch15.

11. Gibbons S., Kværna T., Ringdal F., 2005. Monitoring of Seismic Events from a Specific Source Region Using a Single Regional Array: A Case Study. Journal of Seismology 9, 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-005-5746-7.

12. Gibbons S.J., Ringdal F., 2004. A Waveform Correlation Procedure for Detecting Decoupled Chemical Explosions, NORSAR. Scientific Report 2-2004, p. 41–50. https://doi.org/10.21348/p.2004.0005.

13. Gibbons S.J., Ringdal F., 2006. The Detection of Low Magnitude Seismic Events Using Array-Based Waveform Correlation. Geophysical Journal International 165 (1), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.02865.x.

14. Gibbons S., Ringdal F., Kværna T., 2012. Ratio-to-Moving-Average Seismograms: A Strategy for Improving Correlation Detector Performance. Geophysical Journal International 190, 511–521. https://doi.org/10.31223/osf.io/4zmyf.

15. Gibbons S.J., Sørensen M.B., Harris D.B., Ringdal F., 2007. The Detection and Location of Low Magnitude Earthquakes in Northern Norway Using Multi-Channel Waveform Correlation at Regional Distances. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 160 (3–4), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2006.11.008.

16. Harris D., 2006. Subspace Detectors: Theory. Technical Report UCRL-TR-222758. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. 46 p. DOI:10.2172/900081.

17. Harris D., 2008. Covariance Modifications to Subspace Bases. Technical Report LLNL-TR-409155. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. 10 p.

18. Harris D.B., 1991. A Waveform Correlation Method for Identifying Quarry Explosions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 81 (6), 2395–2418. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0810062395.

19. Israelsson H., 1990. Correlation of Waveforms from Closely Spaced Regional Events. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 80 (6В), 2177–2193. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA08006B2177.

20. Joswig M., 1990. Pattern Recognition for Earthquake Detection. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 80 (1), 170–186. DOI:10.1785/BSSA0800010170.

21. Richards P.G., Waldhauser F., Schaff D., Kim W.-Y., 2006. The Applicability of Modern Methods of Earthquake Location. Pure and Applied Geophysics 163, 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-005-0019-5.

22. Rundquist D.V., Sobolev P.O., 2002. Seismicity of Mid-Oceanic Ridges and Its Geodynamic Implications: A Review. Earth-Science Reviews 58 (1–2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(01)00086-1.

23. Schaff D.P., Bokelmann G.H.R., Ellsworth W.L., Zanzerkia E., Waldhauser F., Beroza G.C., 2004. Optimizing Correlation Techniques for Improved Earthquake Location. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 94 (2), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020238.

24. Schaff D.P., Kim W.-Y., Richards P.G., 2012. Seismological Constraints on Proposed Low-Yield Nuclear Testing in Particular Regions and Time Periods in the Past, with Comments on "Radionuclide Evidence for Low-Yield Nuclear Testing in North Korea in April/May 2010 by Lars-Erik De Geer". Science & Global Security 20 (2–3), 155–171.

25. Schaff D.P., Richards P.G., 2004a. Lg-Wave Cross Correlation and Double-Difference Location: Application to the 1999 Xiuyan, China, Sequence. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 94 (3), 867–879. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030136.

26. Schaff D.P., Richards P.G., 2004b. Repeating Seismic Events in China. Science 303, 1176–1178. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093422.

27. Schaff D.P., Richards P.G., 2011. On Finding and Using Repeating Events in and near China. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 116 (В3), B03309. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB007895.

28. Schaff D.P., Waldhauser F., 2005. Waveform Cross-Correlation-Based Differential Travel-Time Measurements at the Northern California Seismic Network. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95 (6), 2446–2461. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040221.

29. Schaff D.P., Waldhauser F., 2010. One Magnitude Unit Reduction in Detection Threshold by Cross Correlation Applied to Parkfield (California) and China Seismicity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100 (6), 3224–3238. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100042.

30. Schlindwein V., 2012. Teleseismic Earthquake Swarms at Ultraslow Spreading Ridges: Indicator for Dyke Intrusions? Geophysical Journal International 190 (1), 442–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05502.x.

31. Selby N., 2010. Relative Location of the October 2006 and May 2009 DPRK Announced Nuclear Tests Using International Monitoring System Seismometer Arrays. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100 (4), 1779–1784. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100006.

32. Sigmundsson F., Parks M., Hooper A., Geirsson H., Vogfjörd K.S., Drouin V., Ófeigsson B.G., Hreinsdóttir S. et al., 2022. Deformation and Seismicity Decline Before the 2021 Fagradalsfjall Eruption. Nature 609, 523–528 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05083-4.

33. Tatevossian R.E., 2024. On the Level of Generalization of Seismotectonic Models. Dynamic Processes in Geospheres 16 (3), 114–121 (in Russian) http://doi.org/10.26006/29490995_2024_16_3_114.

34. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 1996. A Protocol to the CTBT. Paragraph 18b (in Russian) Available from: https://www.ctbto.org/sites/default/files/Documents/treaty_text_Russian.pdf (Last Accessed March 3, 2025).

35. Waldhauser F., Schaff D.P., 2008. Large-Scale Relocation of Two Decades of Northern California Seismicity Using Cross-Correlation and Double-Difference Method. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 113 (B8), B08311. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005479.