EarthquakeLocation Tuton'al: Graphical
ApproachandApproximateEpicentraiLocation
Techniques
Jose Pujol
CERI, The University of Memphis
INTRODUCTION
As is well known, the problem of earthquake location is one
of the most basic in seismology, but because of its inherent
mathematical complexity it is difficult to present it in a way
that gives a realistic sense of how earthquakes are located and
illustrates the factors that contribute to uncertainties in the
solution. For this reason it is highly desirable to be able to dis-
cuss the most essential facts regarding earthquake location
without dwelling on the mathematical aspects of the prob-
lem. This is important when teaching the subject to under-
graduate students, to Earth science graduate students who do
not plan to become seismologists, and even to high-school
science teachers.
One possible way of doing this is to use the fact that in a
medium with depth-dependent velocities the travel times lie
on a surface of revolution with its minimum at the epicenter.
For a homogeneous medium the surface is a hyperboloid,
described by a simple equation. By plotting these surfaces for
earthquakes with different hypocentral locations and origin
times it is possible to present a realistic graphical discussion of
the most important aspects of earthquake location. As shown
below, this approach can be used to illustrate issues such as
the nonuniqueness of the computed locations, the effect of
errors, and the advantages of using combined P- and S-wave
information.
After this discussion it would also be desirable to intro-
duce techniques that students can use to estimate epicentral
locations after they have picked their own arrival times. Most
introductory seismology books describe the S-P times
method, and although it is conceptually very simple, the
examples given here demonstrate that its application is not
straightforward.
In particular, the velocity to be used depends on the
event depth and epicentral distances. Furthermore, Ruff
(2001) noted that the S-P times method is not how earth-
quakes are actually located and for this reason suggested the
use of a method based on the drawing of hyperbolas. This
method was used before the advent of the current computer-
based location programs and generally performs well. Both
the hyperbola and the S-P times methods will be discussed
here, with applications to synthetic and actual data.
Seismological ResearchLetters January/February2004 Volume75, Number1 63
An interesting but unexpected result is that in some cases
the S-P times method can be modified in such a way that the
epicentral locations can be determined fairly accurately. This
fact can be explained in a semiquantitative way and was veri-
fied with actual data from an area with large lateral velocity
variations. As for the hyperbola method, it is shown that it
can be used to locate events with relatively small errors under
a wide range of conditions, and that the hyperbolas can be
computer-generated with little effort, which facilitates the
application of the method.
THE EARTHQUAKELOCATIONPROBLEM:A
GRAPHICALAPPROACH
The earthquake location problem can be stated as follows:
given a set of arrival times and a velocity model, determine
the origin time and the coordinates of the hypocenter.
In actual practice, earthquakes are located according to
the following general principles. Because the relation between
arrival times and hypocentral coordinates and origin time is
not simple even for the simplest velocity model (see Equation
2 below), earthquakes cannot be located in one step. What is
done is to solve the location problem in an iterative way.
The first iteration has these steps: estimate initial values
of the hypocentral coordinates and origin time, use these ini-
tial values and the velocity model to compute theoretical
arrival times, compute their differences with the observed
times, and then use these differences to get a new estimate of
the location and origin time. Each following iteration uses as
initial estimates those computed in the previous iteration.
This iterative process stops when some condition is met.
There are a number of stopping conditions, but in any case
we measure the quality of the computed location by the root-
mean-square residual, defined as
(1)
' ;:1
where T/~ is the observed arrival time for the ith station, T[
is the corresponding theoretical arrival time computed in the
last iteration, N is the number of stations, and the 4 in the
denominator is related to the fact that there are four
unknowns (three hypocentral coordinates and origin time).
If the model velocities were close to the actual ones and
the arrival times were error-flee, then rms would be close to
zero, but in reality the velocity model is only approximate
and the data are affected by errors, and as a consequence rms
may be significantly larger than zero. In some cases an impor-
tant source of error is large lateral velocity variations, so that
the 1D velocity models generally used for earthquake loca-
tion are no longer adequate. Note, however; that the goal of
location programs is to minimize rms, not the location errors,
which remain unknown as long as each earthquake is located
separately. Therefore, a relatively small value of rms does not
always mean a correspondingly small error in location. This is
why the most reliable determination of earthquake locations
requires the simultaneous determination of a 3D velocity
model.
This brief introduction to the earthquake location prob-
lem ignores all its mathematical aspects, which involve rather
advanced analysis techniques (e.g., Lee and Stewart, 1981). It
is possible, however, to gain an understanding of some of its
essential aspects using a graphical approach. To introduce it
assume that the Earth can be represented by a homogeneous
medium and let a and/3 be the P- and S-wave velocities. For
simplicity we will also assume that we are dealing with epi-
central distances that do not exceed a few hundreds of kilo-
meters. This way there is no need to be concerned with the
Earth's curvature and the problem can be stated in Cartesian
coordinates, which will be used here. The origin of the coor-
dinate system will be some convenient, arbitrary point.
Now consider an earthquake with hypocentral coordi-
nates (Xe, ye, h) and let To be the origin time of the event. Then
the arrival time at a station with coordinates (x, y, 0) is given
by
d ~(X
__)2
X e +(Y--Ye
)2 + h2
y) - + - g - Vo +
5=a,,3 (2)
where d is the hypocentral distance (i.e., the distance between
the hypocenter and the station). Equation 2 can be written as
t2(x,y) - (T-To) 2- al(x2+y2)+a2x+a3y+a4 (3)
where t is travel time and the coefficients a i absorb the con-
stant terms in Equation 2 (Pujol and Smalley, 1990). These
two equations show that t(x, y) can be represented by a hyper-
boloid centered at (x e, Ye)" Several examples, corresponding to
P- and S-wave travel times for different event depths, are
shown in Figure 1. Note that the coordinates of the mini-
mum of each hyperboloid coincide with the location of the
epicenter.
64 SeismologicalResearchLetters Volume75, Number1 January/February2004
Although the homogeneous velocity model is extremely
simple, Equation 3 is important because it can be used to
approximate the travel-time surfaces that are obtained for
models in which the velocity varies with depth. In such a case
the travel-time surfaces are surfaces of revolution about a ver-
tical axis passing through the epicenter. This fact was used by
Pujol and Smalley (1990) to develop a method to determine
epicenters without any knowledge of the velocity model. The
basic idea is to fit a quadratic surface to the observed arrival
times. Because the origin time is not known, it is estimated
during the fitting process. Once the best-fit hyperboloid has
been determined, the coordinates of its minimum are taken
as the epicentral coordinates.
Because Equation 3 can be used to represent approxi-
mately arrival times in media with depth-dependent veloci-
ties, we can derive a number of general results by
consideration of figures generated using Equation 2. For
example, from Figure 1 we see that the difference
dt = t(x s, Ys) - t(Xe, Ye) for a fixed position of the epicenter and
given station coordinates (x s, Ys) is highly dependent on the
depth of the events and the types of waves. As the depth
increases, dt decreases. This effect can be understood with the
help of Equation 2, which shows that for given values of x
and y, the effect of h on t increases with h. As a consequence
dt will decrease as h increases because t(x e, Ye) = h~ 5. Also note
that for a given depth, dt is larger for S waves than for P
waves. To see that, let tp and t s represent P- and S-wave travel
times, respectively. Then, t s = (a/3)tp and dts = (a/3)dtp. These
two equalities are valid for any velocity model for which the
ratio a / 3 is a constant.
Now let us look at the earthquake location problem from
a different point of view, namely, consider the observed
arrival times as samples of some arrival-time surface. Then
locating an earthquake is equivalent to reconstructing a sur-
face from a finite, generally small, number of samples. The
connection between this view and the standard one is as fol-
lows. Once the hypocentral location and the origin time are
found, one can generate the corresponding arrival-time sur-
face, which can be plotted together with the observations as
in Figure 1. Therefore, we can use these surfaces to establish
in a qualitative way what we can expect under different cir-
cumstances.
Consider for example the effect of sampling and errors in
the arrival times. Suppose that two events at depths of 5 and
50 km are recorded by stations corresponding to the dots in
Figure 1. Because these stations sample the surfaces well, it
can be expected that if the velocity model were a faithful rep-
resentation of the actual velocities and the data were error-
free, the events would be well located regardless of the depth.
However, if the arrival times are affected by errors, then it is
clear that for a given amount of error, its effect is potentially
larger for the 50 km event, which has a dt much smaller than
that of the 5 km event.
Next we will investigate what happens when the earth-
quakes occur outside of the network. To simplify the presen-
tation it will be assumed that the epicenter is always at the
 12
10 h = 5 km 10
8
r
~" 6 ~" 8

