Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Available at: http://publications.ictp.it IC/2007/126
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and
International Atomic Energy Agency
THE ABDUS SALAM INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS
SPECTRAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL
EARTHQUAKES IN THE LOP NOR TEST SITE, CHINA
I.M. Korrat Geology Department, Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt,
A.A. Gharib, K.A. Abou Elenean, H.M. Hussein
National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics, NRIAG, Helwan, Egypt
and
M.N. ElGabry* National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics, NRIAG, Helwan, Egypt
and The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy.
MIRAMARE – TRIESTE
December 2007
___________________ *Junior Associate of ICTP.
1
Abstract
A seismic discriminants based on the spectral seismogram and spectral magnitude
techniques has been tested to discriminate between three events; a nuclear explosion which took
place in Lop Nor, China with mb 6.1 and two earthquakes from the closest area with mb 5.5 and 5.3,
respectively. The spectral seismogram of the three events shows that the frequency content of the
nuclear explosion differs from that of the earthquakes where the P-wave is rich with high frequency
content in the nuclear explosion than the corresponding earthquakes. It is also observed that the
energy decays very rapidly for the nuclear explosion than that for the earthquakes. Furthermore, the
spectral magnitudes reveal significant differences in the spectra between the nuclear explosion and
the two earthquakes. These observed differences appear to be quite enough to provide a reliable
discriminant. The estimated stress drop from the magnitude spectra indicates a higher stress drop of
the nuclear explosion relative to the earthquakes of the same tectonic region.
2
Introduction
Discrimination between earthquakes and underground nuclear explosions is a difficult task which
has gained considerable attention in the seismological community. Seismic methods provide the
principal means for a verification of a nuclear test ban (Basham and Dahlman, 1988). The
discrepancies in signals from earthquakes and explosions arise from differences in source
mechanisms, source dimensions and duration. An underground nuclear explosion has a small point
source compared to an earthquake. It sends out compressional waves of equal strength in all
directions. An earthquake occurs along a rupture as a result of sliding rupture sides. Due to this
frictional sliding an earthquake emits more shear waves and surface waves than a nuclear explosion.
As the source dimensions of earthquakes tend to be larger than those of nuclear explosions,
wavelengths of the radiated seismic waves emitted are longer. Thus, earthquakes usually produce
signals with lower frequencies than explosions.
Classical Discriminates such as mb:MS, the ratio of body wave magnitude and surface wave
magnitude; M0:ML, the ratio of seismic moment and local magnitude and various spectral ratios
showed promising results in many instances. Denny et al. (1987) and Taylor et al. (1989) show that
mb:MS works well down to mb = 4. Generally, the explosion generates lower-amplitude surface
waves than an earthquake of equal size. However, in some cases these methods failed to
discriminate between natural earthquakes and nuclear explosions. For example, intermediate and
deep earthquakes can cause problems with mb:MS because they can result in relatively high mb:MS
differentials and sampling of Rayleigh waves near radiation nodes can bias the MS estimates
(Dreger and Woods 2002). Additionally, all nuclear explosions produce some nonisotropic radiation
(Wallace, 1991) and the mode of the nonisotropic radiation (strike-slip vs. dip-slip) can have quite
different effects on Rayleigh wave amplitudes and, hence, MS (Patton, 1991). Surface waves also
have source area dependent behavior (Stevens, 1986). As shown by Patton (1991), the degree of
such bias is a strong function of the F-factor, F= (α2M0/2β2MI), where α and β are the compressional
and shear wave velocities at the source, and M0 and MI are the nonisotropic and isotropic scalar
seismic moments, respectively. The ratio of mb:M0 and ML:M0 discriminants are based on the same
principle as the mb:MS method with the exception that M0 is determined by waveform modeling to
account for source depth and radiation pattern influences (Woods et al., 1993).
