Analysis of Preseismic Event Using Seismo-
electromagnetics Data
(Earthquake Case Study in Megathrust Sumatra Region August-October 2016)
M. Fakhrul Islam Masruri, Ramadhan Priadi, and
Bayu Merdeka Tri Fristiyan Nanda
School of Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics
Meteorological, Climatological and Geophysical Agency
South Tangerang, Indonesia
fakhrulmasruri@gmail.com
Abstract—The megathrust region of Sumatra is an active
seismic area. Before the earthquake happened, geomagnetic field
anomaly was recorded at the geomagnetic recording station
located in Sumatera. In the lithospheric layers that gain stress
and strain before an earthquake generate electromagnetic
emissions that can be recorded at a geomagnetic station at a
certain distance. The electromagnetic emission propagation
passed the rock until it reaches the ionosphere which is often
called the LAI coupling (Lithosphere, Atmospheric, and
Ionosphere). The purpose of this study is to confirm the existence
of geomagnetic field anomalies before the earthquake. This
research uses the earthquake data in Sumatera region with
period between August to October 2016. The earthquake data
used were Mukomuko earthquake August 24 (M 5.8), South
Bengkulu earthquake September 17 (M 5.4), and Padang
earthquake October 21 (M 4.5). The geomagnetic sensor used is
MAGDAS 9 located at 3 stations in Gunungsitoli station, Sicincin
station, and Liwa station. The method used is the ULF data
signal filtering method from the multi-station geomagnetic data
to obtain an azimuth geomagnetic field anomaly. From the
research results obtained lead time ranged between 9 to 18 days
before the earthquake. The results from the azimuth direction of
the geomagnetic field anomaly correlated to the epicenter
location of the earthquake.
Keywords—preseismic; seismo-electromagnetics; geomagnetic;
sumatera
I. INTRODUCTION
Sumatra is an area strongly influenced by the activity of
Indo-Australia plate motion that infiltrated into the Eurasian
plate, besides the island of Sumatra also has a Sumatera fault
system that stretches from the north to the south of the island
and several megathrusts which has the potential to generate an
earthquake with magnitude big [5]. Sumatra region has several
geomagnetic stations that can be used as earthquake precursor
data. Geomagnetic stations located in Sumatra are Tuntungan
(TUN), Gunungsitoli (GSI), Liwa (LWA), and Sicincin (SCN).
Earthquakes are a phenomenon sudden energy release by
rock fractures. Prior to the earthquake, stress forces in rocks
emit electromagnetic waves and a number of electrical ions
when crossing the earth's layer or known as LAI (Lithosphere
Suaidi Ahadi
Center of Engineering Seismology, Potential Geophysics
and Time Mark
Meteorological, Climatological and Geophysical Agency
Jakarta, Indonesia
su4idi@gmail.com
Atmosphere Ionosphere) coupling [7]. A few days before the
earthquake came SEAs anomalies (Seismo-electromagnetic
anomalies) [6].
Prior to the earthquake the rocks experienced an
accumulated increase in stress which then broke out when it
was no longer able to withstand the accumulation of stress [9],
resulting in a shift in the fault field and generating
electromagnetic emissions (piezoelectric and piezomagnetic)
which can be recorded at a Geomagnetic station at a certain
distance [2]. There are many mineral constituents, one of
which is quartz mineral [11]. Induced quartz minerals emit
electromagnetic waves and a certain few of electric ions when
get pressed [12].
Electromagnetic wave emission is one of the parameters
that can be used as earthquake precursor [1]. Electromagnetic
wave emissions can only be observed in ULF (ultralow
frequency) data in the frequency range 0.01-10 Hz whereas in
the extremely low/very low-frequency ELF/VLF data in the 10
Hz-32 Hz anomaly range can’t be observed prior to the
earthquake [10]. ELF/VLF can’t be used as data precursors
because high-frequency electromagnetic waves will experience
very rapid attenuation when propagating through the
lithosphere, whereas ULF is only slightly attenuated so that
emissions can still be recorded at observation points on the
surface of the earth [3].
The type of ULF anomaly emission is divided into three
types that are polarization anomalies caused by changes in
conductivity in the lithosphere, ULF emissions caused by
micro-fracturing, and ULF emissions caused by electro-kinetic
effects [13]. It is assumed that all earthquakes produce an ULF
emission anomaly that can be captured by a magnetometer at
the observer station. The Magnetometer's ability to detect an
ULF emission anomaly depends on the potential magnitude
and distance of the hypocenter to the geomagnetic station [1].
Electromagnetic wave emissions can be analyzed using an
analytical signal at the local station's magnetic data recording.
The anomalies are obtained from the onsite time recorded by
the geomagnetic station [1]. The difference between the signals
generated by geomagnetic activity and seismic activity when TABLE I. SUMATRA’S GEOMAGNETIC STATION LOCATION

microfracture occurs will result in the onset of geomagnetic Geomagnetic Station Longitude Latitude
data recording which can be used as earthquake precursor data
1 Gunungsitoli Station (GSI) 97.57° 1.304°
[8].
2 Sicincin Station (SCN) 100.30° -0.550°