"~ 4 ---
a. ~ 4
2
40 , I ~ I 40 , l I I

Y O(krn)-40 -20 0
x(km)
20 40 0-40 -20 0 20 4O
12
10 h = 25 km 16-

8
12
6
4 ~~r~ ~ 10
8
2
I I I I I I I I I I

40 0-40 -20 0 20 40 40 0-40 -20 0 20 40

16 "1
14 4 h = 50 km 20
18
12

8 .___ 12
6
I I I I I I I

40 0-40 -20 0 20 40 40 0__40 -20 0 20 40

To
A F i g u r e 1. P-wave (left) and S-wave (right) travel-time surfaces for earthquakes at various depths h generated using Equation 2 with = 0. All the epicen-
ters are at the origin. For the event at 5 km the travel times for particular values of x and y are also shown (dots). When.the origin time is added to those times
they representthe arrival times that would be recorded by a seismic network.

origin of the coordinate system, that To - 0, and that the sta-
tions in the network have the x coordinate larger than or
equal to X km. This means that the station closest to the epi-
center will be at least X km away from it. To analyze the effect
of this geometry on earthquake location we will consider
three events with h = 15, 17, 19 km and X = 20.
The corresponding P-wave arrival-time surfaces (Figure
2A) are close to each other, although they are clearly distin-
guishable. The time differences between adjacent surfaces
range roughly between 0.1 and 0.2 s in absolute value, and
therefore it would seem that when locating the events it
would be possible to recover the three sets of hypocentral
coordinates and origin times correctly. This is not necessarily
the case, however. In fact, as Figure 2B shows, it is possible to
modify the origin times and epicentral locations of two of the
events in such a way that the three surfaces become almost
in distinguish able.
To generate Figure 2B, 0.87 km and 1.74 km were added
to the epicentral coordinate x~ of the events at 17 km and
19 km, and 0.05 s and 0.10 s, respectively, were subtracted
from the origin time TO. In this case most of the time differ-
ences (in absolute value) between adjacent surfaces are less
than 0.05 s, with the largest difference less than 0.08 s.
To see the connection between these results and the
earthquake location problem, assume that an event is located
using samples from one of the surfaces shown in Figure 2A
and that there is some amount of error in the picking of the
arrival times. If the differences Ti~ - T[ that remain after the
event has been located are similar in magnitude to the time
differences between the three surfaces in Figure 2B, then the
computed hypocentral locations and origin time could be any
of the three combinations (or some other) that were used to
generate the surfaces. In practice, when locating one of these
events one may get different results depending on the initial
values of hypocentral coordinates and To used and/or on the
mathematical techniques used to update the initial estimates
at each iteration. Therefore, Figure 2B shows that under those
sampling conditions there will be a trade-off between hypo-
central depth and epicentral location and origin time. O f
course, the situation will be even worse when the velocity
model is not well known or when 1D models are grossly inad-
equate, as is the case in subduction zones. In the latter case
the travel-time surfaces no longer have the azimuthal symme-
try seen in Figure 1 and there will not be a surface of revolu-
tion that will fit all the observations perfectly, even when the
data are free from errors.

