skip to main content
research-article

IoT-Fog-Cloud Centric Earthquake Monitoring and Prediction

Authors Info & Claims
Published:15 November 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Earthquakes are among the most inevitable natural catastrophes. The uncertainty about the severity of the earthquake has a profound effect on the burden of disaster and causes massive economic and societal losses. Although unpredictable, it can be expected to ameliorate damage and fatalities, such as monitoring and predicting earthquakes using the Internet of Things (IoT). With the resurgence of the IoT, an emerging innovative approach is to integrate IoT technology with Fog and Cloud Computing to augment the effectiveness and accuracy of earthquake monitoring and prediction. In this study, the integrated IoT-Fog-Cloud layered framework is proposed to predict earthquakes using seismic signal information. The proposed model is composed of three layers: (i) at sensor layer, seismic data are acquired, (ii) fog layer incorporates pre-processing, feature extraction using fast Walsh–Hadamard transform (FWHT), selection of relevant features by applying High Order Spectral Analysis (HOSA) to FWHT coefficients, and seismic event classification by K-means accompanied by real-time alert generation, (iii) at cloud layer, an artificial neural network (ANN) is employed to forecast the magnitude of an earthquake. For performance evaluation, K-means classification algorithm is collated with other well-known classification algorithms from the perspective of accuracy and execution duration. Implementation statistics indicate that with chosen HOS features, we have been able to attain high accuracy, precision, specificity, and sensitivity values of 93.30%, 96.65%, 90.54%, and 92.75%, respectively. In addition, the ANN provides an average correct magnitude prediction of 75%. The findings ensured that the proposed framework has the potency to classify seismic signals and predict earthquakes and could therefore further enhance the detection of seismic activities. Moreover, the generation of real-time alerts further amplifies the effectiveness of the proposed model and makes it more real-time compatible.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Stein Seth and Wysession Michael. 2009. An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Asim Khawaja M., Awais Muhammad, Martínez-Álvarez F., and Iqbal Talat. 2017. Seismic activity prediction using computational intelligence techniques in northern Pakistan. Acta Geophysica 65, 5 (2017), 919930.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [3] USGS. “New Earthquake Hazards Program.” Lists, Maps, and Statistics. Retrieved on December 1, 2020 from www.usgs.gov/naturalhazards/earthquake-hazards/lists-maps-and-statistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Prieto Germán A. and Beroza Gregory C.. 2008. Earthquake ground motion prediction using the ambient seismic field. Geophysical Research Letters 35, 14 (2008), L14304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] King Chi-Yu. 1986. Gas geochemistry applied to earthquake prediction: An overview. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 91, B12 (1986), 1226912281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Gokhberg M. B., Morgounov V. A., Yoshino T., and Tomizawa I.. 1982. Experimental measurement of electromagnetic emissions possibly related to earthquakes in Japan. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 87, B9 (1982), 78247828.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Mei Gang, Xu Nengxiong, Qin Jiayu, Wang Bowen, and Qi Pian. 2019. A survey of Internet of Things (IoT) for geohazard prevention: Applications, technologies, and challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 7, 5 (2019), 43714386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Gubbi Jayavardhana, Buyya Rajkumar, Marusic Slaven, and Palaniswami Marimuthu. 2013. Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Generation Computer Systems 29, 7 (2013), 16451660. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. [9] Botta Alessio, Donato Walter De, Persico Valerio, and Pescapé Antonio. 2016. Integration of cloud computing and internet of things: A survey. Future Generation Computer Systems 56, C (2016), 684700. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. [10] Hu Pengfei, Dhelim Sahraoui, Ning Huansheng, and Qiu Tie. 2017. Survey on fog computing: Architecture, key technologies, applications and open issues. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 98, C (2017), 2742. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Yi Shanhe, Hao Zijiang, Qin Zhengrui, and Li Qun. 2015. Fog computing: Platform and applications. In Proceedings of the 2015 3rd IEEE Workshop on Hot Topics in Web Systems and Technologies. IEEE, 7378. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] Aliano Carolina, Corrado Rosita, Filizzola Carolina, Genzano Nicola, Pergola Nicola, and Tramutoli Valerio. 