Station Correction of P-Alert Network to Improve Magnitude Estimation for Earthquake Early Warning

<p>Magnitude estimation for earthquake early warning has been shown that it can be achieved by utilizing the relationship among the first three seconds P-wave amplitude, hypocentral distance and magnitude. However, the regression models in previous studies about P-Alert didn't include station correction factors, which may cause non-negligible effects. Thus, to improve the precision of magnitude estimation, we take station corrections into consideration when building the regression model. For the reason that station corrections are the unobserved latent variables of the model, we adopt the iteration regression method, which is based on the expectation-maximization algorithm, to determine them. By using this method, we are able to approach the values of both the station corrections and the coefficients of the regression model after several iterations. Our preliminary results show that after utilizing the iteration regression method, the standard deviation reduces from 0.30 to 0.26, and the station corrections we get range from -0.70 to 0.66.</p>

Value of river discharge data for global-scale hydrological modeling

This paper investigates the value of observed river discharge data for global-scale hydrological modeling of a number of flow characteristics that are e.g. required for assessing water resources, flood risk and habitat alteration of aquatic ecosystems. An improved version of the WaterGAP Global Hydrology Model (WGHM) was tuned against measured discharge using either the 724-station dataset (V1) against which former model versions were tuned or an extended dataset (V2) of 1235 stations. WGHM is tuned by adjusting one model parameter (γ) that affects runoff generation from land areas in order to fit simulated and observed long-term average discharge at tuning stations. In basins where γ does not suffice to tune the model, two correction factors are applied successively: the areal correction factor corrects local runoff in a basin and the station correction factor adjusts discharge directly the gauge. Using station correction is unfavorable, as it makes discharge discontinuous at the gauge and inconsistent with runoff in the upstream basin. The study results are as follows. (1) Comparing V2 to V1, the global land area covered by tuning basins increases by 5% and the area where the model can be tuned by only adjusting γ increases by 8%. However, the area where a station correction factor (and not only an areal correction factor) has to be applied more than doubles. (2) The value of additional discharge information for representing the spatial distribution of long-term average discharge (and thus renewable water resources) with WGHM is high, particularly for river basins outside of the V1 tuning area and in regions where the refined dataset provides a significant subdivision of formerly extended tuning basins (average V2 basin size less than half the V1 basin size). If the additional discharge information were not used for tuning, simulated long-term average discharge would differ from the observed one by a factor of, on average, 1.8 in the formerly untuned basins and 1.3 in the subdivided basins. The benefits tend to be higher in semi-arid and snow-dominated regions where the model is less reliable than in humid areas and refined tuning compensates for uncertainties with regard to climate input data and for specific processes of the water cycle that cannot be represented yet by WGHM. Regarding other flow characteristics like low flow, inter-annual variability and seasonality, the deviation between simulated and observed values also decreases significantly, which, however, is mainly due to the better representation of average discharge but not of variability. (3) The choice of the optimal sub-basin size for tuning depends on the modeling purpose. While basins over 60 000 km2 are performing best, improvements in V2 model performance are strongest in small basins between 9000 and 20 000 km2, which is primarily related to a low level of V1 performance. Increasing the density of tuning stations provides a better spatial representation of discharge, but it also decreases model consistency, as almost half of the basins below 20 000 km2 require station correction.

Value of river discharge data for global-scale hydrological modeling

This paper investigates the value of observed river discharge data for global-scale hydrological modeling of a number of flow characteristics that are required for assessing water resources, flood risk and habitat alteration of aqueous ecosystems. An improved version of WGHM (WaterGAP Global Hydrology Model) was tuned in a way that simulated and observed long-term average river discharges at each station become equal, using either the 724-station dataset (V1) against which former model versions were tuned or a new dataset (V2) of 1235 stations and often longer time series. WGHM is tuned by adjusting one model parameter (γ) that affects runoff generation from land areas, and, where necessary, by applying one or two correction factors, which correct the total runoff in a sub-basin (areal correction factor) or the discharge at the station (station correction factor). The study results are as follows. (1) Comparing V2 to V1, the global land area covered by tuning basins increases by 5%, while the area where the model can be tuned by only adjusting γ increases by 8% (546 vs. 384 stations). However, the area where a station correction factor (and not only an areal correction factor) has to be applied more than doubles (389 vs. 93 basins), which is a strong drawback as use of a station correction factor makes discharge discontinuous at the gauge and inconsistent with runoff in the basin. (2) The value of additional discharge information for representing the spatial distribution of long-term average discharge (and thus renewable water resources) with WGHM is high, particularly for river basins outside of the V1 tuning area and for basins where the average sub-basin area has decreased by at least 50% in V2 as compared to V1. For these basins, simulated long-term average discharge would differ from the observed one by a factor of, on average, 1.8 and 1.3, respectively, if the additional discharge information were not used for tuning. The value tends to be higher in semi-arid and snow-dominated regions where hydrological models are less reliable than in humid areas. The deviation of the other simulated flow characteristics (e.g. low flow, inter-annual variability and seasonality) from the observed values also decreases significantly, but this is mainly due to the better representation of average discharge but not of variability. (3) The optimal sub-basin size for tuning depends on the modeling purpose. On the one hand, small basins between 9000 and 20 000 km2 show a much stronger improvement in model performance due to tuning than the larger basins, which is related to the lower model performance (with and without tuning), with basins over 60 000 km2 performing best. On the other hand, tuning of small basins decreases model consistency, as almost half of them require a station correction factor.

Station correction analysis for surface-wave magnitudes of New Zealand earthquakes

Station terms and standard errors are presented for 345 world-wide stations used in the determination of surface-wave magnitudes of 190 selected New Zealand earthquakes over the period 1901-1993 [1]. These will facilitate the estimation of surface-wave magnitudes of other earthquakes in the New Zealand region. The station terms and the residuals from the linear model used to estimate them are both found to be weakly related to the mean distance from the earthquakes recorded by each station. The horizontal and vertical components at a given site are treated as separate stations. The station term for the horizontal component tends to exceed that for the vertical component at mean distances in the 20°-40° range.