Seismological Research Letters January/February2004 Volume 75, Number1 65

 to misidentify large-amplitude converted waves (e.g., S-to-P)
(A) as primary S waves. This is likely to happen in areas such as
12 the Mississippi embayment, where low-velocity materials
10 overlie high-velocity rocks (e.g., Pujol et al., 1998). When
three-component recordings are available this misidentifica-
.E_ 8
tion problem does not arise, but accurate identification of the
n 6 f 40 S-wave arrival may be difficult because sometimes the S wave-
forms are complicated, thus requiring considerable experi-
40 20 0 -20 -40 - ence on the part of the person picking the arrival times.
y(km) Arrivals from other waves can also be used to help con-
strain the hypocentral locations as long as their correspond-
(B) ing time surfaces have geometric properties considerably
12 different from those of the P-wave surfaces. If the hypocentral
10 distances are not too large, it may not be possible to find ori-
gin time and/or depth and epicentral shifts that will simulta-
neously merge travel-time surfaces of intrinsically different
a_ 6 types. A good example is the P head (or refracted) waves,
~ 0 4~ which propagate along a layer boundary. For the simple case
f / f ,,. ,.L
40 20 0 -20 -40 -40 of a layer over a half-space, the travel time for an event located
within the layer is given by

= 12
10 40
/ / f /
40 20 0 -20 -40 -40
A Figure 2. (A) Three P-wave arrival-time surfaces for events with h = 15,
17, 19 km and To= O. In all cases the epicentral coordinates xe and Yeare
equal to zero and the values of xare equal to 20 km or larger. (B) Similar to
the surfaces in (A) after xeand To were changed to 0.87 km and -0.05 s for
h= 17 km, and to 1.74 km and -0.10 s for h= 19 km. For h= 15 km the
parameters remained unchanged. (C) S-wave arrival-time surfaces corre-
sponding to the parameters used for the surfaces in 2B. Note that in 2B the
three surfaces are almost indistinguishable, while in this figure that is not
the case, particularly for points close to the epicenter.
So far we have referred to P-wave times. What is the
effect of adding S-wave times? It is very significant because
they add completely new information to the problem. This
can be seen with the help of Figure 2C, which was obtained
by shifting the original S-wave surfaces (not shown) as the P-
wave surfaces were, with the result that the S-wave surfaces
have not moved toward a single surface, particularly for the
points closest to the epicenter. Therefore, if the differences
TwO - Tic are similar in magnitude to the time differences
seen in Figure 2B but smaller than in Figure 2C, adding S-
wave information will help constrain the event locations.
Therefore, if available, S-wave data should be used when
locating earthquakes.
It must be noted, however, that picking S-wave arrivals is
not as simple as for the P waves for two reasons. First, when
only vertical-component recordings are available it is possible
2 (4)
1~/( x __ Xe)2 +(Y--Ye )2 + ( 2 H _ h ) 1
052 051052
(e.g., Lee and Stewart, 1981), where H is layer thickness, a 1
and a 2 are the wave velocities in the layer and in the half-
space, respectively, a 2 > a 1, and the other symbols are as in
Equation 2. Equation 4 can be written as
,(x,y)- D(x,y)+b (5)
where a = 1/a 2, d is the epicentral distance (given by the
square root), and b is a constant equal to the second term on
the right-hand side. Equation 5 represents a straight line in
the variables t and d, and the corresponding travel-time sur-
face is a truncated cone with the vertical axis passing through
the epicenter. The cone is truncated because the head waves
exist only for distances d that exceed a critical distance that
depends on H, h, and the two velocities. In addition, the head
waves can be distinguished from the direct P waves because of
their lower frequency content. These differences between the
two types of waves should be kept in mind when the hyper-
bola method, discussed below, is applied.
S-PTIMES EPICENTRALLOCATIONMETHOD
This method is commonly discussed in introductory books,
but because the (simple) derivation of the equation that is the
basis of the method is generally not provided, it is given here.
Consider again a homogeneous half-space with P- and S-
wave velocities a and/3 and let d be the distance between the
hypocenter and a given station. Then

66 Seismological Research Letters Volume75, Number1 January/February2004

 d d tion of the three hemispheres will be the hypocenter. These
tp-a--;
- ts = -- (6) considerations are the basis of the S-P times epicentral loca-
tion method, which is applied as follows. For each station
compute t~- tp convert it to distance multiplying by a veloc-
and
ity v that is appropriate for the area of interest, and draw a cir-
cle on a map using that distance as the radius. When several
t - P - I-~ - ll d - -al (-~ - -alld stations are used, the circles are expected to overlap in some
(7) common area surrounding the epicenter. To see this consider
two stations, which for simplicity will be assumed to be
so that aligned with the epicenter (Figure 3). The projection of the
two hemispheres on the surface are two circles centered at the
stations. Clearly, the epicenter is not at the intersection of the
- V(,s -,,) two circles, although it will become closer to it as the depth
decreases. If a third station is available, the position of the
with third circle is generally depicted as in Figure 3B.
The method was tested initially with actual data
recorded in the New Madrid seismic zone by stations of the
a 1 (9) PANDA portable network and with synthetic data generated
v - (a///~)- using station locations from the same network and two veloc-
ity models. One was the model used for the standard location
With the simple velocity model discussed here, the hypo- of the events. The model has an upper layer 0.65 km thick
center will be at some point on the surface of the hemisphere with low values of a and /3 (equal to 1.8 and 0.6 km/s,
with the center at the station and radius equal to d. If two sta- respectively) underlain by high- velocity rocks (a equal to
tions having hypocentral distances equal to d 1 and d 2 (not 5.95 km/s) (Pujol et al., 1997). The ratio a/~ is equal to 1.73
equal to d l) are considered, there will be two intersecting for all the layers except the first one.
hemispheres and the hypocenter will be a point along their The second model is a variation of the previous one, with
line of intersection. If a third station is available, the intersec- the same layer boundaries, without the low velocities in the

