Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70189627

Broadband seismic noise attenuation versus depth at the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory

Abstract

Seismic noise induced by atmospheric processes such as wind and pressure changes can be a major contributor to the background noise observed in many seismograph stations, especially those installed at or near the surface. Cultural noise such as vehicle traffic or nearby buildings with air handling equipment also contributes to seismic background noise. Such noise sources fundamentally limit our ability to resolve earthquake‐generated signals. Many previous seismic noise versus depth studies focused separately on either high‐frequency ( &gt; 1 &#x2009;&#x2009; Hz "> > 1 Hz ) or low‐frequency ( &lt; 0.05 &#x2009;&#x2009; Hz "> < 0.05 Hz ) bands. In this study, we use modern high‐quality broadband (BB) and very broadband (VBB) seismometers installed at depths ranging from 1.5 to 188 m at the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory to evaluate noise attenuation as a function of depth over a broad range of frequencies (0.002–50 Hz). Many modern seismometer deployments use BB or VBB seismometers installed at various depths, depending on the application. These depths range from one‐half meter or less in aftershock study deployments, to one or two meters in the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Transportable Array (TA), to a few meters (shallow surface vaults) up to 100 m or more (boreholes) in the permanent observatories of the Global Seismographic Network (GSN). It is important for managers and planners of these and similar arrays and networks of seismograph stations to understand the attenuation of surface‐generated noise versus depth so that they can achieve desired performance goals within their budgets as well as their frequency band of focus. The results of this study will assist in decisions regarding BB and VBB seismometer installation depths. In general, we find that greater installation depths are better and seismometer emplacement in hard rock is better than in soil. Attenuation for any given depth varies with frequency. More specifically, we find that the dependence of depth will be application dependent based on the frequency band and sensitive axes of interest. For quick deployments (like aftershock studies), 1 m may be deep enough to produce good data, especially when the focus is on vertical data where temperature stability fundamentally limits the low‐frequency noise levels and little low‐frequency data will be used. For temporary (medium‐term) deployments (e.g., TA) where low cost can be very important, 2–3 m should be sufficient, but such shallow installations will limit the ability to resolve low‐frequency signals, especially on horizontal components. Of course, one should try for maximum burial depth within the budget when there is interest in using the data for low‐frequency applications. For long‐term deployments like the permanent observatories of the GSN and similar networks, 100–200 m depth in hard rock is desirable to achieve lowest noise, although 30–60 m may be acceptable.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Charles R. Hutt, Adam T. Ringler, Lind Gee. 2017-03-21. Broadband seismic noise attenuation versus depth at the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160187

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↗