HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by RIEDESEL, M. A. Articles by MOORE, R. D. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Limits of sensitivity of inertial seismometers with velocity transducers and electronic amplifiers

INSTITUTE FOR GEOPHYSICS UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, 8701 NORTH MOPAC BOULEVARD, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78759
INSTITUTE OF GEOPHYSICS AND PLANETARY PHYSICS, A-025 SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO, LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093

ROBERT D. MOORE

160 SAINT GILES STREET SOUTHVICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA V8Z 6Y6

Abstract

Portable instruments such as ocean bottom seismographs and the PASSCAL recorders often use rugged, portable geophones. The desire to use such sensors for relatively low-frequency work has raised questions about the limits of their sensitivity. The lower and upper frequency limits of performance of seismic sensors are determined by the sensor's mass, period, and Q, and by the amplifiers used with those sensors. We have tested Mark Products 1 Hz, 2 Hz, and 4.5 Hz velocity transducers against Streckeisen seismometers in order to examine the limits of their performance in measuring ground noise, particularly at low frequencies. Among the velocity transducers, only the 1 Hz Mark Products L-4 sensor provided good resolution of the 6-sec microseism peak. For this sensor, the lower limits of sensitivity was at approximately 0.06 Hz, although this depends on the amplifier used and the noise level at a given site. The amplifiers examined included conventional, low power, and commutating auto-zero operational amplifiers. It was found that the noise levels of the amplifiers intersected the ground noise level at frequencies ranging between 0.06 and 0.2 sec, depending on the amplifier and the exact circuit design. Measurements indicated that by modeling the amplifier noise for a given circuit correctly, the performance of an amplifier can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy, obviating the need for actual circuit construction to determine performance in the field. Given the very steep slope of the ground noise spectrum between 0.05 and 0.1 Hz and the rapid fall off in a seismometer's output below its resonant frequency, it would require a lowering of amplifier noise by more than an order of magnitude to be able to resolve ground noise at frequencies lower than 0.05 Hz using relatively small geophones such as the L-4. To resolve ground noise at lower frequencies, it is necessary to use a seismometer with a displacement transducer to sense the mass position, such as Guralp or Streckeisen sensors.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Strollo, S. Parolai, K.-H. Jackel, S. Marzorati, and D. Bindi Suitability of Short-Period Sensors for Retrieving Reliable H/V Peaks for Frequencies Less Than 1 Hz Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 2008; 98(2): 671 - 681. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Th. Koutsoukos and N. S. Melis A Horizontal Component Broadband Seismic Sensor Based on an Inverted Pendulum Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2005; 95(6): 2462 - 2471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A Broadband Ocean-Bottom Seismometer System Based on a 1-Hz Natural Period Geophone Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 2001; 91(2): 304 - 312.

				D. P. McLeod, G. E. Stedman, T. H. Webb, and U. Schreiber Comparison of standard and ring laser rotational seismograms Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1998; 88(6): 1495 - 1503. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. H. Field and K. H. Jacob A comparison and test of various site-response estimation techniques, including three that are not reference-site dependent Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1995; 85(4): 1127 - 1143. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. W. RODGERS Maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio of the electromagnetic seismometer: The optimum coil resistance, amplifier characteristics, and circuit Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1993; 83(2): 561 - 582. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. H. FIELD, K. H. JACOB, and S. E. HOUGH Earthquake site response estimation: A weak-motion case study Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1992; 82(6): 2283 - 2307. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. W. RODGERS Frequency limits for seismometers as determined from signal-to-noise ratios. Part 1. The electromagnetic seismometer Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1992; 82(2): 1071 - 1098. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. W. RODGERS Frequency limits for seismometers as determined from signal-to-noise ratios. Part 2. The feedback seismometer Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1992; 82(2): 1099 - 1123. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. B. FLETCHER and J. BOATWRIGHT Source parameters of Loma Prieta aftershocks and wave propagation characteristics along the San Francisco Peninsula from a joint inversion of digital seismograms Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1991; 81(5): 1783 - 1812. [Abstract] [PDF]