2008. Robust TIR satellite techniques for monitoring earthquake active regions: Limits, main achievements and perspectives. Annals of Geophysics 51, 1 (2008), 303317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [13] Allen Richard M. and Ziv Alon. 2011. Application of real-time GPS to earthquake early warning. Geophysical Research Letters 38, 16 (2011), L16310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Hohensinn Roland and Geiger Alain. 2018. Stand-alone GNSS sensors as velocity seismometers: Real-time monitoring and earthquake detection. Sensors 18, 11 (2018), 3712.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Tsipis Athanasios, Papamichail Asterios, Angelis Ioannis, Koufoudakis George, Tsoumanis Georgios, and Oikonomou Konstantinos. 2020. An alertness-adjustable cloud/fog IoT solution for timely environmental monitoring based on wildfire risk forecasting. Energies 13, 14 (2020), 3693.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Moustra Maria, Avraamides Marios, and Christodoulou Chris. 2011. Artificial neural networks for earthquake prediction using time series magnitude data or seismic electric signals. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 12 (2011), 1503215039. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. [17] Prasad L. V. Narasimha, Murthy P. Shankar, and Reddy C. Kishor Kumar. 2013. Analysis of magnitude for earthquake detection using primary waves and secondary waves. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Human Computer Interactions. IEEE, 16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Fischer Joachim, Kühnlenz Frank, Ahrens Klaus, and Eveslage Ingmar. 2009. Model-based development of self-organizing earthquake early warning systems. Simulation Notes Europe 19, 3–4 (2009), 920.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Alphonsa A. and Ravi G.. 2016. Earthquake early warning system by IOT using wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Signal Processing and Networking. IEEE, 12011205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. [20] Wang Qianlong, Guo Yifan, Yu Lixing, and Li Pan. 2017. Earthquake prediction based on spatio-temporal data mining: An LSTM network approach. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing 8, 1 (2017), 148158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. [21] Pirmagomedov Rustam, Blinnikov Mikhail, Amelyanovich Alexey, Glushakov Ruslan, Loskutov Svyatoslav, Koucheryavy Andrey, Kirichek Ruslan, and Bobrikova Ekaterina. 2018. IoT based earthquake prediction technology. In Internet of Things, Smart Spaces, and Next Generation Networks and Systems. O. Galinina, S. Andreev, S. Balandin, and Y. Koucheryavy (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11118, Springer, 535546.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Cao Kai and Huang Qunying. 2018. Geo-sensor (s) for potential prediction of earthquakes: Can earthquake be predicted by abnormal animal phenomena?Annals of GIS 24, 2 (2018), 125138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Asencio-Cortés Gualberto, Morales-Esteban Antonio, Shang Xueyi, and Martínez-Álvarez Francisco. 2018. Earthquake prediction in California using regression algorithms and cloud-based big data infrastructure. Computers & Geosciences 115 (2018), 198210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Hajikhodaverdikhan Pouria, Nazari Mousa, Mohsenizadeh Mehrdad, Shamshirband Shahaboddin, and Chau Kwok-wing. 2018. Earthquake prediction with meteorological data by particle filter-based support vector regression. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics 12, 1 (2018), 679688.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Majhi Santosh Kumar, Hossain Sk Sajeed, and Padhi Trilok. 2020. MFOFLANN: Moth flame optimized functional link artificial neural network for prediction of earthquake magnitude. Evolving Systems 11, 1 (2020), 4563.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] Mirrashid Masoomeh. 2014. Earthquake magnitude prediction by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) based on fuzzy C-means algorithm. Natural Hazards 74, 3 (2014), 15771593.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] Harmuth Henning F.. 1969. Applications of Walsh functions in communications. IEEE Spectrum 6, 11 (1969), 8291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. [28] Avdeeva Diana Konstantinovna, Kazakov Veniamin Yur’evich, Natalinova Nataliya Mihajlovna, Ivanov Maxim Leonidovich, Yuzhakova Mariya Alexandrovna, and Turushev Nikita Vladimirovich. 2014. The simulation results of the high-pass and low-pass filter effect on the quality of micropotential recordings on the electrocardiogram. Biology and Medicine 6, 1 (2014), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] Abbasi Shuja A., Alamoud A. R. M., and Yusuf Z. M.. 2011. A novel complete set of Walsh and inverse Walsh transforms for signal processing. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies. IEEE, 504509. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Aung Aye, Ng Boon Poh, and Rahardja Susanto. 2008. Sequency-ordered complex Hadamard transform: Properties, computational complexity and applications. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 56, 8 (2008), 35623571. