Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70004529

Estimating pole/zero errors in GSN-IRIS/USGS network calibration metadata

Abstract

Mapping the digital record of a seismograph into true ground motion requires the correction of the data by some description of the instrument's response. For the Global Seismographic Network (Butler et al., 2004), as well as many other networks, this instrument response is represented as a Laplace domain pole–zero model and published in the Standard for the Exchange of Earthquake Data (SEED) format. This Laplace representation assumes that the seismometer behaves as a linear system, with any abrupt changes described adequately via multiple time-invariant epochs. The SEED format allows for published instrument response errors as well, but these typically have not been estimated or provided to users. We present an iterative three-step method to estimate the instrument response parameters (poles and zeros) and their associated errors using random calibration signals. First, we solve a coarse nonlinear inverse problem using a least-squares grid search to yield a first approximation to the solution. This approach reduces the likelihood of poorly estimated parameters (a local-minimum solution) caused by noise in the calibration records and enhances algorithm convergence. Second, we iteratively solve a nonlinear parameter estimation problem to obtain the least-squares best-fit Laplace pole–zero–gain model. Third, by applying the central limit theorem, we estimate the errors in this pole–zero model by solving the inverse problem at each frequency in a two-thirds octave band centered at each best-fit pole–zero frequency. This procedure yields error estimates of the 99% confidence interval. We demonstrate the method by applying it to a number of recent Incorporated Research Institutions in Seismology/United States Geological Survey (IRIS/USGS) network calibrations (network code IU).

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A. T. Ringler, C. R. Hutt, R. Aster, H. Bolton, L.S. Gee, T. Storm. 2012-03-29. Estimating pole/zero errors in GSN-IRIS/USGS network calibration metadata. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110195

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↗