USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70175972

Noise reduction in long‐period seismograms by way of array summing

Abstract

Long‐period (>100 s period) seismic data can often be dominated by instrumental noise as well as local site noise. When multiple collocated sensors are installed at a single site, it is possible to improve the overall station noise levels by applying stacking methods to their traces. We look at the noise reduction in long‐period seismic data by applying the time–frequency phase‐weighted stacking method of Schimmel and Gallart (2007) as well as the phase‐weighted stacking (PWS) method of Schimmel and Paulssen (1997) to four collocated broadband sensors installed in the quiet Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory underground vault. We show that such stacking methods can improve vertical noise levels by as much as 10 dB over the mean background noise levels at 400 s period, suggesting that greater improvements could be achieved with an array involving multiple sensors. We also apply this method to reduce local incoherent noise on horizontal seismic records of the 2 March 2016 M w 7.8 Sumatra earthquake, where the incoherent noise levels at very long periods are similar in amplitude to the earthquake signal. To maximize the coherency, we apply the PWS method to horizontal data where relative azimuths between collocated sensors are estimated and compared with a simpler linear stack with no azimuthal rotation. Such methods could help reduce noise levels at various seismic stations where multiple high‐quality sensors have been deployed. Such small arrays may also provide a solution to improving long‐period noise levels at Global Seismographic Network stations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Adam T. Ringler, David C. Wilson, Tyler Storm, Benjamin T. Marshall, Charles R. Hutt, Austin Holland. 2016-08-16. Noise reduction in long‐period seismograms by way of array summing. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160129

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↗