Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 101, No. 2, pp. 558567, April 2011, doi: 10.

1785/0120100182

A Comparison of Seismic Instrument Noise

Coherence Analysis Techniques
by A. T. Ringler, C. R. Hutt, J. R. Evans, and L. D. Sandoval*

Abstract The self-noise of a seismic instrument is a fundamental characteristic

used to evaluate the quality of the instrument. It is important to be able to measure
this self-noise robustly, to understand how differences among test configurations
affect the tests, and to understand how different processing techniques and isolation
methods (from nonseismic sources) can contribute to differences in results. We com-
pare two popular coherence methods used for calculating incoherent noise, which is
widely used as an estimate of instrument self-noise (incoherent noise and self-noise
are not strictly identical but in observatory practice are approximately equivalent;
Holcomb, 1989; Sleeman et al., 2006). Beyond directly comparing these two coher-
ence methods on similar models of seismometers, we compare how small changes in
test conditions can contribute to incoherent-noise estimates. These conditions include
timing errors, signal-to-noise ratio changes (ratios between background noise and
instrument incoherent noise), relative sensor locations, misalignment errors, proces-
sing techniques, and different configurations of sensor types.

Introduction
The quality of a seismogram containing event data is of-
ten measured by the ratio of the event energy to the pre-event
energy (Nolet, 2008), using a fixed time duration. In fact,
many Earth studies sieve usable seismic event data by this en-
ergy ratio (e.g., Phillips and Stead, 2008). Seismic noise also
limits our ability to determine earthquake focal mechanisms
(Kafka and Weidner, 1979) and can disguise small-amplitude
phases in earthquake records (Banka and Crossley, 1999).
These examples demonstrate that seismic noise is a funda-
mental limitation in interpreting and using seismic data in
Earth studies. Differentiating between various noise sources
can be difficult because of the large number of variables con-
tributing to the noise seen in seismic records (atmospheric,
cultural, installation, instrument, microseism, magnetic field,
electrical interference, site nonlinearity, and so forth). Many
of these noise sources are always present in seismic records.
However, reductions continue to be made in instrument noise
through improvements to instrument electronics, installation
techniques, and reductions in sensitivities to various non-
seismic sources (Wielandt, 2002). As instrument self-noise
decreases, it becomes important that we be able to measure
and characterize it with greater accuracy, even in the presence
of comparable background signals from other sources.
The well-known two-sensor coherence analysis method
of Holcomb (1989) has been a standard method for character-
*Working under contract with the Albuquerque Seismological
Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87198-2010.
izing the incoherent noise of seismic instruments and digiti-
zers for many years (Hutt, 1990). A recently introduced
three-instrument incoherent-noise calculation method (Slee-
man et al., 2006) shows great promise, in part because it
reduces the number of a priori assumptions required. Many
variables affect an instruments self-noise when estimated by
coherence analysis (e.g., variability in instrument quality,
differing site conditions, and differences in installation
methods). Some of these can be falsely attributed to the instru-
ments self-noise, when in fact they are simply the instru-
ments response to different seismic and nonseismic noise
sources. Additionally, it has been shown that an instruments
incoherent-noise estimate can depend on the estimation tech-
nique (Holcomb, 1990). To use either technique properly, one
must understand what contributes to incoherent-noise
estimates and how these contributions affect the resulting self-
noise estimate. Furthermore, if we wish to compare the
incoherent-noise estimates from different tests, we require
an accepted standard method for calculating incoherent noise
(Evans et al., 2010).
To understand variations arising from calculating instru-
ment incoherent noise, we review both the two-sensor
(Holcomb, 1989) and three-sensor (Sleeman et al., 2006)
incoherent-noise techniques; we include a brief discussion
of other methods. By comparing incoherent-noise estimation
techniques for both real and synthetic noise data, we char-
acterize limitations in the techniques and suggest processing
guidelines to produce robust, consistent incoherent-noise