3 Liwa Station (LWA) 104.06° -5.020°

The earthquakes data used in the megathrust Sumatra

during the period of August, September, and October 2016 i.e.,
Mukomuko earthquake August 24 (M 5.8), South Bengkulu
earthquake September 17 (M 5.4), and Padang earthquake
October 21 (M 4.5). Earthquake data obtained from BMKG’s
earthquake data repository. And then table II shows the
parameters of the earthquake data used in this paper.

TABLE II. EARTHQUAKES DATA USED

Location OT M Lon. Lat. Dep.

Southwest of Aug 24, 2016
1 5.8 100.19˚ -2.90˚ 25km
Mukomuko 13:48:45 UTC
Southwest of Sep 17, 2016
2 5.4 102.49˚ -4.79˚ 19km
South Bengkulu 02:50:53 UTC
Fig. 1. Representative power spectra of typical geomagnetic activity (solid Southwest of Oct 21, 2016
3 4.5 100.16˚ -1.83˚ 10km
curve) and corresponding broadband seismic activity (dashed curve) recorded Padang 01:45:02 UTC
[8].

Figure 1 shows the different recording signals due to
geomagnetic activity and seismic activity. Very visible if the
signal due to seismic activity has a larger peak when
microfracture occurs in the rock. This is the underlying if
before an earthquake magnetic anomaly happens.
Figure 2 is a map showing the location of geomagnetic
stations, and the epicenter of three earthquake in Sumatra.
Geomagnetic stations are marked with triangular symbols,
while epicenter of an earthquake is marked by a star symbol.

Although earthquakes are still not predicted today because

of the conditions for predicting things we need space
dimensions and time dimensions but we can start to make
precursor earth earthquakes as the first step of earthquake
mitigation.

II. METHODS

A. Research Area
The research area is located in the megathrust region of
Sumatra with the extent of research is 6.69 north to -6.56 south
and 94.7 east to 107 east, Indonesia. Selection of research area
is adjusted to the distance of earthquake occurrence and
availability of geomagnetic observation station. This research
uses data recording geomagnetic activity from record station in
Sumatera areas such as Gunungsitoli station (GSI), Sicincin
station (SCN) and Liwa station (LWA). The coordinate
location of the geomagnetic station in Sumatra is shown in
Fig. 2. Map of research area.
Table I.
B. Instruments
The geomagnetic activity recorder used in the geomagnetic
station in Sumatra is using the Magnetic Data Acquisition (2)
System (MAGDAS-9) magnetometer manufactured by Space
Environment Research Center (SERC) Kyushu University, Then we get daily value of component H and Z as follows:
Japan.
(3)

(4)
Then the polarization ratio can be formulated as:

Fig. 3. Main parts of MAGDAS-9 magnetometer: (1) 3-axial flux-gate sensor;
(2) pre-amplifier; (3) data logger; and (4) antenna of GPS-receiver. (source:
ikfia.ysn.ru)
TABLE III. MAGDAS-9 SPECIFICATION (SOURCE: IKFIA.YSN.RU)
MAGDAS-9 Magnetometer
Magnetic field components measurement H, D, Z
Accuracy 0.1 nT
Range ±70000 nT
Sampling rate Up to 10 Hz
Magnetic field components measured by MAGDAS-9
include horizontal component (H), declination (D), and vertical
component (Z). The principle of operation of magnetometer is
using the principle of flux-gate sensor. A flux-gate
magnetometer can measure the magnetic field in a specific
direction quite precisely. It takes three independent flux-gate
coils to measure the total field by adding the three independent
vectors.
C. Research Methods
Starting from a raw data recording geomagnetic activity
obtained from MAGDAS sensor then filtered with band-pass
filter at frequency 0.012 Hz. After filtering then used Fast
Fourier Transforms (FFT) to convert data from time domain to
frequency domain. After that calculate ratio value of power
spectra density Z/H component at the frequency of 0.012 Hz.
0.012 Hz frequency is chosen because based on graph
representation of power spectra in Figure 1, frequency of 0.012
Hz is categorized as Pc3 which is frequency of geomagnetic
activity so that suitable to be used to detected geomagnetic
anomaly [8].
Power ratio polarization method is comparing the vertical
and horizontal values of the geomagnetic fields (Z/H) at the
0.012 Hz frequency recorded in the earth magnetic station. The
ratio Z/H is obtained from the following equations:
(5)
Then change the power ratio back to time domain. The Z/H
polarization can show the geomagnetic field anomaly which
can be used as an earthquake precursor parameter if it has a
value that exceeds its standard deviation value. The
geomagnetic field anomaly is confirmed using the recording
data from other observation stations (multi-stations method)
and then DST index to ensure that the recorded anomaly is true
an anomaly of seismic activity and is not derived from anomaly
geomagnetic form of a magnetic storm. Here is a classification
of magnetic storms based on DST index shown by Table IV.
TABLE IV. DST INDEX CLASSIFICATION
Criteria of Magnetic Storm Value Range
Weak -30 nT > Dst > -50 nT
Moderate -50 nT > Dst > -100 nT
Strong -100 nT > Dst > -200 nT
Severe -200 nT > Dst > -350 nT
Great -350 nT > Dst
After that an analysis of the direction of the anomaly
(azimuth) using Single Station Transfer Fourier method
(SSTF). The direction (azimuth) anomaly can be indicated as a
representation of the earthquake preparation zone. This SSTF
method is a function of Fourier complex component numbers.
This method can solve the equations of the correlation of
geomagnetic field components, i.e., components X, Y, and Z
[4].
(6)
The values of constants A(ω) and B(ω) are obtained by
using linear inversion. Then can be used to determine the
amplitude and the angle of the direction of the geomagnetic
anomaly.
(7)

(1) (8)
 III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION there was an earthquake precisely in Southwest of Mukomuko,
on the August 24, 2016, with magnitude of 5.8. In this case, the
A. Mukomuko Earthquake August 24, 2016 (M 5.8) earthquake precursor parameters are the onset time on August
9, 2016, and lead time for 15 days from the occurrence of
anomalies until the earthquake.
While for anomaly on August 7, 2016 at GSI then August
8, 2016 in SCN cannot be considered an anomaly because it is
less accurate, it is because only one station recorded the
anomaly and it is estimated that the anomaly is caused by very
local factors such as human activity around the sensor.

Fig. 5. Azimuth of geomagnetic field anomaly on August 9, 2016 at three

observation stations in Sumatra correlated with epicenter of Mukomuko
earthquake.