$1 E S2
(A)

(1)

(B) Y

>X

A Figure 3. Geometry for the S-Ptimes method for the approximate determination of epicenters. (A) d1 and d2 are the distances in Equation 8 for two different
stations (indicated by $1 and 82). The hypocenter (H) lies at the intersection of the two hemispheres. To simplify the figure it is assumed that the epicenter (E)
and the two stations are aligned. (B) Map view. The solid circles are the intersections with the surface of the hemispheres in 3A. Note that the epicenter is not
at the intersection of the circles. The dashed circle is the projection of a hemisphere corresponding to some other station.

Seismological Research Letters January/February2004 Volume75, Number1 67

 km
v l = 8.00 km/s" h = 6.0 k m km
vz= 8.00 km/s" h = 18.0 k m

140 140

120 120 \

100 - El
.,
100
\ \,
,, l

80 - \
, . ....
, 80 ..<
_ .... ~
. ~. /
/" ~ ~':
4/ - ... ,
/ , %
/ / \
[] / 1 \ / ........ . , I
D "1 I I \,
60 "~- " / i / 60- / / i ".w- - / . . . . . . ~ -
\,
\
. , ;/
\... p , '/
.... . . _ ,,//' 0,,)~.~ .J ""[] " \ "-. /, I {~ i",, i- ..,..
40 - _ : ._ ,_. -,--, .\
40- ...... ---:~. i ..... /_--< "
,
[] ,,
[] t /" ,,, /
I-I/ 'I -/ i /
/ /" \ '
/ '1 /
' z\ , " /
_ ....... ~--'- ,,,, [] ~ / ./.. t \
20 , ,
20- -~ ........ 9 [] i / ./
, \ /
\ ' ?4'
- -. L / ]/"
\2

--- .,. /

2'0 ,l'o a'o

" " v ...... i

0 2'0 4'0 -6'0 80 10 0 120 140km 0 loo lziO km

v = 6.50 kin/s; h = 6.0 km v = 6.50 kin/s; h = 18.0 k m

km '; i i
km / /
140 ', /
140 - / /
',, , /: i /
/
",, / ./ /
/ // / -"

120 ",', /
/ /
. ./
.-' 120 - ,/
9
/ -
/

/ ,/' ./ /
i/ ../ "
/
,, :' / . ,: / ./

i00 , r-i / / .-" 100 - ' H

i
: //
/
. /

, / / .--
/i /,
/
', /: / ..l" /
/ /" /
-. . /
80 "--... ,, /: // ..-- 80- /

/i/ // I/"
. / ..._ __
, / / .

[]. k, /' / .I El.

60 "'" ' '. . . . . " 60- \, 1:/' / ..

- ___ ~..,.L,'~,I ,." _

40 . . ../,,., %. - - _ _ 40-
/ /VI :. : ',',, "%. - - ~ _
/ / 5 ,/,' ': ',, "'-%
, // / .': ; , , / it '", "~'(~'-.

20 ./ ,.i7 ',,, '.,D, \ \"-.. 20 -

, .> ,,'I '~ "',. ~"k--.
/'/ / ~ \,x ~ ~-
# i ,' : i , " i I 0 : " / " ' ' " i

0 20 4'0 6'0 8'0 i 00 120 I 40

" km 0 2'0 4'0 6'0 8'0 i 00 120 140km
,i Figure 4. Top:Results of the S-Ptimes method when applied to synthetic data for two events with depths h equal to 6 and 18 km. The squares represent
stations and v1 is the velocity used to generate the circles using Equation 8. The actual epicenter is indicated by the circled dot. Bottom.Results of the hyperbola
method for the synthetic data used in the top plots. Because there are five stations, the number of hyperbolas is ten (see Equation A-IO). The velocity vwas
chosen such that the hyperbolas intersect at a common point.

upper layer and with a/fl alternating between 1.6 and 1.8. given network it will be necessary to test it with known loca-
This second model was introduced to make sure that the tions to establish the velocity (or velocities) to be used and the
results obtained were not a consequence of a constant velocity general performance of the method.
ratio. The two models will be referred to as models I and II, Let us consider first two events at depths of 6 and 18 km
respectively. The first four examples considered below corre- with the same epicenter surrounded by the five stations used
spond to synthetic data and constitute a small subset of all the to locate them (Figure 4). For this test velocity model II was
tests, but they represent a good summary of the results used to generate the synthetic data. With a velocity of 8 km/s
obtained using either synthetic or actual data. the epicenter is near the center of the area where all the circles
To apply the method one should choose a value for the overlap. Reducing the velocity reduces the overlap area, thus
velocity v in Equation 8. A rule of thumb is that v is equal to reducing the error made when estimating the epicentral loca-
8 for most crustal earthquakes (Lay and Wallace, 1995), but tion. For a velocity of 7.4 km/s the epicenter is still within the
this value is not always appropriate. In fact, it was noted that overlap area. For 7 km/s the area is significantly reduced and
the velocity to be used depends on the distance of the event close to the epicenters, but no longer within the overlap area.
to the stations and on the event depth, which means that Of course, when the epicentral location is unknown it is not
before locating events with this method using data from a possible to determine the best velocity to be used.