558
A Comparison of Seismic Instrument Noise Coherence Analysis Techniques
estimates (Evans et al., 2010). Standardized processing
methods and well-controlled test conditions allow one to
distinguish noise contributions caused by Earth-noise, instal-
lation methods, sensor variability, and so forth. In some
cases, these noise sources raise an instruments apparent
incoherent noise by only a few decibels, but several small
contributions together can make a quiet sensor look quite
noisy (Wielandt, 2002). We hope that a better understanding
of the variability in current analysis techniques will lead to
improved understanding of noise contributions to seismic
data and ultimately to improved seismic data.
Background
The main assumption used in all coherence analysis
techniques is that the incoherent noise between different
instruments gives an approximation to the instruments
self-noise, making the cross power of the noise signals
negligible (Wielandt, 2002). Our current understanding of
instrument self-noise suggests this assumption is a good
approximation in the absence of nonseismic sources.
Two-Sensor Method
The two-sensor coherence analysis method of Holcomb
(1989) is based on the assumption that two colocated coa-
ligned seismometers have the same input seismic signal X
t.
One computes the power spectra of the time series from each
seismometer, Pii and Pjj (the power spectra from seismo-
meters i and j). One also computes the cross power, Pij ,
between the two time series. After correcting both the cross
power and power spectra for instrument responses, the noise
of instrument i is estimated by the difference between its
power spectrum and the cross power:
nii  Pii  Pij : (1)
The incoherent noise of instrument j is defined equivalently.
Because this noise estimate generally is complex (the cross
power is complex), one takes the modulus of nii to get a non-
negative real value for incoherent-noise power.
If the transfer functions of the two seismometers differ,
this correction must be made before calculating nii , and a
priori instrument-correction errors will contribute to the
instruments apparent self-noise (Holcomb, 1990). Holcomb
(1989) presented a variation on his method for cases in which
the two instruments have equal self-noise so that nii  njj .
In this case, the incoherent noise can be estimated by
1  2
nii  Pii ; (2)
2
where is the coherence, which is defined by
jPij j2
2  : (3)
Pii Pjj
Again, this method requires that the power spectra be cor-
rected for instrument response unless the two instruments
have identical transfer functions.
559
Three-Sensor Method
The three-sensor coherence analysis method of Sleeman
et al. (2006) makes the same coherence assumption as the
two-sensor method, but instead of correcting for instrument
response prior to calculating the noise, one computes and
uses a relative transfer function between instruments to cor-
rect the cross-power spectra. Calculating this relative transfer
function requires a third colocated sensor, k, recorded in par-
allel with the other instruments. The relative transfer function
between sensor i and sensor j is defined as hij  Pik =Pjk
and allows one to remove errors in the noise estimates caused
by errors in a priori transfer functions. Instrument incoherent
noise is now estimated by
nii  Pii  Pij hij : (4)
Comparing the noise in another domain (e.g., acceleration or
displacement for a velocity seismometer) still requires that
the noise be corrected to ground motion using an a priori
instrument response, but in this case the errors caused by
uncertainties in the transfer function do not contribute as
strongly to the incoherent-noise estimate. Another advantage
of this method is that it introduces a third recording of
ambient seismic noise, yielding a more robust estimate of the
coherent portions of the total noise.
Other Incoherent-Noise Methods
Before these methods of calculating incoherent noise
came into wide use, a method using two identical sensors
was applied (Peterson et al., 1980). This method assumes
that the incoherent noise is distributed equally between the
two sensors. Although this assumption is not always valid, it
does have the advantages of not introducing errors from the
transfer function into the noise estimate and that it requires
only two sensors. (Differences between the true transfer
functions of the two sensors still contribute errors.) Peterson
et al.s method differs slightly from the variant method of
Holcomb (1989), in which the incoherent-noise levels of
the sensors are assumed equal.
Sensor self-noise for electromagnetic seismometers
can be calculated by theoretical means (Rodgers, 1994).
Although Rogers method removes possible errors present in
incoherent-noise estimates (e.g., local background noise and
atmospheric effects), it also removes elevated noise levels
caused by possible variability in quality among sensors of a
given model. Variations between theoretical and incoherent-
noise estimates are discussed in the companion paper by
Ringler and Hutt (2010).
Methods
In order to understand the limitations and characteristics
of the two-sensor and three-sensor techniques, we compared
their performance with synthetic records. We generated
a known pseudorandom signal in common between
560
instruments and added pseudorandom noise separately to
each instruments output, comparing results from the two
