Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70034047

A Comparison of seismic instrument noise coherence analysis techniques

Abstract

The self-noise of a seismic instrument is a fundamental characteristic used to evaluate the quality of the instrument. It is important to be able to measure this self-noise robustly, to understand how differences among test configurations affect the tests, and to understand how different processing techniques and isolation methods (from nonseismic sources) can contribute to differences in results. We compare two popular coherence methods used for calculating incoherent noise, which is widely used as an estimate of instrument self-noise (incoherent noise and self-noise are not strictly identical but in observatory practice are approximately equivalent; Holcomb, 1989; Sleeman et al., 2006). Beyond directly comparing these two coherence methods on similar models of seismometers, we compare how small changes in test conditions can contribute to incoherent-noise estimates. These conditions include timing errors, signal-to-noise ratio changes (ratios between background noise and instrument incoherent noise), relative sensor locations, misalignment errors, processing techniques, and different configurations of sensor types.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A. T. Ringler, C. R. Hutt, J.R. Evans, L.D. Sandoval. 2011-03-22. A Comparison of seismic instrument noise coherence analysis techniques. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100182

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