Skip to main content
Log in

Estimating ‘noise-floor PSD’ by using two or three collocated seismometers: an alternative approach

  • Original Study
  • Published:
Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The revolutionary approach to determining self-noise of the test seismometer by the use of two additional seismometers was presented by Sleeman et al (Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(1):258–271, 2006). Yet nowadays there are common situations where only two seismometers are installed side by side. This article thus outlines the various procedures that can be used in such situations. As it will be shown by examples, these procedures do not provide independent information unlike those given by three-seismometer procedures, however they still provide relevant data that can be used to assess the condition of the tested seismometers. Three equations are presented, that can be used in two-seismometer approach. The Eqs. 1 and 2 are already explained in the article (Tasič and Runovc in J Seismol 16:183–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-011-9257-4, 2012) The Eq. 3, which represents the “average self-noise”, differs from the equation “average self-noise” from the previously described article. Experimentally we found that the latter equation is not consistent with the results obtained for the “average self-noise” with the Sleeman procedure, while the equation for the “average self-noise” presented in this article is consistent with it. It is consistent in the frequency interval, where PSD of the seismic signal is at least 5 dB above the seismometers self-noises and it is very suitable for situations where two seismometers of the same type are compared between each other. This paper also presents an alternative three-seismometers approach. It is derived from the aforementioned Eq. 3. For this reason, at the frequency interval, where PSD of the seismic signal is at least 5 dB above the seismometers self-noises the output from this algorithm should be in accordance with the output from algorithm of Sleeman et al (Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(1):258–271, 2006). If there are deviations in certain frequency interval, this indicates some irregularities in the test itself. Under optimal measuring conditions, the Sleeman procedure is sufficient. However, if the test conditions are suboptimal, a comparison between the two procedures, where one contains division and the other does not, may be used to estimate the frequency range where the results are not reliable. Alternative equations, presented in this paper, are useful to discover unknown errors of the test system. The applicability of the equations is given by examples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

NLNM:

New low noise model

ARSO:

Slovenian Environment Agency

PSD:

Power spectral density estimation

CPSD:

Cross power spectral density estimation

References

  • Evans JR, Followill F, Hutt CR, Kromer RP, Nigbor RL, Ringler AT, Steim JM, Wielandt E (2010) Method for calculating self-noise spectra and operating ranges for seismographic inertial sensors and recorders. Seism Res Lett 81(4):640–646. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.4.640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holcomb GL (1989) A direct method for calculating instrument noise levels in side-by-side seismometer evaluations. Openfile Report 89-214, U. S. Geological Survey

  • Holcomb GL (1990) A numerical study of some potential sources of error in side-by-side seismometer evaluations. Open-file Report 90-406, U. S. Geological Survey

  • Hutt RC, Evans RJ, Followill F, Nigbor LR, Wielandt E (2009) Guidelines for standardized testing of broadband seismometers and accelerometers. Open-File Report 2009-1295, U. S. Geological Survey

  • Peterson J (1993) Observations and modeling of seismic background noise. Open-File Report 93-322. United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Albuquerque, New Mexico

  • Ringler AT, Hutt CR (2010) Self-noise models of seismic instruments. Seism Res Lett 81(6):972–983. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleeman R, Melichar P (2012) A PDF representation of the STS-2 self-noise obtained from one year of data recorded in the conrad observatory, Austria. Bull Seism Soc Am 102:587–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleeman R, van Wettum A, Trampert J (2006) Three-channel correlation analysis: a new technique tomeasure instrumental noise of digitizers and seismic sensors. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(1):258–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasič I (2018) Interdependent quality control of collocated seismometer and accelerometer. J Seismol 22:1595–1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-018-9788-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasič I, Runovc F (2012) Seismometer self-noise estimation using a single reference instrument. J Seismol 16:183–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-011-9257-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasič I, Runovc F (2013) Determination of a seismometer’s generator constant, azimuth, and orthogonality in three- dimensional space using a reference seismometer. J Seismol 17:807–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-012-9355-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasič I, Runovc F (2014) The development and analysis of 3D transformation matrices for two seismometers. J Seismol 18:575–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-014-9429-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch PD (1967) The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: a method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust, AU-15 (1967), pp 70–73

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Izidor Tasič.