techniques. We varied the percentage of smoothing of the
spectra used, the length and overlap of the subwindows used
to compute power spectra, and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
between the known coherent signal and the noise we added to
each time series. The only appreciable difference we found
was from varying the SNR (Fig. 1). As the SNR is increased,
the estimation error via the Sleeman et al. (2006) method
stayed approximately constant, while that of the Holcomb
(1989) method increased sharply (Table 1). That is, the
Sleeman et al. method is able to remove a larger ambient Earth
signal (and other coherent sources) from the incoherent-noise
estimates than is the Holcomb method.
Our comparison of the two methods via synthetic data
suggests that only modest benefits are gained by making
small changes in the processing techniques used. To conform
to a set standard, we used computational parameters speci-
fied by Evans et al. (2010) and described subsequently in this
paper. However, the SNR of the data used for calculating the
incoherent noise of an instrument is an important constraint
on our ability to estimate the noise accurately, so, when
comparing the two methods using real seismic data, most
of our attention is on variability in the SNR (as a function
of frequency), differences in sensor models, and common
instrument errors. In the rest of this paper, where not other-
wise indicated, we estimate the power spectra by way of the
modified Welch method (Welch, 1967). We also restrict the
general discussion of this paper largely to broadband weak-
motion velocity seismometers. Nevertheless, they are applic-
SelfNoise Synthetic Random Data, 40 dB SNR
30
20
PSD of DATA1 Z
Signal
Holcomb SelfNoise
10
Power (dB)
Sleeman SelfNoise
Noise
0
10
20
30
102 101 100
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 1. Comparison between the two-sensor and three-sensor
self-noise estimation methods for synthetic data with an SNR of
40 dB. (PSD, power spectral density.) Solid light-gray line, input
signal; thick dashed black line, input signal with noise; thin dashed
black line, Holcomb noise estimate; thick dashed dark-gray line,
Sleeman noise estimate; dotted light-gray line, input noise.
A. T. Ringler, C. R. Hutt, J. R. Evans, and L. D. Sandoval
able to accelerometers and other seismic instruments (with a
few key differences noted in passing). For completeness, we
discuss how the incoherent-noise estimation methods apply
to seismic instruments other than broadband velocity seis-
mometers (e.g., geophones and accelerometers) in separate
sections.
To look at incoherent noise across a maximum range of
frequencies, we used data recorded at 40 samples per second
(sps; some had to be up-sampled from 20-sps legacy records)
and at 1 sps, the latter to better resolve the longest periods.
All up-sampling was done by frequency domain zero pad-
ding (Lyons, 2004). For 40-sps data, we used total record
lengths of 220 samples, an interval of 07:16:54.4 (hh:mm:
ss.s) duration. For 1-sps data, we used 215 samples, over
an interval of 09:06:08.0. With these long intervals and
dual sample rates, we are able to extend our frequency range
while still providing adequate overlap between the Welch
method subwindows. We also up-sample the 1-sps data to
8 sps by using the same frequency domain method. With
this combination of 40-sps and 8-sps records, we can reliably
estimate instrument noise over the frequency band
0.00120 Hz.
The 40-sps data are divided into subwindows of 216 sam-
ples, overlapping one another by 7=8ths of the subwindow
duration; the 1-sps data have subwindows of 211 samples with
the same degree of overlap. For each subwindow, we applied a
von Hann cosine-bell taper to reduce spectral leakage (von
Hann weighting is sometimes called hanning). To increase
the coherence and minimize the variance of the result, it is
important to use significant overlapping (thus many and
redundant subwindows) when computing power spectral
densities (PSDs) for coherence analysis because this improves
the effectiveness of the ensemble-averaging step of the Welch
method (Stearns and David, 1988); we did not apply any other
smoothing algorithms. To reduce the variance of spectral
estimates further, it is important to use long-duration records
(Oppenheim and Schafer, 1975). Although there are many
refined approaches to estimating power spectra to remove bias
caused by a single taper (Prieto et al., 2007), we have chosen
to use the (older) Welch standard so that our results can be
compared more easily with previous studies and because,
for real seismic data, such nuances are minority contributors
to error in the result.
Using these conventions, we used both techniques to
compute the power and cross-power spectra needed for esti-
mating the incoherent noise. For reference, we compared our
results to the new low-noise model (NLNM) of Peterson
(1993). Finally, we used noise estimates derived from 1-sps
data for frequencies below 0.0073 Hz and estimates derived
from 40-sps data for frequencies from there up to 16 Hz
(corner of most antialias filters). (Higher frequencies are
desired by operators of many regional seismic networks and
can be provided by 200-sps, as described by Evans
et al., 2010.)
A Comparison of Seismic Instrument Noise Coherence Analysis Techniques 561