Using SSTF method calculation obtained by azimuth from

geomagnetic field anomaly on August 9, 2016 at 177° from
GSI station, 192° from SCN station and 290° from LWA
station. Based on plotting azimuth on the map shown in Figure
5, azimuth anomaly at SCN and LWA stations is estimated to
be correlated with an earthquake epicenter located in the
Fig. 4. The top graph is the DST index, then below it is the graph of Z/H ratio Southwest of Mukomuko. But azimuth anomaly from GSI
polarization at frequency 0.012 Hz of the three geomagnetic stations that have slightly deviated. This happens because the earthquake is an
been limited by each standard deviation. (In this case for Mukomuko
earthquake of August 24, 2016) area and not a point so there may be an anomaly azimuth
deviation obtained from each station. Thus, the azimuth of
anomalies is considered as a representation of the earthquake
Based on the results of the data processing shown in Figure epicenter, so that the recorded anomaly is a precursor for the
4, there are geomagnetic field anomalies recorded on three earthquake of August 24, 2016.
geomagnetic stations, GSI, SCN and LWA stations. The
anomalies of the geomagnetic field recorded simultaneously at
the three stations were recorded on August 9, 2016, at 1:00
UTC. And at that time the DST index value is in the range of -
7 nT, so it can be said at that time there is no magnetic storm
disturbance. Each of the Z/H ratio amplitudes recorded in the
three stations is 4.885 in GSI, 5.356 in SCN, and 4.367 in
LWA. 15 days later after the recorded geomagnetic anomaly,
B. South Bengkulu Earthquake September 17, 2016 (M 5.4)
Fig. 6. The top graph is the DST index, then below it is the graph of Z/H ratio
polarization at frequency 0.012 Hz of the three geomagnetic stations that have
been limited by each standard deviation. (In this case for South Bengkulu
earthquake of September 17, 2016)
Based on the results of the data processing shown in figure
6, there are geomagnetic field anomalies recorded at three
geomagnetic stations, GSI stations, SCN and LWA. An
anomalies geomagnetic field recorded on September 8, 2016, at
21:00 UTC. The value of DST index is in the range of -12 nT
so it is stated if there is no magnetic storm disturbance. Each
Z/H amplitude ratio recorded at the three stations is 2.95 in the
GSI, 4.431 in the SCN, and 3.623 in the LWA. 9 days later
after the recorded geomagnetic anomaly, an earthquake
occurred in South Southwest Bengkulu, on September 17,
2016, with a magnitude of 5.4. In the Bengkulu earthquake had
an onset time on September 8, 2016, and a lead time for 9 days
from an anomalous air to an earthquake.
While for anomaly on September 7, 2016 at SCN cannot be
considered an anomaly because it is less accurate, it is because
only one station recorded the anomaly and it is estimated that
the anomaly is caused by very local factors such as human
activity around the sensor.
Fig. 7. Azimuth of geomagnetic field anomaly on September 8, 2016 at three
observation stations in Sumatra correlated with epicenter of South Bengkulu
earthquake.
In the figure 7 shown if the direction of anomalies magnetic
corresponding with the direction of epicenter earthquake.
Using SSTF method calculation obtained by azimuth from
geomagnetic field anomaly on September 8, 2016 at 149° from
GSI station, 195° from SCN station and 308° from LWA
station. Based on plotting azimuth on the map shown in Figure
7, azimuth anomaly at GSI stations is estimated to be
correlated with an earthquake epicenter located in the
Southwest of South Bengkulu. But azimuth anomaly from SCN
and LWA slightly deviated. This happens because the
earthquake is an area and not a point so there may be an
anomaly azimuth deviation obtained from each station. From
the azimuth results of magnetic field anomalies can be
modified as a representation of the epicenter the earthquake, so
that the recorded anomaly is a precursor for the earthquake of
September 17, 2016.
Analysis of azimuth anomalies was performed using the
SSTF method considered as a representation of the earthquake
preparation zones. This method is capable of generating
azimuth from anomalies because it has information about
underground electrical conductivity.
C. Padang Earthquake October 21, 2016 (M 4.5)
Fig. 8. The top graph is the DST index, then below it is the graph of Z/H ratio
polarization at frequency 0.012 Hz of the three geomagnetic stations that have
been limited by each standard deviation. (In this case for Padang earthquake of
October 21, 2016)
The results of data processing for Padang earthquake 3
October 2016 in Figure 8 shown indicate an anomalies
geomagnetic field recorded at three geomagnetic stations, GSI
stations, SCN and LWA. Geomagnetic field anomaly occurred
on October 3, 2016, at 22:00 UTC. When the anomaly occurs
the DST index is in the range of -25 nT, be an anomalous event
occurs not by a magnetic storm but a result of seismic activity.
Each of the Z/H amplitude ratios recorded at the three stations
is 2,088 in the GSI, 13,439 in the SCN, and 2,006 in the LWA.
18 days later after the recorded geomagnetic anomaly, an
earthquake occurred in the Southwest of Padang, on October
21, 2016, with a magnitude of 4.5. In this case, the earthquake
precursor parameters are onset of time on October 3, 2016, and
lead time for 18 days from an anomalous to an earthquake.
While for anomaly on October 4, 2016 at GSI and SCN
cannot be considered an anomaly because each anomaly shows
