1 / 28

GEOSCOPE in 2002

GEOSCOPE in 2002. Geneviève Roult FDSN meeting Hawaii, June 2002. Meeting in Paris on March 25th, 2002 ‘ GEOSCOPE: its future’. Participants: P. Vidal, J. Ludden, directors of INSU National Institute of Sciences of Universe (part of CNRS National Center of Scientific Research,

marvine
Télécharger la présentation

GEOSCOPE in 2002

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GEOSCOPE in 2002 Geneviève Roult FDSN meeting Hawaii, June 2002

  2. Meeting in Paris on March 25th, 2002‘ GEOSCOPE: its future’ Participants: P. Vidal, J. Ludden, directors of INSU National Institute of Sciences of Universe (part of CNRS National Center of Scientific Research, A. Galdeano, representative of INSU, C. Jaupart, director of IPGP Institute of Physics of the Earth of Paris, P. Bernard, M. Cara, S. Chevrot, P. Dayre, A. Deschamps, M. Granet, A. Hirn, J.C Lépine, J.J. Lévêque, R. Louat, A. Mocquet, G. Poupinet, L. Riveira, G. Roult, A. Souriau, E. Stutzmann, J.P. Vilotte, J. Virieux, seismologists of the different french institutes (Paris, Strasbourg, Grenoble, Nice, Toulouse, Nantes), S. Barrientos, representative of CTBTO, F. Schindele, B. Feignier, representatives of CEA/DASE, T. Van Eck, representative of the european Data Center ORFEUS, T. Ahern, representative of the FDSN and the IRIS Consortium. Some points discussed at this meeting are presented on the following pages.

  3. G.Roult

  4. G.Roult

  5. DATA DISTRIBUTION 1 - CD-ROMs 36 CD-ROMs spanning the period from March 1982 to July1992, have been created. These CD-ROMs have beendistributed worldwide. 2 - Anonymous ftp site(ftp://geoscope.ipgp.jussieu.fr) Events with Ms>6.3 or of particular interest are uploaded from 17 stations by phone line. The data are available within one or two days. 

  6. DATA DISTRIBUTION 3 - WWW server (http://geoscope.ipgp.jussieu.fr) Products : Station book Instrument responses Noise level plots Plots and data files of recent events Real-time data from SSB station (in France) Archived data files 4 - NetDC (Networked Data Centers)procedure at netdc@ipgp.jussieu.fr The best way to get information from all Networked Data Centers, Iris, UC Berkeley, Geoscope, Orfeus and Geofon. You can retrieve: the INVentory the instrumental RESPonses the DATAdirectly to your disk

  7. Number of data requests in 2001 (NetDC procedure)

  8. Data volume through NetDC procedure (last quarter)

  9. Archive traffic / monthGeoscope data requests Remark: data are distributed in SEED format. For the equivalence in SAC format multiply the volume by 4. through thWebat Geoscopt requests seismograms volume Geoscope DC Web site 110 2 000 1.6 Gbytes Geoscope DC NetDC procedure 655 110 000 12 Gbytes IRIS_DMC NetDC procedure 150 6570 0.33 Gbytes

  10. The Geoscope stations are very important thanks to their original geographical situation. Example: azimuthal distribution of the 1995 Jan 15th Kobe event

  11. Message to the FDSN: Rayleigh wave train clipping at some far stations,example Kobe event, OBN station • INU 202 km • MDJ 1207 km • SSE 1350 km • ENH 2441 km • OBN 7429 km G.Patau/G.Roult

  12. What does GEOSCOPE provide? I- A unique station distribution that permits : 1. Better azimuthal coverage  seismic source studies 2. Ray paths not provided by other FDSN stations  tomographic studies 3.Detection and location of events that would otherwise be overlookedin bulletins of global seismicity,thanks to our Southern Hemisphere stations

  13. The near future • Transfer the maintenance of some stationsfrom IPGP to local authorities. Why? There are now many stations in the Northern Hemisphere, and sometimes at the same location. The black crosses on the next figure correspond to stations for which we’ll reconsider that problem.

  14. G.Roult/S.Barbier

  15. The near future 1) Transfer the maintenance of some stations from IPGP to local authorities • Installnew sites that improve the global network (SEY and VOR in Russia) Why? SEY and VOR are located on the same meridians than frequent large events. The PKP waves provided by such polar paths will help our knowledge on anisotropy. See next figure.

  16. G.Roult

  17. The near future 1)Transfer the maintenance of some stations from IPGP to local authorities. 2) Install new sites that improve the global network (SEY and VOR in Russia). • Standardize the acquisition chain (sensors, digitizers) We’ll keep ourSTS1 seismometers as long as possible We started to replace our old Streckeisen digitizers byQuanterra ones (Q4120 and Q330).

  18. The near future 1) Transfer the maintenance of some stations from IPGP to local authorities. 2) Install new sites (SEY and VOR in Russia). 3) Standardize the acquisition chain (sensors and digitizers). 4) Install microbarometers and thermometers in all stations. Why?To improve the signal to noise ratio by subtracting the atmospheric pressure effect. 7 Geoscope stations are now equipped with microbarometers. See next figure.

  19. G.Roult/S.Barbier

  20. Why microbarometers?Litterature:Zürn & Widmer (1995), Beauduin (1996)New Guinea event of 1996 Feb 17th (Ms=8.1). Thin and thick lines correspond respectively to spectra before and after atmospheric pressure correction (Roult and Crawford, 2000 )

  21. The near future 1) Transfer the maintenance of some stations from IPGP to local authorities... 2) Install new sites at high latitudes (VOR and SEY) .. 3) Standardize the acquisition chain.. 4) Install microbarometers and thermometers... 5)Cooperate with the french military agency CEA/DASE to get real-time data at some stations (we disagree with the CTBTO solution). Five stations are involved by CTBTO. On the next figure the 3 red dots correspond to the near future.

  22. G.Roult

  23. CTBTO . Segmented data . High gain, frequent clipped records . Availability ??? DASE . Continuousdata at 20sps . Low gain in order to get no clipped records in case of large near events Comparison ofCTBTO and DASE solutions

  24. The near future 1) Transfer the maintenance of some stations … 2) Install new sites at high latitudes.. 3) Standardize the acquisition chain .. 4) Install microbarometers and thermometers... 5) Cooperate with CEA/DASE/CTBTO to get real-time data.. 6) Adopt the best adapted solution for every station to get real-time data.

  25. WHY REAL TIME ? Real time is necessary for quality control, in order to: - know rapidly if the instruments are working - check time corrections… - follow the instrument responses - react in case of problems - distribute rapidly correct data…… - help every Data Center to determine more precise CMTs - satisfy impatient scientists We are developping an automatic data process filling some regulations, acquisition, control, documentation, format data archiving

  26. The near future 1) Transfer the maintenance of some stations ..... 2) Install new sites at high latitudes.. 3) Standardize the acquisition chain.. 4) Install microbarometers in all stations.. 5) Cooperate with DASE/CTBT to get real-time data.. 6) Adopt the best adapted real-time solution ... 7) Obtain a better path coverage of the Earth by cooperating with all ocean bottom projects.

  27. GEOSCOPE and the ocean bottom conquest At the present time, different concepts are being analysed in Japan, in Europ (France,…) We’ll cooperate with any operational project in order to install a few stations on the ocean bottom floor, to provide a better instrumental coverage of the Earth.

More Related