68 Seismological Research Letters Volume 75, Number1 January/February2004

 km Vl= 7.10 k m / s " h = 0.1 k m k m
v l = 8.00 k m / s " h = 20.0 k m
v2= 8.15 140 - v2= 9 ~ ~ Z - - ...........
140 t
120 120 -

100
'~< ..... 7;-:;:~-.=0-- ~ ~ i b ' - - . . ....,x\, \
I .~ - ~(';.... - ....... '::~7<<<'--'~\~\ "-
80 J+
9 ~" ---. . . . . -~\- "\ \ ..... 80 '7>, ',
'~\",.,
.,, ,,,,
t, "
/ /, / \ , ,,,,\\, ', t\\ \
60 60 !'

" [""i ~[ ':7 40

yl
\, I"-1 [] 1,I ,/ ; ,i '' l []
20
[] /

\ [] / / "'' i' [] ,/
0 i ~ / i/ i '
0 20 4'0 60' 80' 100 120 140km 0 2'0 40. . 60. . 80
. I00 120 i Okm

km
v = 5.95 Km/~' h 0.1 k m km
v = 7.10 k m / s " h = 20.0 km
!

140
,: ' /' ;IW
140 .... " '7 .....
\ ,),!~ i / ,
\ \ \tl ' / ,
,
,.'
/

\ /' I'l/
,/ //i/"l,;' .," /'
\ ,,,,' ,//,,,/, ,, /
120 /;i,,.,.......
,,,' /,//,,~r 120 /
/
t, / /
,,
\
/ 7r //' / /
\, / / /" ,-
100 \, \ ,, 100 /' ,,
\ \
/'
,,'
,
/
/ '~ 'iili",' i / ,-
/' ., "
\ \ ,;,' /
80 ,, 80 /
\ ',
\ . "' 7'
\',, '/ i
/' ,) '" k // -""
/ " 60
60 ' '

/ "?4 .i,\,,
,,,7,./.-

40 ~--- /.) 40 ./
, ,,/, , I f
t
," ,"1 i' t/

20 -I ,/ "(,: [] 20
/ \',,", I-I

E3 / '\, / I-1 \ ,
i i i

0 2'o 40' 6'o 8'o 100 1 0 1 4' 0 k m 0 20' 40 60 80 1 0 6 120

' 1 4' 0 k m

i Figure 5. Top: Results of the S-Ptimes method when applied to two sets of synthetic data. The velocity v~ was used to generate the dashed circles under
the condition that all of them passed close to the known epicentral location. The velocity v2 was used to generate the solid circles and is equal to the inverse
of the slope of the corresponding ts- tp vs. epicentral distance curve. To draw these curves the epicentral location must be known. See the text for details. Other
symbols as in Figure 4. Bottom. Results of the hyperbola method for the synthetic data used in the top plots. For the events at 20 km depth two of the arrival
times correspond to head waves and three to direct waves. In this case it is not possible to find a common intersection point for all the hyperbolas.

If the epicenter is outside of the network the overlap area about 11 and 18 km away from the epicenters, and the value
is not well defined and the selection of the velocity is not of v2 depends on the event.
straightforward. Figure 5 shows the results for a very shallow The fact that it is possible to find a velocity for which the
event (e.g., an explosion, h = 0.1 km) and for a deeper one circles intersect at a point was observed for all the other test
(h = 20 km). The arrival times were computed using velocity cases involving events in similar distance ranges (and even
model I. The dashed circles were drawn using Equation 8 smaller) and was investigated empirically. Two things were
with velocities v 1 equal to 7.1 and 8.0 km/s chosen in such a noted. First, in each test the t s - t p vs. epicentral distance
way that all of them passed through points close to the curve (time-distance curve, for short) is a straight line. Sec-
known epicentral locations. If those locations were not ond, the velocity required for the intersection of the circles is
known, choosing the appropriate velocities would be diffi- equal to the inverse of the slope s of the time-distance curve.
cult. Interestingly, by trial and error it was found that there is For the event at 0.1 km depth all the arrivals correspond to
a velocity (indicated with v2) for which the circles intersect at head waves propagating along the bottom of the first layer,
a point almost perfectly. However, the intersection points are and in this case the time-distance curve is a straight line. In
fact, from Equations 4 and 5 we see that