Appendix

Appendix

Equation

$$0.5 ( {\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} + {\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} ) = \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{qq}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} } - \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{rq}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{rq}}^{ *} } ,\quad {\text{for}}\,\,{\text{P}}_{\rm{qq}} , {\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} > {\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} ,{\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} .$$
(8)

represent the “average self-noise” of systems ‘r’ and ‘q’ if seismic signal is above self-noise for at least 5 dB. Let now assume that three seismometers, ‘q’, ‘r’ and ‘k’ are on the same seismic pier. Equation 8 is rewritten as

$$0. 5 ( {\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} + {\text{N}}_{\rm{kk}} ) = \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{qq}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{kk}} } - \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{kq}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{kq}}^{ *} } ,$$
(9)
$$0. 5 ( {\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} + {\text{N}}_{\rm{kk}} ) = \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{kk}} } - \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{kr}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{kr}}^{ *} } .$$
(10)

First sum Eqs. 8 and 9, and from that we subtract the Eq. 10. New estimator for self-noise of seismometer ‘q’ is expressed as

$${\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} = \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{qq}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} } - \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{rq}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{rq}}^{ *} } + \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{qq}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{kk}} } - \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{kq}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{kq}}^{ *} } - (\sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{kk}} } - \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{kr}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{kr}}^{ *} } ),\,{\text{P}}_{\rm{qq}} , {\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} , {\text{P}}_{\rm{kk}} > {\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} ,{\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} ,{\text{N}}_{\rm{kk}} .$$
(11)

The equation is valid if the same condition as in Eq. 8 is fulfilled.

The similar is valid for Eq. 12. The equation

$$(0.5{\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} + 0.5{\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} )_{q} {\text{ = P}}_{\rm{qq}} - \frac{{{\text{P}}_{\rm{rq}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{rq}}^{*} }}{{{\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} - (\sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{qq}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} } - \sqrt {{\text{P}}_{\rm{rq}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{rq}}^{ *} } )}},\quad {\text{for}}\,\,{\text{P}}_{\rm{qq}} , {\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} > |({\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} - {\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} )|.$$
(12)

produce equal result as the Eq. 8 if seismic signal is above self-noise for at least 5 dB. This can be shown by writing the right side of Eq. 12 as follows

$${\text{X = P}}_{\rm{qq}} - \frac{{{\text{P}}_{\rm{qr}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{qr}}^{*} }}{{{\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} - (0.5({\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} + {\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} ) )}}.$$
(13)

From this equation it follows

$${\text{X}}(0.5({\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} + {\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} )- {\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} )){\text{ = P}}_{\rm{qr}} {\text{P}}_{\rm{qr}}^{*} + {\text{P}}_{\rm{qq}} (0.5({\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} + {\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} )- {\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} ).$$
(14)

By using relations \({\text{P}}_{\rm{qq}} {\text{ = P}}_{\rm{xx}} {\text{ + N}}_{\rm{qq}}\), \({\text{P}}_{\rm{rr}} {\text{ = P}}_{\rm{xx}} {\text{ + N}}_{\rm{rr}}\) and \({\text{P}}_{\rm{qr}} {\text{ = P}}_{\rm{xx}}\), Eq. 14 is rewritten as

$${\text{X}}(0.5({\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} - {\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} ) - {\text{XP}}_{\rm{xx}} {\text{ = N}}_{\rm{qq}} 0.5({\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} - {\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} )- {\text{P}}_{\rm{xx}} 0.5({\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} + {\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} ).$$
(15)

Under the assumption, that expression \(( {\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} - {\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} )\) is negligible with respect to the seismic signal, then \({\text{X}} = 0.5 ( {\text{N}}_{\rm{rr}} + {\text{N}}_{\rm{qq}} )\).

As long as seismic signal is above the self-noise of at least 5 db, outputs from Eqs. 8 and 12 are comparable. However, when this condition is not fulfilled the outputs from Eqs. 8 and 12 differ. When only two seismometers of equal type are on test bed, Eq. 12 can be used, to define the frequency interval, where Eq. 8 is valid.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tasič, I. Estimating ‘noise-floor PSD’ by using two or three collocated seismometers: an alternative approach. Acta Geod Geophys 55, 437–449 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40328-020-00309-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40328-020-00309-1

Keywords

Navigation