Table 1
Relative Mean Square Error* in Self-Noise Estimates Using Synthetic Pseudorandom
Noise for Different SNRs
Method 2 dB SNR 0 dB SNR 6 dB SNR 12 dB SNR 20 dB SNR 40 dB SNR

Holcomb (1989) 0.195 0.28 2 4.25 18.1 112.8

Sleeman et al. (2006) 0.155 0.18 0.13 0.155 0.16 0.155

*This error measurement is the mean square error (dB2 ) over the 1100 Hz frequency band.

Results time period at a good inland vault. Specifically, we apply both

Here we discuss differences between the two methods
and how both results change under known errors in the test
conditions.
Processing Techniques
Using the conventions discussed previously in our paper
for calculating noise estimates minimizes the error caused by
estimating the power spectra. If we assume that our data are
Gaussian and white, then our power spectra estimates fall
within the 99% pointwise confidence band (Otnes and
Enochson, 1972). We also must account for error in the
methods used and error in the test processes.
As indicated by the relative mean square error for our
synthetic data (Table 1), we see that both methods do an
excellent job of estimating the noise at low signal-to-noise
ratios. However, with large SNR (ambient noise significantly
larger than instrument noise), the two-sensor method fails to
give reliable noise estimates (Fig. 1). At very large SNRs
( 70 dB), both methods develop noticeable errors in the
instrument incoherent-noise estimates.
For very large SNRs, we may assume that Pii is much
larger than nii and that the contribution of the modulus of the
transfer function is negligible. Then, for the two-sensor
method, we see that the noise grows approximately as the
incoherent-noise estimates to a set of Streckeisen STS-2
broadband seismometers (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) in a test
performed in the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory
(ASL) underground vault. We low-pass filtered all the time-
series data recorded during the test and used this filtered trace
to pick a visually quiet time segment; however, all analyses
were performed on unfiltered data. This selection process
helps remove Earth seismic signals (earthquake signals and
noise bursts) and large instrument transients that can elevate
the apparent incoherent noise of the instrument. (Instrument
transients are an important quality issue but are beyond the
scope of this study.) At high frequencies, and even more so
in the microseism frequency band (about 0.50.05 Hz), the
three-sensor method gives lower incoherent-noise estimates
than does the Holcomb method. We attribute these effects
in part to relatively large coherent seismic noise at these
frequencies (Fig. 1) and to greater contamination by modest
orientation errors between vertical components of the sensors.
At lower coherent-noise levels (< 0:025 Hz, 80 s), we see
that the methods give similar incoherent-noise estimates; thus,
we may compare results from the two methods directly at very
IncoherentNoise 2009 103 00 00 duration AmpORD
120
PSD of TST1 00 Z
Sleeman Noise
Power (dB) relative to 1(m/s2)2/Hz

130 Holcomb Noise

negative of the cross power: NLNM
140
nii Pij : (5)
150
On the other hand, for the three-sensor method, we have
160
Pij Pik
nii : (6)
Pjk 170

