4.5 Article

Seismic Monitoring in Gujarat, India, during 2020 Coronavirus Lockdown and Lessons Learned

Journal

SEISMOLOGICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 92, Issue 2, Pages 849-858

Publisher

SEISMOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1785/0220200260

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Department of Science and Technology, Government of Gujarat

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Gujarat region in India experienced a deadly earthquake in 2001, leading to the establishment of a seismic network. During the COVID-19 lockdown, the network's reliability was assessed and improvements in signal-to-noise ratio were observed. Additionally, the lockdown period helped identify natural sources of noise related to seismic activity in certain areas.
The Gujarat region, situated in the westernmost part of India, experienced a deadly intraplate 2001 M-w 7.6 Bhuj earthquake. In the aftermath of the disaster, the Institute of Seismological Research established the Gujarat (India) seismic network in 2006. The network is being operated in online and offline modes, whereas, seismicity monitoring is being done in near-real-time, using data received from the online seismic stations. The Coronavirus disease-19 lockdown provided an opportunity to assess the network reliability in a difficult and challenging scenario. The positive aspect of the lockdown is reflected in signal-to-noise ratio, which improved significantly at all the sites during the lockdown, with more prominent being at sites located on top of the Quaternary sediments due to the absence of high-frequency anthropogenic noise. A sharp fall in the seismic background noise is noticed at most of the stations during the lockdown period, with respect to the prelockdown period. We used the lockdown data to identify other natural sources of noise, besides anthropogenic. The lockdown helped in solving the enigma of seismicity in certain pockets, which turned out to be related to quarry blasts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available