Seismological Research Letters January/February2004 Volume 75, Number1 69

 17.6 km, and when this amount is subtracted from the radii
the circles intersect at the true epicentral location.
To test the semiquantitative explanation given above, the
method was applied to data from the Andean foreland in
or Argentina, where large lateral velocity variations exist (Pujol,
1992). The stations and events used (Figure 6) were selected
to create a worst-case scenario. The P- and S-wave station cor-
(11) rection pairs for the two stations on the right of the plots are
(-0.64 s,-0.97 s) and (-0.82 s,-1.23 s), respectively. For the
leftmost station the corresponding pair is (0.63 s, 1.52 s),
where c = b s - b p is the time intercept. Equation 11 can be
while for the remaining stations the P-wave corrections are
written as
between-0.19 s a n d - 0 . 0 1 s and the S-wave corrections
between 0.12 s and 0.44 s. These corrections were computed
D -v(t s -tp)-vc (12) using the joint hypocentral determination (JHD) technique.
For these events the t s - tp vs. distance curves for the stations
of Figure 6 are approximately linear. Because of the large
with v as in Equation 9. Equation 12 can be interpreted in
range of the corrections, and probably picking errors also, it
two ways. First, it is the equation of a straight line in the time
is not possible to find a single velocity for which all the circles
and distance variables. If we use Equation 9 with a = 5.95
intersect. However, when the velocity v2 and the values
(i.e., the velocity of the head waves) and a//3 = 1.73 we get
dr = vc derived from the time-distance curves are used, the
v = 8.15, which is equal to the value of v2 used in Figure 5.
circles intersect at points close to the epicenters determined as
Second, Equation 12 is also the equation of a circle on the
part of a conventional single-event location. If the event loca-
(x, y) plane when D is fixed. Therefore, unlike the situation
tions were not known it would not be possible to generate
described by Equation 8, when Equation 12 applies the cir-
time-distance curves, but using a simple trial-and-error
cles will intersect at a point on the surface, in agreement with
approach it was possible to find values v2 and dr for which all
the results shown in Figure 5. In addition, from Equation 11
the circles intersect in a small area (Figure 6). If a point in that
we see that the time that must be used to draw the circles is
area were chosen as the epicenter, then it could be used to
actually ts - t p - c, not t , - tp. Because for common values of
generate a travel-time curve from which new values of z,,2 and
a//3 the value of c will be positive, the effect of ignoring it is
dr could be derived. Therefore, it would be possible to draw
to enlarge the radii of the circles by a constant amount equal
new circles whose intersections would be closer to the actual
to vc. This explains why the points where the circles intersect
epicentral location.
is at a larger distance from the stations than the actual epicen-
ter location. For the event at 0.1 km depth the correction vc
is equal to 10.7 km, and when it is used to draw the circles
HYPERBOLAEPICENTRALLOCATIONMETHOD
they intersect at the true epicentral location.
To introduce this method consider the following situation.
Equation 12 is valid for head waves in arbitrary layered
An explosion occurs in a chemical plant and two seismolo-
models as long as they come from the same layer. For those
gists who hear it immediately look at their chronometers and
waves the travel time vs. distance equation is similar to Equa-
record the times. The seismologists are in different parts of
tion 5, with a equal to the inverse of the velocity of the waves
the town; one of them calls the other and the two share their
and b a constant that depends on the depth of the event and
information. What can they say about the location of the
on layer thicknesses and velocities (e.g., Lee and Stewart,
explosion? Let t I and r be the two recorded times and d 1 and
1981).
d 2 the distances from the explosion to the points were it was
For the event at 20 km depth three of the arrivals corre-
recorded. Of course, the distances are not known, but the
spond to direct waves and two to head waves, but the time-
seismologists know that
distance curve is essentially a straight line. Therefore, we can
assume that these waves are fictitious head waves for which an
4 = g ( t l - To); 4 = g ( t 2 - To) (13)
equation similar to Equation 12 applies with appropriate val-
ues of v and c, which must be determined from the observa-
where V is the velocity of sound and TO is the origin time.
tions. Then what we said in the preceding paragraph applies
Subtracting the two distances gives
to this case. The velocity v2 used in Figure 5 for the 20-km-
depth event is equal to 1/s. Its large value (9.34 km/s) is indic-
ative of a deeper event. The P-wave velocities in the layer that d 1 - d 2 = V(t 1 - t2) (14)
contains the event and in the underlying layer are 6.6 and
7.3 km/s, respectively. When using Equation 9 with these The right side of Equation 14 is known. Therefore, the explo-
two velocities and a/3 = 1.73 we get v equal to 9 and 10 km/ sion occurred along a curve that satisfies the following condi-
s, which bracket v2. On the other hand, vc is equal to tion: The difference in distances from two fixed points (the

70 SeismologicalResearchLetters Volume75,Number1 January/February2004

 V2 = 1 3 . 5 km/s" h=107 km; d r = 107 k m v e=14.3 km/s" h=105 km; dr=ll7 km
km km
140 140

120 120
/
I00 D 100

80 - ....\
[] 80
\.
\\
60 , '",, ... (30
\\'\'"', ,,,

40 i ... 4o

20 [] \ !] " .{ []

\\ i
~ ~.~/, i o i
0 20 4'0 60. .80 . lO0 . 120 140km 0 20 4'0 60 80 I O0 120 140 km

v 2=13.0 km/s; h=107 km; dr=lO0 km v 2=13.0 km/s" h=105 km; dr=lO0 km
km km
140 140
/ /
/
120 120

100 H 100

[]
80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

i 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140km 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140km

,i Figure 6. Top. Results of the S-Ptimes method for actual data from two events recorded in the Andean foreland in Argentina, where large lateral velocity
variations exist. The circles were obtained using Equation 12 with v2 = vand dr= vcdetermined from the slope and intercept of the ts- tpvs. epicentral distance
curves. To draw these curves the epicentral location must be known. See the text for details. Other symbols as in Figure 4. Bottom. Similar to the top plots for
the same two events with v2 and dr determined by trial and error to force all the circles to intersect in the vicinity of a common point.