The seismic waves observed in earthquake records manifest clearly non-stationary
characteristics, as well as wide frequency content. Those characteristics are twofold (Huerta-López,
et al., 2003). The first characteristic involves variations of the intensity of ground motion with the
time. The second characteristic involves variation with the time of the frequency content, with a
tendency to shift to lower frequencies as the time increases. This phenomenon is well known as the
3
frequency dependent dispersive effect which is very complex and involves the arrival of different
seismic phases (P, S and surface waves), the intensity of ground motion, the magnitude of
earthquake, source and path effects, and the local soil conditions. Spectral characteristics of
different seismic waves have been used before for the discrimination analysis and source parameter
evaluations of different tectonic origins earthquakes (Hussein et al., 1998, Lyskova et al., 1998 and
Abou Elenean et al., 2000). Moreover, Chernobay and Gabsatarove (1999) applied the spectrogram
method for routine discrimination between regional earthquakes and chemical explosions of
comparable magnitudes in northern Caucasus. Recently, the spectrogram was implemented in the
routine analysis used by Comprehensive Nuclear-Test- Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO).
The need for a suitable tool for measuring strength of any seismic event, as well as for
discrimination between natural and artificial ones, is very important issue. Our study has been
forward to apply both the spectral seismogram (spectrogram) and spectral magnitudes tools for the
verification of a nuclear explosion at the Lop Nor test site, China and the two natural earthquakes
which occurred closer to the test site. These tools can help in resolving possible biases in the
identification of an explosion.
Data
In this study, we used three events; a known nuclear explosion and two natural earthquakes which
are both located in the China Lop Nor area. The selection is based upon event size (magnitude),
focal depth and location proximity. We search for the available natural earthquakes with relatively
comparable magnitudes to that of the explosion and very close to the test site. This ensures that
dissimilarities observed between both events would originate from the type of the source rather than
from different propagation paths and origin areas. Table 1 shows the parameters of the three tested
events. The broadband records of IRIS data base were utilized. We try to use the same stations with
the same time window during our analysis. Six seismic stations equipped with 3 components
Streckeisen STS-1 broadband seismometers (Fig. 1) which have good signal to noise ratio were
used. The available selected stations have epicentral distances ranging from 20°- 60°.
Spectral seismogram
The Fourier transform decomposes a signal into its constituent frequency components. Looking at
the Fourier spectrum we can identify these frequencies; however, we cannot identify their temporal
localization. Time-frequency distribution map converts a one-dimensional signal into a colored two-
dimensional function of time and frequency, and describes how the spectral content of the signal
4
changes with time. The basic idea of the method of analyzing the time-varying nature of the
spectral content is to compute the Fourier transform of the signal using a short sliding time window.
The absolute values of this function yield the spectrogram (Fasthoff and Lucan, 1996). The basis for
this approach has been developed by Gabor (1946). He defined the complex (analytic signal) from a
real one s(t):
z(t) = s(t)+iH[s(t)] (1)
where, H is the Hilbert transform which is defined as:
H[s(t)] = p.v. τπττ dts )( −
∫+∞
∞− (2)
(p.v. stands for principal value of the integral). Moreover, Gabor (1946) demonstrated that the
analytic signal can be calculated as well in the frequency domain by Fourier transforming the signal
s(t), then doubling the amplitude of the positive frequencies and suppressing the amplitude of the
negative frequencies. For obtaining the spectral seismogram digital data processing is performed
using the following steps (Farnbach, 1975):
1) Compute the complex FFT spectrum Sk, 0 < k < N
2) Multiply the spectrum by 2 0 / 2 1 0, / 2 0 / 2
for k Nfor k k Nfor N k N
< <⎧⎪ = =⎨⎪ < <⎩
3) Take the inverse FFT to obtain the analytic signal z(t), z(t) to be written in polar coordinates
as:
z(t) = a(t)e iΦ(t) (3)
where
a(t) = z (t) = 2 2( ) [ ( )]t s ts H+ (4)
Φ(t) = arctan [ ( )]( )
H s ts t
⎧ ⎫⎨ ⎬
⎭⎩ (5)
The parameter a(t) is named instantaneous amplitude or envelope and Φ(t) is referred to the
instantaneous phase. The envelope and instantaneous phase are used in seismology for analyzing
the dispersion of surface waves and detection of secondary phases. The display of the variation of
frequency content with the time of the signal can be considered as a good indicator of rupture
process, complexity of the source, discrimination between different tectonic regime earthquakes
and/or natural and artificial events.
