Broadband vs. accelerometer comparison, bulk - Githubissues

GeoNet / help

An issues repo for technical help questions.

6 stars 3 forks source link

Broadband vs. accelerometer comparison, bulk #91

Open SquirrelKnight opened 2 years ago

SquirrelKnight commented 2 years ago

Hi, I have been working on pulling together a zip document that compiles the previously shared comparisons. These files include figures showing pSA differences coloured according to datetime, magnitude and rupture distance, PGA differences, and direct waveform comparisons. The file structure is organized by magnitude -> comparison channels -> figure type. Currently I have generated comparisons between HH and HN channels for M ranges of 4.5 - 5 and 5 - 6. I have also included CSV files with the intensity measure data for channel pairs, as well as a CSV with mean PSA differences and standard deviations for each station.

Here is a Dropbox link for the data: https://www.dropbox.com/s/30ix5mn28a80hnb/gm_compare.zip?dl=0

Here is an example of the new waveform comparison figures. Note that the data for both instrument types are displayed in acceleration units of m/s**2. Seismometer data was converted to acceleration using previously described pre-processing techniques. wf_fig_2013p086823_TSZ

I hope that this will prove to be a valuable resource. I plan to update this in the future with alternative channel comparisons and M 4 - 4.5 data.

elidana commented 2 years ago

Thanks a lot @SquirrelKnight ! We have downloaded your new results, and those will surely be valuable.

elidana commented 2 years ago

suggest to use score_X_HN f_min_X_HN score_Y_HN f_min_Y_HN score_Z_HN f_min_Z_HN score_X_diff score_Y_diff score_Z_diff in psa_data.csv

salichon commented 2 years ago

Need to identify and split the station of interest

salichon commented 2 years ago

[x] SYZ SMvsBB (with SM response corrected in 2022) Although now response corrected, the displayed comparison has ratios that do not fit exactly the "fix". (see figure SYZ ticket 9943) ratio is ~ -6 and -4 that is as i understand e-4 and e-6 respectively ratios of 1/50 or 1/400 times the waveform observation value expected between both SM and HH records !
Provided the updated response correction this should be "now" something in the order resp 1/12.5 and 1/100 Yet still big difference!
- Assumption of a cumulative problem with the response. (BB installation or SM sensors ?) within the studied time frame. See https://github.com/GeoNet/help/issues/97

Requires data and id of events for further investigation Confirmation Ticket to be created for enquiry please FYI @elidana @mnaguit @SquirrelKnight

salichon commented 2 years ago

To my checks and knowledge

[x] Finalized KNZ story https://github.com/GeoNet/help/issues/87
[x] MSZ is fixed besides occai\sional sensor failure
[x] FOZ is fixed
[x] RIZ is fixed
[x] CTZ is fixed (no real data set worth the measure yet)
[x] PYZ is fixed
[x] DCZ is fixed

salichon commented 2 years ago

next batch worth to look at and identify potential issue

[x] DSZ https://github.com/GeoNet/help/issues/98
[x] MWZ https://github.com/GeoNet/help/issues/99
[x] MRZ https://github.com/GeoNet/help/issues/100
[ ] MLZ https://github.com/GeoNet/help/issues/118
[ ] PUZ
[ ] URZ
[ ] WVZ

salichon commented 2 years ago

another batch

[ ] BFZ
[ ] HAZ
[ ] HIZ
[ ] JCZ
[ ] MQZ
[ ] MXZ
[ ] OPZ
[ ] OUZ
[ ] RPZ
[ ] TLZ
[ ] TOZ

From there based upon the inspection weshoudl have fixed or explained most of the questioning. assuming that few instrumentation failure/inconsistencies may still be present on the overall batch over limited time periods. Would need addtional detailed inspection .

FYI @elidana @mnaguit