Recovering locations and takeoff angles of earthquakes in clusters based on the difference in their S-P intervals

Received: October 12, 2025
1
Carpathian Branch of Subbotin Institute of Geophysics of the NAS of Ukraine
2
Carpathian Branch of Subbotin Institute of Geophysics of NAS of Ukraine

It is demonstrated in [Gnyp & Malytskyy, 2023] that only the difference in the intervals between the first P- and S-waves can be used to relocate a cluster of similar earthquakes. The advantage of using only the difference is that it is measured by cross-correlation within a window containing the corresponding arrivals, eliminating the need to know their exact timing. Another advantage is that relative locations can be recovered regardless of source times and, therefore, of often inaccurate arrival picks or velocity models. It is assumed in [Gnyp & Malytskyy, 2023] that the cluster size is significantly smaller than the distance to the stations, and that the takeoff angles of the first P- and S-waves, as well as station azimuths, are known for at least one reference earthquake. Under these conditions, the relationship between the locations and the difference becomes purely geometrical and linear, allowing for a straightforward solution of the corresponding system. However, if both the locations and takeoff angles are unknown, the system becomes nonlinear and singular, making it nearly impossible to solve. In the current version of the algorithm, we propose circumventing the singularity by optimizing the locations and takeoff angles separately. First, we determine the locations for some initial angles, then adjust the angles, re-evaluate the locations, and repeat this process. To evaluate the effectiveness of this approach, we conduct a series of synthetic experiments, focusing primarily on the ability to achieve complete recovery of locations and takeoff angles using a damped least-squares solution, depending on the accuracy of the initial angles, the number and configuration of stations, and the damping applied. To reduce the impact of local minima, we propose estimating the median of solutions obtained for an ensemble of randomly perturbed initial angles. The tests demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm and its potential applicability to real data. The algorithm can be combined with other relocation techniques, which makes it possible to link the poorly recorded events to well-constrained ones. This is particularly important for clearer imaging of fault structures in intraplate areas with low seismicity, improving our understanding of local seismic activity and earthquake hazard.

  1. Aki, K., and P.G. Richards (1980). Quantitative Seismology. Theory and Methods. Vols. 1 and 2, Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 932 pp.
  2. Bonatis, P., Karakostas, V., Papadimitriou, E., & Kourouklas C. (2024). The 2022 Mw5.5 earthquake off-shore Kefalonia Island – relocated aftershocks, statistical analysis and seismotectonic implications. J. Seismol.
  3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-024-10255-y
  4. Davis, J. C. (1986). Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Second edition.
  5. https://doi.org/10.23939/jgd2023.02.019
  6. Gnyp, A. (2010). Refining locations of the 2005-2006 recurrent earthquakes in Mukacheve, West Ukraine, and implications for their source mechanism and the local tectonics. Acta Geophysica 58 (4), 587–603
  7. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11600-010-0006-9
  8. Gnyp, A. (2013). Recovering Relative Locations of the 2005-2006 Mukacheve Earthquakes from Similarity of their Waveforms at a Single Station. Acta Geophysica 61 (5), 1074–1087.
  9. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11600-012-0096-7
  10. Gnyp, A., & Malytskyy, D., (2021). Differential and source terms locations of the 2015 Teresva (East Carpathians) series and their tectonic implications. Acta Geophysica 69 (6), 2099–2112.
  11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-021-00655-w https://rdcu.be/cyPNh
  12. Gnyp, A. (2022). Determination of differential locations and focal mechanism of the 2013-2015 earthquakes in Trosnyk, Transcarpatians: methodological aspects and analysis of the results. Geodynamics, 2(33), 50-63.
  13. https://doi.org/10.23939/jgd2022.02.050
  14. Gnyp A., Malytskyy D. (2023). Relocating earthquakes in clusters based on variations in the intervals between their first P- and S-waves, Geodynamics, 2(35), 19-32.
  15. https://doi.org/10.23939/jgd2023.02.019
  16. Harris, D. B., & Douglas, A. D. (2021). The geometry of signal space: a case study of direct mapping between seismic signals and event distribution. Geophys. J. Int. 224, 2189–2208.
  17. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaa572
  18. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201701868.
  19. Kozlovskyi, E, Maksymchuk., V., Malytskyy, D., Tymoschuk, V., Hrytsai, O., & Pyrizhok, N. (2020). Structural-tectonic and seismic characteristics relationships in the Central part of the Transcarpathian internal depression. Geodynamics, 1(28), 62-70.
  20. https://doi.org/10.23939/jgd2020.01.062.
  21. Málek, J., Růžek, B., & Kolář, P. (2007). Isometric method: Efficient tool for solving non-linear inverse problems. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 51, 469–491.
  22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-007-0028-1
  23. Menke, W. (1999). Using waveform similarity to constrain earthquake locations, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89, 4, 1143–1146.
  24. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130004
  25. Nazarevych, A., Nazarevych, L., Bayrak, G., & Pyrizhok, N. (2022). Seismotectonics of the Oash and Transcarpathian deep faults junction zone (Ukrainian Transcarpathians). Geodynamics, 2(33), 99-114.
  26. https://doi.org/10.23939/jgd2022.02.100
  27. Papadimitriou, E., Karakostas, V., Papazachos, C., Foumelis, M., Kiratzi, A., Pikridas, C., Bonatis, P., Kostoglou, A., Kourouklas, C., Scordilis, E., Bitharis, S., Paradisopoulou, P., Panou, A., Galanis, O., Karagianni, E., Vamvakaris, D., Karagianni, I., Kkallas, C., Chatzis, N., Chatzipetros, A., Fotiou, A., Ventouzi, C., Grendas, I., Kementzetzidou, D., Karakaisis, G., & Hatzidimitriou, P. (2023). The seismogenic structure of March 2021 Tyrnavos (central Greece) doublet (Mw 6.3 and Mw 6.0), constrained by aftershock locations and geodetic data. Geophys. J. Int. 235, 644– 689.
  28. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggad253
  29. Robinson, D. J, Sambridge, M., & Sneider, R. (2007), Constraints on coda wave interferometry estimates of source separation: The acoustic case. Explor. Geophys. 38(3), 189–199.
  30. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG07019
  31. Robinson, D. J, Sneider, R., & Sambridge, M. (2007) Using coda wave interferometry for estimating the variation in source mechanism between double couple events. J. Geophys. Res. 112(В12), B12302. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB004925
  32. Robinson, D. J, Sambridge, M., Sneider, R., & Hauser, J. (2013). Relocating a Cluster of Earthquakes Using a Single Seismic Station. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 103(6), 3057–3072.
  33. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130004
  34. Shearer, P. M. (1997), Improving local earthquake locations using L1 norm and waveform cross-correlation: Application to the Whittier Narrows, California, aftershock sequence. J. Geophys. Res. 102(B4), 8269–8283.
  35. https://doi.org/10.1029/96JB03228
  36. Shearer, P., Hauksson, E., & Lin, G. (2005). Southern California hypocenter relocation with waveform cross-correlation. Part 2: Results using source-specific station terms and cluster analysis. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 95(3), 904–915.
  37. https://doi.org/10.1785/01200401168
  38. Snieder, R., & Vrijlandt, M. (2005). Constraining the source separation with coda wave interferometry: Theory and application to earthquake doublets in the Hayward Fault, California, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 110(B4), https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003317
  39. Waldhauser, F, & Ellsworth, L.W. (2000). A Double-Difference Earthquake Location Algorithm: Method and Application to the Northern Hayward Fault. California. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 90(6), 1353–1368. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000006