5
In our attempt to analyze the time-frequency distribution of the selected broadband records,
we follow the procedures of Levshin et al. (1972) in the dispersion analysis by applying the nfilter
algorithm (Saul, 1995). Different time windows of the selected records were analyzed (P-wave
window (60 sec), S-wave window (60) and nearly 400 sec after P-wave onset) to inspect the
variation of the ground motion intensity and their temporal frequency content with travel times.
The spectrograms of the three tested events at the vertical component of the ABKT station
illustrate some essential differences between the natural earthquakes (Fig. 2, A, B) and the nuclear
explosion (Fig. 2, C). First, the P-wave energy decays rapidly for the nuclear explosion whereas, in
the earthquakes, the energy takes more time (i.e. slow rate) to vanish (either for the P-waves or for
the whole trace). Second, the P-wave energy of the explosion is much higher than any other later
phases that are usually not notable due to the great difference in their energy level relative to P-
wave group. This usually occurs due to the isotropic character of the nuclear explosion sources,
which generate mainly compressional P-wave with S-waves completely vanishing or being very
weak. On the other hand, earthquakes show clearly both P- and S-waves groups. Generally, the S-
wave energy is much higher than P-waves energy. A third difference appears in the frequency
content of P and S-wave groups observed for the earthquakes and the explosion. In the case of the
explosion, the P-wave frequency band ranges from 0.3 – 4.0 Hz, while in the earthquakes it ranges
from 0.07 up to 3.0 Hz. The lower frequency content of the earthquakes may be related to the
characteristics of its sources. The S-wave group in the earthquakes is clear and has a frequencies
band range from 0.05-1Hz while it is not clear for the explosion which is limited within 0.2-0.7Hz.
Moreover, the P-waves are rich in higher frequencies than S-waves due to stronger shear
attenuation relative to the bulk attenuation of the earth (Borman, 2002).
Spectral magnitudes
The spectral magnitudes (magnitude spectra) are a quasi-continuous estimate of the velocity density
spectrum of P- (or S-) waves expressed in magnitude units (Kaiser and Duda, 1988). Unlike the
conventional body wave magnitudes, the magnitude spectrum represents the complete P- (or S-)
wave energy radiated from the source. Broadband records of seismic waves enable one to extend
the magnitude definition to bandpass seismograms and to determine a set of magnitudes
corresponding to the respective set of seismograms. These magnitudes are called spectral
magnitudes (Nortmann and Duda, 1982b; Duda and Yanovkaya, 1994). The period corresponding
to the maximum spectral magnitude varies between seismic events depending on the source
6
characteristics. The maximum spectral magnitude together with its period is considered as
diagnostic quantities for seismic events.
Duda and Yanovskaya (1994) found that it is better for the determination of spectral
magnitudes to use the spectrum instead of amplitudes from bandpass seismograms to avoid the
effect of the band width. The magnitude spectrum Ms(T) is obtained from the formula:
Ms (T) = SI (T) +σ I (∆, h, T) (6)
where I refers to either the vertical Z or radial R component of the ground velocity density SI (T)
and σ I (∆, h, T) is the P-wave calibrating function. Ms(T) is a distribution of magnitude values in
the period range from Tmin = 2∆t (∆t is the sampling interval of the seismogram) to Tmax= 60 sec
(length of the P-wave time window). ∆ is the epicentral distance and h is the focal depth. The
magnitude spectrum is subsequently averaged in period intervals of a width equal to one octave and
centered at the periods 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 sec. In this case the spectrum is smoothed and
yields 8 discrete values.
In this analysis, the PASTA algorithm (Roslov, 1994) was used. It estimates the radiation
intensities of P-waves in the whole applicable period range, on the basis of broadband records of
seismic waves. The program incorporates spectral magnitude calibrating functions developed by
Duda and Yanovskaya (1994). In addition, it produces the P-wave magnitude for a given event in
the form of a P-wave magnitude spectrum. The spectral magnitude calibrating functions are
normalized to a record length of 60 seconds. Prior to the analysis, the data were corrected for the
instrumental response and a 10% cosine tapering function was applied at both ends of the
windowed signal.