recording sites) to any point on the curve is constant. This is earthquake recorded at a number of stations. Any two sta-
the definition of a hyperbola. Although a hyperbola has two tions and the hypocenter define a plane on which we can
branches, it would be easy to determine which one is relevant apply the results discussed for the explosion. For each station
because one of the two recorded times will generally be pair there are thus a plane through the hypocenter and an
smaller than the other. If they were the same, then the explo- associated hyperbola that satisfies an equation similar to
sion would be along a straight line perpendicular to the line Equation 14 with v replaced by a, and with the hypocenter
joining the two recording sites. Once the appropriate branch located at the point were all the hyperbolas meet (there may
has been identified, it can be drawn on a map. A person driv- be other points were some hyperbolas meet).
ing along the hyperbola would eventually find the explosion If the hyperbolas are projected onto the surface of the
site. If the explosion was recorded at three sites, then the cor- Earth their projections will also be hyperbolas (although with
responding times could be combined to generate three hyper- different equations) and their intersection at depth will
bolas, and their common intersection would be the location project onto the event epicenter. If the event depth is much
of the explosion. smaller than the epicentral distances a common velocity
We can apply these ideas to the problem of earthquake likely will make all the surface hyperbolas intersect near a
location. Consider again a homogeneous medium and an common point, but this is unlikely to happen for smaller epi-

Seismological Research Letters January/February2004 Volume 75, Number1 71

central distances, in which case there will be an area around
the epicenter where all the hyperbolas become close to each
other.
The hyperbola method was used by Mohorovieid (1915)
and was considered a practical epicentral location method
until the advent of the current computer-based methods. For
example, Ben-Menahem and Bfith (1960) implemented an
analytical method whose geometric counterpart is the hyper-
bola method, and Husebye (ca. 1965) developed a graphical
method based on the use of computer-generated sets of
hyperbolas. Here we test the method with the data used to
test the S-P times method. The construction of the hyperbo-
las is described in the Appendix. The selection of the velocity
was guided by the condition that the hyperbolas intersect at a
common point. To avoid bias, the true epicentral location
was assumed as unknown and was shown only after the veloc-
ity for a given event was selected. For the five stations used in
the tests there are ten possible different hyperbolas (see Equa-
tion A-10), all of which were used.
For the two events within the network (Figure 4) the cor-
responding hyperbolas have a common point of intersection,
which coincides with the epicentral location, although in
some other tests it was found that instead of a common point
there is a relatively small area where every hyperbola intersects
at least another one, with the epicenter roughly at the center
of the area. This situation was found for station distributions
like that shown in Figure 4.
The hyperbolas for the event at 0.1 km depth in Figure 5
intersect at a point almost coincident with the epicenter for a
velocity of 5.95 km/s. This precision in the velocity may appear
excessive, but a change in velocity as small as 0.15 km/s is
enough to produce some hyperbolas that are considerably far
from the common intersection. As noted in the previous sec-
tion, for this event all the arrivals correspond to head waves
refracted at the bottom of the first layer and travel with a veloc-
ity of 5.95 km/s.
The event at 20 km depth in Figure 5 is interesting
because it shows that in some cases it is not possible to make
all the hyperbolas intersect in the vicinity of a point. Also in
this case a small change (0.1 km/s) in the velocity used has an
appreciable effect on the hyperbolas. The reason for the fail-
ure of the method is that three of the arrivals correspond to
direct waves and two to head waves, so that the basic hypoth-
esis of the method that all the waves are of the same type is
violated. If this situation occurs with an actual event, one
should inspect the seismograms and select the station pairs
that include similar types of waves. When only the three sta-
tions with direct waves were used, another type of problem
occurred, namely, two quite different intersection points, cor-
responding to close values of velocity, were found. Therefore,
in this case the method does not give a reliable location, but a
positive aspect of it is that this fact can be established from
the results obtained.
The method was also tested with the data from the
Andean foreland. In this case, using a velocity of about
10.5 km/s, most of the hyperbolas intersect in the vicinity of
72 SeismologicalResearchLetters Volume75,Number1 January/February2004
a point that is about 20 km to the southeast of the epicenters
shown in Figure 6. The relation between the epicenter and
the intersection point is similar to that seen in Figure 5 for the
event at 20 km. Using smaller numbers of hyperbolas does
not improve the results significantly.
CONCLUSIONS
This tutorial shows that the earthquake location problem can
be introduced using a simple graphical approach that allows a
realistic discussion of questions such as the trade-off between
depth and origin time and/or epicentral location, the effect of
errors, and the advantages of using S-wave or head-wave
arrivals in addition to the traditional P-wave arrivals. Also
discussed are two approximate epicentral location methods:
the popular S-P times method, and the other based on the
construction of hyperbolas and that requires only P-wave
arrival times.
The analysis of synthetic and actual data helped establish
general conditions under which the two methods can be
expected to provide reasonably good epicentral estimates. For
the S-P times method it was found that for events outside of
the network it is sometimes possible to locate the epicenter
with considerable accuracy. For events inside the network the
hyperbola method was found to perform very well. Both
methods require velocity factors to convert times to distances,
and to obtain the best results it is necessary to do a trial-and-
error search for the best velocities. For this reason it is conve-
nient to be able to generate the circles and hyperbolas with a
computer, particularly the latter, which are difficult to draw
manually. By computerizing the process it is possible to locate
epicenters with errors of a few kilometers, particularly if the
two methods are used together.
In summary, these methods provide good teaching tools
and produce epicentral locations that are adequate for
projects that require only approximate results. Therefore,
they can be used as part of a comprehensive program of earth-
quake education involving undergraduates or high-school
students interested in projects such as the U.S. Educational
Seismology Network initiative (http://www.indiana.edu/
~usesn/about.htmt). El
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the State of Tennessee Centers of
Excellence Program. CERI contribution No. 467. I thank S.
Hough and an anonymous reviewer for their constructive
comments.
REFERENCES
Ben-Menahem, A. and M. Bfith (1960). A method for determination of
epicenters of near earthquakes, Geafisica Pura e Applicata 46,
37-46.
Husebye, E. (ca. 1965). A rapid, graphical method for epicenter loca-
tion (unpublished), Seismological Institute, Uppsala, Sweden.
Johnson, R., E Kiokemeister, and E. Wolk (1978). Calculus with Ana-
lytic Geometry, Allyn and Bacon.
Lay, T. and T. Wallace (1995). Modern Global Seismology, Academic
Press.
Lee, W. and S. Stewart (1981). Principles and Applications of
Microearthquake Networks, Academic Press.
Mohorovieid, A. (1915). Die bestimmung des epizentrum eines nahbe-
bens, Gerl. Beitr. z. Geophys. 14, 199-205.
Pujol, J. (1992). Joint hypocentral location in media with lateral veloc-
ity variations and interpretation of the station corrections, Physics
of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 75, 7-24.
Pujol, J., R. Herrmann, S.-C. Chiu, and J.-M. Chiu (1998). Con-
strained joint location of New Madrid seismic zone earthquakes,
Seismological Research Letters 69, 56-68.
Pujol, J., A. Johnston, J.-M. Chiu, and Y.-T. Yang (1997). Refinement
of thrust faulting models for the central New Madrid seismic zone,
Engineering Geology 46, 281-298.
Pujol, J. and R. Smalley (1990). A preliminary earthquake location
method based on a hyperbolic approximation to travel times, Bul-
letin of the Seismological Society of America 80, 1,629-1,642.
Ruff, L. (2001). How to locate earthquakes, Seismological Research Let-
ters 72, 197.
CERI
The University o f M e m p h i s
Memphis, T N 3 8 1 5 2
pujol@ceri.memphis.edu

