Five years on: Revisiting GSN data quality

Lind S Gee, USGS, Albuquerque, NM, United States, Meredith Nettles, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, United States, Goran Ekstrom, Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY, United States, J Peter Davis, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States, Adam T Ringler, USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center, Golden, United States, Tyler L Storm, USGS, Albuquerque, United States, David Wilson, USGS, Geological Hazards Center, Golden, CO, United States and Kent Randall Anderson, IRIS Consortium, Washington, DC, United States
Abstract:
In 2010, the Lamont Waveform Quality Center (WQC) conducted an in-depth review of ten stations in the Global Seismographic Network (GSN). IU stations (CASY, DAV, KIP, KONO, WCI), IC stations (SSE, XAN), and II stations (ALE, DGAR, RPN) were analyzed using a scaling analysis based on data-synthetic comparisons, evaluation of noise levels, assessment of inter-sensor coherence, and polarization analysis. These reports (available from http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~ekstrom/Projects/WQC.html) highlighted a number of significant problems in GSN data quality, including the frequency-dependent loss of gain in the STS-1 seismometer (Ekström et al., 2006) that has been attributed to the presence of humidity in the electronics, cables, and connectors (Yuki and Ishihara, 2002; Hutt and Ringler, 2011).

The reports from the WQC spurred a number of changes in the operation of the GSN, including the adoption of the policy of annual calibrations and the development of new tools and metrics to monitor, evaluate, and communicate data quality. In parallel, the USGS’ Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) and UCSD’s Project IDA worked with the IRIS Consortium to upgrade GSN stations with new data acquisition systems, to refurbish the STS-1 seismometers with new electronics, and to expand the deployment of secondary broadband sensors.

We revisit the 2010 reports, using the tools of the WQC as well as a number of newly developed tools such as the USGS’ Data Quality Analyzer and IRIS’ MUSTANG, and provide an update on GSN data quality. Our initial focus is on CASY and KIP, the first two stations reviewed by the WQC. Our goal is to evaluate progress in the last five years and assess our ability to quantify data quality as well as to identify potential problems that could compromise data quality in the future.

Ekström, G., C. A. Dalton, and M. Nettles (2006). Observations of time-dependent errors in long-period instrument gain at global seismic stations. Seismological Research Letters, 77 (1), 12–22.

Hutt, C.R. and A.T. Ringler (2011). Some possible causes of and corrections for STS-1 response changes in the Global Seismographic Network, Seis. Res. Lett., 82 (4), 560-571.

Yuki, Y., and Y. Ishihara (2002). Methods for maintaining the performance of STS-1 seismometer. Frontier Research on Earth Evolution 2, 1–5.

Back to: From NARS to Mariscope: Three Decades of Seismological Networks on Land and in the Oceans II Posters