To yield stable results for the tested events, the same time window (60 sec) was used in our
analysis. Figure 3 (A & B) show the calculated spectral magnitudes for the three studied events at
two different stations (ABKT and ARU). It is certainly clear that, the earthquake spectrum have a
wide band of periods and a slow rate of energy decay, whereas the nuclear explosion spectrum
shows a narrow band of short periods and a rapid rate of energy decay. The average spectral
magnitudes, calculated from four broadband stations of the three events, are shown in Figure 4. The
maximum spectral magnitude for May 2, 1995 and November 23, 2006 earthquakes are 5.8 and 5.4
7
at a period of 1.8 and 1.35 sec, respectively. Meanwhile, the maximum spectral magnitude of the
nuclear explosion is 6.7 at a period of 0.8 seconds. Hence, the observed corner period of the
nuclear explosion is smaller than that of the earthquakes because of their source dimensions. The
smoothed average spectral magnitude at eight octaves, specified above for the nuclear explosion
and the two earthquakes at ABKT and ARU stations, are shown in Figure 5. It reflects a significant
deviation of their radiated energy related to their failure condition. Our spectral magnitude plots for
the studied events (Figs. 3, 4 and 5) show good agreement with source spectra plots for natural and
nuclear explosion presented by New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice (NMSOP).
The differences in the corner periods and in the complexities of the spectra apparently
indicate some profound differences in the source parameters of the studied events. The seismic
moment, Mo, rapture length, L, Dislocation, D, stress drop, ∆σ are derived from the magnitude
spectrum following the equations of Kaiser et al. (1996) assuming far-field omega-square spectral
model:
f
1/ 24m 0.7
2
2= (10 ) r r so c
C CM TR
ρπ
−
ΘΦ
⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠
(7)
where, ρr, Cr are the density and P-wave velocity of the material near the receiver, Cs is the P-wave
velocity near the source, mf and Tc are the maximum observed spectral magnitude and its
corresponding period and RθΦ is the P-wave radiation pattern coefficient (0.44), which is the
average value over the focal sphere (Boore and Boatwright, 1984). The values of ρr, Cr are 2740
kg.m-3 and 6140 m.s-1 while the Cs values are 5080 m.s-1 and 6140 m.s-1 (Bukchin et al., 2001) for
the explosion and earthquake respectively. The fault length L is approximated by the diameter 2ao
of the Burne (1970) circular fault model. Thus
L = 0.74 CsTc (8)
o2o
M=
aoDµπ
(9)
30
7 = 16
oMa
σ∆ (10)
where Do is the average dislocation and ∆σ is the average stress drop.
8
The calculated source parameters (Table 2) show high stress drop and small rupture length
for the nuclear explosion compared to the natural earthquakes, although the latter have a relatively
smaller magnitude. The calculated seismic moment for the earthquake of May 2, 1995 (0.89E17
Nm) is about 3 times smaller than the seismic moment of 2.24E17 Nm published by HRVD while
the seismic moment determined for the October 23, 2006 (5.59E16 Nm) is quite similar to the
seismic moment of 4.95E16 Nm obtained by HRVD. However, the calculated moment of the
explosion (2.29E17 Nm) is larger than the one published by Bukchin et al. (2001), Mo = 0.15E17
Nm, which is based on the surface wave inversion. The source parameters of the Cairo earthquake
of October, 12, 1992 calculated based on magnitude spectra show good agreement with other
techniques as waveform inversion and spectral analysis (Abou Elenean et al., 2000).
Conclusions
The spectral seismograms (spectrograms) exhibit interesting features that may prove useful in
discriminating nuclear explosions from shallow earthquakes. An inspection of the spectrogram
clearly indicates a concentration of the spectral power in the explosion's P-wave relative to S-wave
or any later phases. Meanwhile the S-wave power is usually clear and relatively larger than P-wave
power for the shallow earthquakes. When nuclear explosion fired close to the earth surface, the P-
wave energy decays rapidly whereas in the earthquake the energy takes more time (i.e. slow rate) to
vanish (either for the P-waves or for the whole trace). Besides, the frequency content of the
explosion's P-wave reflects a limited band of higher frequencies compared to the natural
earthquakes with comparable size and epicentral distance. These observed dissimilarities between
nuclear explosion and earthquake spectral content arise from their source mechanism. Nevertheless,
the nuclear explosion has a spectral magnitude of 6.7, that is larger than the values of 5.8 and 5.4
obtained for the two studied earthquakes, its observed corner period is smaller that confirm its small
sources dimension. Additional significance differences between two studied events rests in the
9
values of the stress drop and the rupture length estimated from the magnitude spectra. These values
can be used as another criterion for the discrimination studies.