Appendix
Construction of the Hyperbolas
Refer to Figure A-1. The east and north directions are used to Operating and isolating the square root on the right side gives
define a local Cartesian coordinate system (x, y), with the sta-
tion coordinates referring to this system. The points A and B
1 1 .,/ ,2
represent stations and are the foci of the hyperbola. For arbi- --2 cx' - 1 - +_- ~ e 2 + y' . (A-4)
a a
trary locations of the foci the equation of the hyperbola is
complicated. For this reason, before constructing the hyper-
bolas the following transformations are assumed to have been Squaring again and additional simple operations give
performed (in practice they are not performed). First the ori-
gin O is translated to O; which is a point equidistant from A p2 p2
x y
= 1; b 2 -- C2 -- a 2 (A-5)
and B. Then the axes are rotated in such a way that the new x a2 b2
axis is along a line through A and B. Therefore, the new y is
perpendicular to that line. Let x' and y' indicate the new axes.
(after Johnson et al., 1978).
In this system the coordinates of A and B will be written as
Using Equation A-5 written as
(-c, 0) and (c, 0), respectively, which means that c is half of
the distance between the stations. Let
I/x,2/_
~. a2 ) 1 (A-6)
IPAI - I P B I - +2 a (A-1)

where the vertical bars indicate the distance between pairs of we can generate pairs (x', y') for x' > 0. Then these values can
points, P is a generic point with coordinates (x', y'), and 2a is be used to generate the pairs (x', -y'). These operations gener-
a constant equal to the right side of Equation 14 with an ate the branch of the hyperbola corresponding to positive val-
appropriate velocity. In component form Equation A-1 ues of x', which is the desired branch if a > 0. If a < 0 use the
becomes points (-x', y').
Once the points on the appropriate branch of the hyper-
~/(X t +6)2 + y , 2 _ ~ / ( X t _ g ) 2 + y ,2 --_+2a . bola have been found, it is necessary to express them in the
(A-2)
original coordinate system. This is done as follows. Let (Xo,,
Yo') be the coordinates of the point O' in the original system,
Now let d = x' + c and e -- x' - c, move the second term on the computed using
left of Equation A-2 to the right, divide both sides by 2a, and
square them. This gives
(Xl+X2) (Yl +Y2)
Xo' = ~ ; Yo' - ~ (A-7)
2 2
1 (d 2 + y t 2 ) _ l + 1_(#2 4 y,2 ) + _ ~1 e 2 + y,2 . (A-3)
4a 2 4a 2 - a where (Xl, Yl) and (x2, Y2) are the coordinates of the two sta-
tions. Let 0 be the angle between the segment A B and the x

Seismological ResearchLetters January/February2004 Volume75, Number1 73

axis. Then the points (x, y) that belong to the hyperbola are 5-4, 5-3, 5-2, 5-1 (4)
obtained using 4-3, 4-2, 4-1 (3)
3-2,3-1 (2)
x - cos Ox" + sin Oy" + x o, (A-8) 2-1 (1)

where the numbers in parentheses indicate the number of

and
combinations. This shows that the total number is equal to
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 - 10. By extension we see that for N stations
y - -sinOx' + cosOy' + Y o " (A-9) the number of combinations, and thus hyperbolas, is given by

Finally let us derive the number of different hyperbolas

that can be generated when there are Nstations. For example, M-I+2+3+'"+(N-1)-Zi- X-1
21 N(N- 1) (A-IO)
let N be 5 and label the stations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The possible i=1
two-station combinations are

North
Y

IPAI- IPBI = IQAI- IQBI

I R A I - IRBI = ISAI- ISBI

\
~X
\ East
\
\
\
B
,#.
I
I /

II / /
/
I /
I /
I /
I /

Q!
A Figure A-1. Geometry for the derivation of the equation of the hyperbola. The xand yaxes constitute a local Cartesian coordinate system; A and B indicate
station locations. The two branches of the hyperbola satisfy the equalities in the upper left corner. To construct the hyperbolas their equations are derived in a
rotated coordinate system centered at the point O' (equidistant from A and B) with the x axis aligned with A and B.

74 Seismological Research Letters Volume75, Number1 January/February2004