USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70036564

Laboratory and field testing of commercial rotational seismometers

Abstract

There are a small number of commercially available sensors to measure rotational motion in the frequency and amplitude ranges appropriate for earthquake motions on the ground and in structures. However, the performance of these rotational seismometers has not been rigorously and independently tested and characterized for earthquake monitoring purposes as is done for translational strong- and weak-motion seismometers. Quantities such as sensitivity, frequency response, resolution, and linearity are needed for the understanding of recorded rotational data. To address this need, we, with assistance from colleagues in the United States and Taiwan, have been developing performance test methodologies and equipment for rotational seismometers. In this article the performance testing methodologies are applied to samples of a commonly used commercial rotational seismometer, the eentec model R-1. Several examples were obtained for various test sequences in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Performance testing of these sensors consisted of measuring: (1) sensitivity and frequency response; (2) clip level; (3) self noise and resolution; and (4) cross-axis sensitivity, both rotational and translational. These sensor-specific results will assist in understanding the performance envelope of the R-1 rotational seismometer, and the test methodologies can be applied to other rotational seismometers.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R.L. Nigbor, J.R. Evans, C. R. Hutt. 2009-05-01. Laboratory and field testing of commercial rotational seismometers. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080247

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↗