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. [31] Salomon David. 2004. Data Compression: The Complete Reference. Springer Science & Business Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. [32] Fino Bernard J. and Algazi V. Ralph. 1976. Unified matrix treatment of the fast Walsh-Hadamard transform. IEEE Transactions on Computers 25, 11 (1976), 11421146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] Liu Huan and Motoda Hiroshi. 2012. Feature Selection for Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Vol. 454, Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] Pavlenko Tatjana. 2003. On feature selection, curse-of-dimensionality and error probability in discriminant analysis. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 115, 2 (2003), 565584.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Lee S. K. and White P. R.. 1997. Higher-order time–frequency analysis and its application to fault detection in rotating machinery. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 11, 4 (1997), 637650.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. [36] Nikias Chrysostomos L. and Mendel Jerry M.. 1993. Signal processing with higher-order spectra. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 10, 3 (1993), 1037.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Boashash B. and Ristic B.. 1995. A time-frequency perspective of higher-order spectra as a tool for non-stationary signal analysis. Longman Australia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] Collis W. B., White P. R., and Hammond J. K.. 1998. Higher-order spectra: The bispectrum and trispectrum. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 12, 3 (1998), 375394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. [39] Swami Ananthram, Mendel Jerry M., and Nikias Chrysostomos L.. 1998. Higher-order spectral analysis toolbox. The Mathworks Inc 3 (1998), 2226.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. [40] Chua K. C., Chandran Vinod, Acharya U. R., and Lim C. M.. 2009. Higher order spectra based support vector machine for arrhythmia classification. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering. Springer, 231234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. [41] Singh Kuldeep and Malhotra Jyoteesh. 2019. IoT and cloud computing based automatic epileptic seizure detection using HOS features based random forest classification. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing (2019), 116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. [42] Mousavi S. Mostafa, Zhu Weiqiang, Ellsworth William, and Beroza Gregory. 2019. Unsupervised clustering of seismic signals using deep convolutional autoencoders. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 16, 11 (2019), 16931697.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. [43] Holmes Geoffrey, Donkin Andrew, and Witten Ian H.. 1994. Weka: A machine learning workbench. In Proceedings of the ANZIIS’94-Australian New Zealnd Intelligent Information Systems Conference. IEEE, 357361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention.Retrieved December 1, 2020 from http://www.kyoshin.bosai.go.jp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. [45] Peer Ground Motion Database, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.Retrieved December 1, 2020 from https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. [46] United States Geological Survey. Retrieved December 1, 2020 from https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/earthquakes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. [47] Milligen B. Ph Van, Sanchez E., Estrada T., Hidalgo C., Brañas Bx, Carreras B., and García LJPoP. 1995. Wavelet bicoherence: A new turbulence analysis tool. Physics of Plasmas 2, 8 (1995), 30173032.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. [48] Hinich Melvin J.. 1982. Testing for Gaussianity and linearity of a stationary time series. Journal of Time Series Analysis 3, 3 (1982), 169176.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. [49] Powers David M. W.. 2020. Evaluation: From precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.16061 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. [50] Pop Ioan. 2006. An approach of the Naive Bayes classifier for the document classification. General Mathematics 14, 4 (2006), 135138.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. [51] Sikder Iftikhar U. and Munakata Toshinori. 2009. Application of rough set and decision tree for characterization of premonitory factors of low seismic activity. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 1 (2009), 102110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. [52] Koç Mehmet and Barkana Atalay. 2014. Application of linear regression classification to low-dimensional datasets. Neurocomputing 131 (2014), 331335. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. [53] Roiger Richard J.. 2017. Data Mining: A Tutorial-Based Primer. Chapman and Hall/CRC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. IoT-Fog-Cloud Centric Earthquake Monitoring and Prediction

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!