Acknowledgments. This work was done within the framework of the Associateship Scheme of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy. We thank the ICTP Publications Office for reviewing the manuscript.
References
Abou Elenean, K., Hussein, H., Abu El-Ata, A. and Ibrahim, E., 2000. Seismological aspects of
the Cairo earthquake 12th October 1992. Ann. Geofis 143, 485-503.
Basham, W. and Dahlman, O., 1988: International seismological verification. In: J. Goldbaltt and
D. Cox (Editors), Nuclear Weapon Testes: Prohibition or limitation. Oxford University Press, New
York, pp. 169-189.
Boore, D. M. and J. Boatwright, 1984: Average body-wave radiation coefficients. Bull. Seism.
Soc. Am., 94, 1615-1621.
Borman, P., Klinge, K. and Wendt, S., 2002. Chapter.11: Data analysis and seismogram
interpretation. In Borman, P.(Ed.) 2002. IASPI New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice
(NMSOP), GeoForschungZentrum Potsdam Vol. 1, 100 pp.
Bukchin, B., Mostinsky, A., Egorkin, A., Levshin, A. and Ritzwoller, M., 2001: Isotropic and
non-isotropic components of the earthquakes and nuclear explosions on the Lop Nor test site,
China, Pure and Applied Geophysics, 158, pp. 1497-1515.
Burne, J., 1970: Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J.
Geophys. Res., 75, 4997-5009.
Chernobay, I.P. and Gabsatarova, I.P., 1999: Source classification in northern Caucasus. Phys.
Earth Planet. Int.,113, 183-201.
10
Denny, M.D., S.R. Taylor, and E.S. Vergino, 1987: Investigation of mb and Ms formulas for the
Western United States and their impact on the Ms:mb discriminant, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 77: 987–
995.
Dreger, D. and Woods, B., 2002: Regional distance seismic moment tensor of nuclear explosions,
Tectonophys. 356, 139-156.
Duda, S. J. and Yanovskaya, T. B., 1994: Calibrating functions for P-wave spectral magnitudes,
Acta Geophysica Polonica, XLII, No. 4, 293–306.
Farnbach, J., 1975: The complex envelope in seismic signal analysis. Bull. Seis. Soc. Am. 65, pp.
951-962.
Fasthoff, S. and Lucan, G., 1996: Introduction to spectral seismograms. Hamburg Univ.,
Germany, Unpublished paper.
Gabor, D., 1946: Theory of Communication, J. Inst. Electr. Eng., Vol. 93.
Huerta-López, C.I. , Jay Pulliam, Kenneth H. Stokoe, José M. Roësset, Celestino Valle-Molina
(2003): Spectral characteristics of earthquakes recorded on the Gulf of México seafloor and soft
sediment characterization. ”ASME presentación invitada al Offshore Geotechnics Workshop of the
22nd Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering International Conference 06/2003. (ISBN 0-7918-
3672-X). Proceedings of the 22nd Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 2003 International
Conference in CD, paper No 37504, pp. 1-9.
Hussein, H.M., Abou Elenean, K.M., Ibrahim, E.M., Ahmed S. Abou El Atta and Duda, S.J.,
1998. Spectral magnitudes and source parameters for some damaging earthquakes in Egypt. Bull.
IISEE, V. 32, 1-16.
Kaiser, D., Duda, S., Chowdhury, D., 1996: P-wave magnitude spectra, stress drop, rupture
complexities and other source parameters from broadband seismogram of three 1987 Southern
California earthquakes, Geofizika, Vol. 13, 1-29.
11
Kaiser, D. and S.J. Duda, 1988: Magnitude spectra and other source parameters for some major
1985 and 1986 earthquakes. In: O. Kulhanek (Ed.), Seismic source physics and earthquake
predication research. Tectonophys., 152, 303-318.
