USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70247958

Comparison of co-recorded analog and digital systems for characterization of responses and uncertainties

Thomas A. Lee·Adam T. Ringler·Robert E. Anthony·Miaki Ishii
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

One of the most prominent challenges related to legacy seismic data is determining how these data can be appropriately used in modern research applications. The wide variety of instrumentation used in the analog era, the format of recording on paper wrapped around a helicorder drum, and limited metadata information introduces ambiguities that are not typical of modern digital data. Therefore, techniques must be developed to help characterize uncertainties in legacy data. This article presents an analysis that compares corecorded signals from two instruments—a Trillium Compact or Press‐Ewing (PE) seismometer for sensing ground motion and two recording systems: a modern Q330 digitizer or heated‐stylus system. Analyses of the recordings in both time and frequency domains indicate time uncertainty on the order of one second, identify a flat response in a 10–60 s band for the PE and drum recorder, and highlight how specific features of scans and paper seismograms (e.g., repeated portions of scans and line thickness) can cause timing jumps or reduced trace amplitude.

Explore related subjects

Seismological Research LettersArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas A. Lee, Adam T. Ringler, Robert E. Anthony, Miaki Ishii. 2023-07-28. Comparison of co-recorded analog and digital systems for characterization of responses and uncertainties. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220230129

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Seismic evidence of the transition from debris flow to hyperconcentrated flow at Mount Rainier, USA

Debris flows are a seasonal hazard in Tahoma Creek in Mount Rainier National Park, Washington, United States. We present seismic recordings spaced every 100–200 m along the path of a debris flow triggered by a glacial outburst on 15 August 2023. These recordings capture changes as the debris flow deposits ∼24,000 cubic meters of material along an ∼800 m stretch of channel, approximately 2.5 km from the glacial source. As the flow deposits material, the seismic signal onset shape associated with the debris flow snout recedes, resulting in an elongation of the delay between the signal onset and the peak amplitude from 100 to 300 s. In parallel, the peak frequency increases by more than 20 Hz, and energy below 20 Hz fades, indicating deposition of larger particles and changes in sediment concentration within the flow. We interpret these changes to correspond to the transition from debris flow to hyperconcentrated flow, a distinction based on sediment concentration by volume and on rheological criteria such as yield strength. We find that the frequency content of the seismic signal depends on grain size and sediment concentrations within the flow, among other factors, complicating the starting assumptions of many physical models of debris flows.

Washington↗
USGS2026

Time for an updated macroseismic scale

Macroseismology plays a crucial role in earthquake hazard and risk analyses, linking past earthquake occurrences and impacts with those of the present and future. The popularity of internet-based community contributions and the usefulness of intensities for communicating seismic hazards, early warning, and impacts to the public have all bolstered the use of macroseismology beyond its traditional utility in characterizing sources and shaking from historical and modern earthquakes (Wald et al., 2023). Nevertheless, many modern approaches for collecting building damage data and assigning macroseismic intensities suffer limitations. Many countries do not or no longer routinely collect such data, and even after significant and even catastrophic earthquakes, building damage data are often not collected or shared systematically, nor are field-based macroseismic intensities professionally assigned. Additionally, the United States (U.S.), Canada, and other nations still use variations of the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale (Wood and Neumann, 1931) for assigning macroseismic intensities. At nearly 100 years old, the MMI scale predates most modern building types. As a result, the scale is silent about and blind to building damage that now matters to most domestic occupants. It says nothing about single- or multi-unit wood-frame buildings, the predominant type of residential structure in the US and Canada, whose damage is a particularly important indicator of shaking intensity, nor about the collapse or safety of modern building types. Importantly, the dependence on the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” (DYFI) for domestic intensity data collection limits their accuracy type at higher, damaging intensity levels, where attention to building type is requisite. The MMI and some of its widely used variants are often poorly documented; there is no official version, nor is it even clear which version of the scale was employed in many studies (Musson, 2002). The MMI scale is consistent with—but is more limited than—the 1998 European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98, Grünthal, 1998). The new International Macroseismic Scale of 2025 (IMS-25; Grünthal et al., 2025) builds on EMS-98—a well-documented, modern scale already widely used in Europe and well beyond. IMS-25 further expands EMS-98 internationally by enhancing the EMS-98 vulnerability table and damage grade collections to include more worldwide building types and their evolving design codes. Because the IMS requires well-defined vulnerability classes and damage grades specific to various structural types, its worldwide adoption will help unify post-event data collection on building damage. Similarly, the IMS requires statistical analyses of damage levels for specific structural types, ensuring that building damage sampling is sufficient for other important engineering analyses, such as the derivation of fragility functions, calibration of loss models, and the assessment of losses and damages after significant events

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2026

Intensity prediction equations for intraslab earthquakes in the Cascadia Subduction Zone

In the U.S. Pacific Northwest (PNW), intraslab earthquakes located within the subducting Juan de Fuca slab are responsible for most of the region’s moderate‐magnitude seismicity. Historically, these earthquakes have caused significant damage, such as the 2001 M 6.8 Nisqually, 1965 M 6.5 Seattle, and 1949 M 6.8 Olympia events. Intensity prediction equations (IPEs) aim to relate source‐to‐site distance and earthquake magnitude to the resultant felt shaking intensity at a particular location, and help to estimate hazard from earthquakes. We find that a commonly used IPE developed by Atkinson et al. (2014) does not accurately describe shaking intensity from most intraslab events in the PNW, likely because it was developed using primarily crustal fault earthquakes. In this study, we develop two new IPEs that provide an improved fit to observed intensities from Cascadia subduction zone intraslab earthquakes. To develop our IPEs, we compute linear mixed‐effects regressions using community decimal intensity data from the U.S. Geological Survey’s ‘Did You Feel It?’ program from 36 intraslab events that occurred in British Columbia, Canada, Washington, Oregon, and northern California from 2000 to 2025. We also investigate the relationship between the new intraslab IPEs and select parameters related to near‐surface conditions and deeper geologic structure that may be related to ground‐motion intensities, but find no correlations. These new IPEs provide a better fit to observations of intraslab earthquakes in the PNW than Atkinson et al. (2014) , particularly within 300 km of the epicenter. They also provide a better fit to the 2018 M 7.1 Anchorage, Alaska, intraslab earthquake, suggesting that they may have broader applicability to global subduction zones.

California, Oregon, Washington↗