Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70197816

Improvements in absolute seismometer sensitivity calibration using local earth gravity measurements

Abstract

The ability to determine both absolute and relative seismic amplitudes is fundamentally limited by the accuracy and precision with which scientists are able to calibrate seismometer sensitivities and characterize their response. Currently, across the Global Seismic Network (GSN), errors in midband sensitivity exceed 3% at the 95% confidence interval and are the least‐constrained response parameter in seismic recording systems. We explore a new methodology utilizing precise absolute Earth gravity measurements to determine the midband sensitivity of seismic instruments. We first determine the absolute sensitivity of Kinemetrics EpiSensor accelerometers to 0.06% at the 99% confidence interval by inverting them in a known gravity field at the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL). After the accelerometer is calibrated, we install it in its normal configuration next to broadband seismometers and subject the sensors to identical ground motions to perform relative calibrations of the broadband sensors. Using this technique, we are able to determine the absolute midband sensitivity of the vertical components of Nanometrics Trillium Compact seismometers to within 0.11% and Streckeisen STS‐2 seismometers to within 0.14% at the 99% confidence interval. The technique enables absolute calibrations from first principles that are traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) measurements while providing nearly an order of magnitude more precision than step‐table calibrations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Robert E. Anthony, Adam T. Ringler, David C. Wilson. 2017-12-19. Improvements in absolute seismometer sensitivity calibration using local earth gravity measurements. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170218

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↗