the direction of the divergent azimuth, so possibly that the
anomaly is caused by local factors around sensor.
Fig. 9. Azimuth of geomagnetic field anomaly on October 3, 2016 at three
observation stations in Sumatra correlated with epicenter of Padang earthquake.
Using SSTF method calculation obtained by azimuth from
geomagnetic field anomaly on October 3, 2016 at 191° from
GSI station, 244° from SCN station and 305° from LWA
station. Based on the azimuth value generated then when
represented in the map the azimuth of the LWA station will be
correlated with the earthquake epicenter shown in Figure 9.
While for the anomalies retained at the SCN and GSI stations
slightly deviate from the epicenter of the earthquake but still
have a mutually correlated direction. Each azimuth anomaly of
the three stations is estimated to be correlated with an
earthquake epicenter located in the Southwest of Padang. Thus,
the azimuth of anomalies is considered as a representation of
the earthquake epicenter area, so that the recorded anomaly is a
precursor for the earthquake of October 21, 2016.
IV. CONCLUSION
The results of magnetic field processing show if there is a
difference between anomalies generated by magnetic storms
and anomalies generated by seismic activity. For the three
earthquakes, if both magnetic anomalies and magnetic field
azimuth have a very close correlation. In the Mukomuko
earthquake the Z/H ratio of amplitudes recorded in the three
stations is 4,885 in GSI, 5,356 in SCN, and 4,367 in LWA and
15 days later after the recorded geomagnetic anomaly
earthquake happen. In the Bengkulu earthquake each Z/H the
amplitude ratio recorded at the three stations is 2.95 in the GSI,
4,431 in the SCN, and 3,623 in the LWA and 9 days later after
the recorded geomagnetic anomaly earthquake happen. In the
Padang earthquake each Z/H the amplitude ratios recorded at
the three stations is 2.088 in the GSI, 13,439 in the SCN, and
2,006 in the LWA and 18 days later after the recorded
geomagnetic anomaly earthquake happen. So that can be said
as earthquake precursors are anomaly recorded on multi-station
and not an local anomaly. If using the SSTF method
calculation to determine the azimuth of the anomaly
geomagnetic field obtained the azimuth obtained during
anomaly almost always corresponds to the direction of the
epicenter area of earthquake.
Although the time interval between the occurrence of
anomalies and earthquakes remains so varied that it has not
been able to provide a clear picture of when the earthquake
occurred but the magnetic anomaly data has a great chance to
be studied more deeply about the correlation to earthquakes.
Although earthquakes are still not predicted by precursors of
earthquakes but precursors can be used for earthquake
mitigation study. We still need more exercise with adequate
earthquake events for a more accurate statistical analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank Mr. Suaidi Ahadi who has
guided the author in completing this research. Thank you also
to Mr. Syirojudin and all staff of BMKG's Potential
Geophysics Department for guidance, which has provided raw
data along with its processing software.
REFERENCES
[1] Ahadi, S., Puspito, N. T., Ibrahim, G., Saroso, S., Yumoto, K., & Muzli,
M. (2015). Anomalous ULF Emissions and Their Possible Association
with the Strong Earthquakes in Sumatra, Indonesia, during 2007-2012.
Journal of Mathematical and Fundamental Sciences, 47(1), 84–103.
[2] Finkelstein, D., Hill, R. D., & Powell, J. R. (1973). The piezoelectric
theory of earthquake lightning. Journal of Geophysical Research, 78(6),
992–993.
[3] Hayakawa, M., Kawate, R., Molchanov, O. A., & Yumoto, K. (1996).
Results of ultra‐low‐frequency magnetic field measurements during the
Guam Earthquake of 8 August 1993. Geophysical Research Letters,
23(3), 241–244.
[4] Hattori, K. (2004). ULF geomagnetic changes associated with large
earthquakes. Terrestrial Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 15(3), 329-
360.
[5] Ibrahim, G. (2010). Tektonik dan Mineral di Indonesia. Jakarta,
Puslitbang BMKG.
[6] Ikeya, M., & Takaki, S. (1996). Electromagnetic fault for earthquake
lightning. Japanese journal of applied physics, 35(3A), L355.
[7] Kamogawa, M. (2006). Preseismic lithosphere‐atmosphere‐ionosphere
coupling. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 87(40), 417–
424.
[8] Karakelian, D., Klemperer, S. L., Fraser-Smith, A. C., & Beroza, G. C.
(2000). A transportable system for monitoring ultralow frequency
electromagnetic signals associated with earthquakes. Seismological
Research Letters, 71(4), 423–436.
[9] Mogi, K. (1963). Magnitude-frequency relation for elastic shocks
accompanying fractures of various materials and some related problems
in earthquakes (2nd paper).
[10] Surkov, V., & Hayakawa, M. (2014). Ultra and extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields. Springer.
[11] Uyeda, S., Kamogawa, M., & Nagao, T. (2011). Earthquakes,
Electromagnetic Signals of. In Extreme Environmental Events (hal.
406–424). Springer.
[12] Yamada, I., Masuda, K., & Mizutani, H. (1989). Electromagnetic and
acoustic emission associated with rock fracture. Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors, 57(1–2), 157–168.
[13] Yumoto, K., Ikemoto, S., Cardinal, M. G., Hayakawa, M., Hattori, K.,
Liu, J. Y., … Widarto, D. (2009). A new ULF wave analysis for Seismo-
Electromagnetics using CPMN/MAGDAS data. Physics and Chemistry
of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 34(6), 360–366.