Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70160352

A quick SEED tutorial

Abstract

Introduction A number of different government-funded seismic data centers offer free open-access data (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center, the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), and Data Management System), which can be freely downloaded and shared among different members of the community ( Lay, 2009 ). To efficiently share data, it is important that different data providers follow a common format. The Standard for the Exchange of Earthquake Data (SEED) provides one such format for storing seismic and other geophysical data. The SEED format is widely used in earthquake seismology; however, SEED and its structure can be difficult for many first-time users (ourselves included). Below is a quick tutorial that outlines the basic structure of SEED format. This write-up is in no way intended to replace the comprehensive SEED manual ( Ahern et al. , 2009 ), and instead of going into the details of any specific part of the SEED format we refer the reader to the manual for additional details. The goal of this write-up is to succinctly explain the basic structure of SEED format as well as the associated jargon, as most commonly used now, in a colloquial way so that novice users of SEED can become more familiar with the format and its application quickly. Our goal is to give the reader the necessary background so that when problems or questions about SEED format arise they will have some understanding of where they should look for more details or from where the problem might be stemming. As a secondary goal, we hope to help the reader become familiar with the SEED manual ( Ahern et al. , 2009 ), which contains detailed information about all aspects of the SEED format.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Adam T. Ringler, John R. Evans. 2015-09-23. A quick SEED tutorial. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150043

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Digitizer Suite: The Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory Digitizer Testing Suite

Laboratory testing of digitizers and seismometers helps ensure that prior to deployment the instrumentation can produce high quality data and is operating within specifications. In this work we detail the software package called: the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) Digitizer Test Suite. This Java software package provides several algorithms to verify various performance parameters of digitizers commonly used for recording analog seismic instruments. The goal of these tests is not to be exhaustive, but to identify common failures that could compromise the integrity of seismic data being recorded on the digitizer. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (e.g., Slad and Merchant, 2018) routinely do comprehensive testing of digitizers for various monitoring missions. While these tests reports are valuable for comprehensively characterizing a recording system, it would be resource intensive to conduct such tests on every seismic recorder used in a network. We focus on tests that include ways to estimate the sensitivity, timing, self-noise, and clip-level of the digitizer, as well as the fidelity of the signal being recorded. The software is publicly available and provides a way for the community to verify the integrity of a digitizer using a minimum amount of outside equipment.

Seismological Research Letters

The digital archivist: Automating legacy macroseismic data processing using large language models

Macroseismic data are a key resource to investigate shaking and damage from preinstrumental and early instrumental eras. However, data are often stored as inconsistently formatted reports describing observed shaking and damage, making manually parsing and interpreting accounts labor‐intensive. We introduce a novel workflow using Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro large language model (LLM) to automate the extraction and structuring of macroseismic observations from summary reports. We apply this workflow to the 22 March 1957 M 5.3 Daly City, California, earthquake as a case study. We used Gemini to extract addresses, originally assigned modified Mercalli intensity values, and descriptions from each report. To address coordinate precision limits, addresses were geocoded via Google’s Geocoding application programming interface. This workflow yielded over 2300 geocoded intensity reports for the Daly City earthquake. We use the geocoded accounts, with the original report intensity assignments, to develop a shaking intensity map that in some respects rivals modern Did You Feel It? Maps. We also extract and present data for the 9 February 1971 M L 6.7 Sylmar, California, earthquake. Our results demonstrate the potential of LLMs for reliably extracting and analyzing large, unstructured macroseismic datasets. LLMs offer a scalable solution for rapidly digitizing macroseismic archives, enabling their broader use to constrain ground‐motion models in modern seismic hazard analysis and to improve our understanding of site effects in urban areas. The concepts explored here may also be applied to the handling of other legacy seismological and earth science data.

Seismological Research Letters