Levshin, A.L., Pisarenko V. F., and Pogrebinsky G. A., 1972: On a frequency-time analysis of
oscillations, Ann. Geophys., 28, 211 – 218.
Lyskova, E.L., Yanovskaya, T.B. and Duda, S.J., 1998. Spectral characteristics of earthquakes
along plate boundaries, Geofizika, 15, 69-81.
Nortmann, R. and Duda, S.,1982b: Calibration functions for P- and SH-waves Tables, Institute of
Geophysics, Hamburg University.
Patton, H. J., 1991: Seismic moment estimation and the scaling of the long-period explosion
source spectrum. In: Taylor, S.R., Patton, H.J., Richards, P.G. (Ed.), Explosion Source
phenomenology. Geophysical Monograph, Vol. 65. American Geophysical Union, Washington, 65,
pp. 171-183.
Roslov., Yu. V., 1994: Program for Amplitude Spectra Treatment and Analysis. Acta Geofizica
Polonica, V. XLII, N4, 315-319.
Saul, J., 1995: A computer Program (nfilter) for spectral seismogram calculation. Institute of
Geophysics, Hamburg University.
Stevens, J.L., 1986: Estimation of scalar moments from explosion-generated surface waves. Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am., 76: 123-151.
Taylor, S. R., M. D. Denny, E. S. Vergino, and R. E. Glaser 1989: Regional discrimination
between NTS explosions and western U.S. earthquakes, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 79, 1142-1176.
Wallace, T.C., 1991: Body wave observations of tectonic release, in: S.R. Taylor, H.J. Patton and
P.G. Richards (editors), Explosion Source Phenomenology, pp 161-170, American Geophysical
Union.
12
Woods, B., Kedar, S., Helmberger, D., 1993: ML:Mo as a regional seismic discriminant. Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 83, 1167-1183.
Table 1: Parameters of the studied events.
Event Date Day Mo. Yr.
Origin Time H. Mn. Sec.
Lat.° (N)
Long.° (E)
H (Km)
mb
Earthquake (1) 02 05 1995 11 48 12 43.490 84.54 18 5.5 Earthquake (2) 23 11 2006 11 04 49 44.230 83.50 28 5.3 Nuclear Explosion 15 05 1995 04 05 57 41.603 88.82 ≈ 0 6.1
Table 2: Source parameters calculated using the magnitude spectrum for the three studied events. Nuclear Explosion Natural Earthquakes 02051995 Natural Earthquakes 23112006
Station Mo
1017
∆σ L Do Station Mo
1016 ∆σ L Do Station Mo
1016
∆σ L Do
ABKT 2.00 15.0 3562 0.75 ABKT 6.63 1.39 5493 0.11 ABKT 5.42 1.01 5708 0.08
ARU 1.35 17.39 3004 0.70 ARU 10.09 1.18 6867 0.11 ARU 2.68 1.11 4390 0.07
KEG 3.53 26.42 3605 1.28 DPC 10.03 2.45 5279 0.17 MALT 5.57 1.10 5622 0.08
OBN 8.67 1.44 5837 0.11
Average 2.29 19.60 3390 0.91 8.90 1.67 5879 0.13 5.59 1.17 5389 0.09
Mo is the seismic moment in Nm, ∆σ is the stress drop in Mpa, L is the fault length in m, Do is the dislocation in m.
13
Fig.1. Broadband stations used for discrimination between the nuclear explosion and the two studied natural
earthquakes.
14
Fig.2. The spectral seismogram (spectrogram) of the two natural earthquakes (A, B) and the nuclear explosion (C) at
ABKT station. The velocity trace (my/sec) is shown above the spectrogram. The color scale reflects the envelope
amplitude normalized to the maximum at each trace.
15
Fig.3A. Spectral magnitudes from ABKT broadband stations for the two natural earthquakes (upper part) and the
nuclear explosion (lower part).
16
Fig.3B. Spectral magnitudes from ARU broadband stations for the two natural earthquakes (upper part) and the nuclear
explosion (lower part).
17
Fig.4. Average spectral magnitudes calculated from four broad band stations for the two natural earthquakes and the
nuclear explosion.
18
Fig.5. Smoothed average spectral magnitudes at 8 octaves for the two natural earthquakes and the nuclear explosion.