We also know that the cross power can be written as 180

Pij 
X  nii 
X  njj  , where X is the power of the
190
signal and * denotes the complex conjugate. Using our equa-
tion for the cross power in terms of the signal, we see that the 200
noise estimate from both methods grows approximately as a
210
quadratic in signal power, giving a possible explanation to the 103 102 101 100 101
limiting behavior under large SNR in both methods. We note Frequency (Hz)
that such large SNRs do not appear to arise in practice.
Figure 2. Incoherent-noise estimates for real data from an
STS-2 seismometer as recorded in the ASL underground vault, using
General Comparison amplitude operating range diagram conventions (AmpORD) of
Evans et al. (2010). Dashed dark-gray line, PSD of signal and noise;
We first compare both methods (using real data) in a best dashed black line, Sleeman noise estimate; dashed light-gray line,
case scenario in which all instruments are of similar model Holcomb noise estimate; solid black line, NLNM (new low-noise
type, are well aligned, and the data are taken during a quiet model) of Peterson (1993).
562 A. T. Ringler, C. R. Hutt, J. R. Evans, and L. D. Sandoval

Self-Noise Test 1, Vertical Components Duration, AmpORD

120 low frequencies without further complication. The differences
Noise of TST1 00 in the incoherent-noise estimates between these two tests at
130
Power (dB) relative to 1(m/s2)2/Hz

Noise of TST3 00
Noise of TST2 00
medium to high frequencies indicate that they are not directly
140 PSD of TST1 00 comparable there.
PSD of TST3 00
PSD of TST2 00 Based on the methods used for modeling the instrument
150 NLNM incoherent noise, the two-sensor method will always yield
160 incoherent-noise estimates that are equal to or greater than
those of the three-sensor method. This inequality can be seen
170
by comparing the terms used to remove the coherent signal.
180 For the two-sensor method, we have
190 jPij j  jX2  X
nii  njj j (7)
200 because nii njj  0. Similarly, for the three-sensor method
210 we see that
103 102 101 100 101



Pij Pik





P
 jX  2Xnjj  njj j:
2 2
Frequency (Hz) (8)
jk
Figure 3. Noise estimates between three STS-2 vertical-
Because n2jj
need not equal zero, we see that the three-sensor
component seismometers using data recorded in the ASL under-
ground vault with the three-sensor method. Thick dashed lines, method tends to remove more from Pii when estimating
Sleeman noise estimates; thin dashed lines, PSDs of signal and the incoherent noise, thus yielding lower incoherent-noise
noise; solid black line, NLNM. estimates.

Angle offset: Sleeman

Power (dB) relative to 1(m/s2)2/Hz

120
Baseline Sleeman
140 1 degree Sleeman
NLNM
160

180

200

103 102 101 100 101

Frequency (Hz)

Angle offset: Holcomb

Power (dB) relative to 1(m/s2)2/Hz

120
Baseline Holcomb
140 1 degree Holcomb
NLNM
160

180

200

103 102 101 100 101

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4. Incoherent-noise estimates for known orientation errors between sensors. Baseline estimates are the incoherent noise estimated
when the instruments were coaligned accurately. Both estimation methods exhibit raised incoherent-noise estimates with increased orienta-
tion errors but only in the microseism band. Top, Sleeman noise estimate; bottom, Holcomb noise estimate.
A Comparison of Seismic Instrument Noise Coherence Analysis Techniques
Sensor Alignment
In regions with high ambient Earth-noise, alignment
error between the sensors becomes a major contributor to
the estimated incoherent noise of the instrument (Fig. 4).
We also note increased incoherent-noise estimates for the
vertical component of a seismometer in the microseism band,
where noise is large (Fig. 2), perhaps due to small deviations
of the sensors from being slightly off axis from vertical.
Timing Errors
To understand how small timing errors between sensors
contribute to incoherent-noise estimates, we use modified
test data with known timing errors introduced by time
domain shifts and subsequent frequency domain interpola-
tion (the latter to match sampling times between the shifted
and unshifted time series). Small timing errors (< 0:1 s for
these broadband sensors) produce only minor changes in
estimated instrument incoherent noise, but errors greater than
0:5 s yield incoherent-noise estimates significantly above
true for frequencies higher than 0.0125 Hz (Fig. 5). We
conclude that timing errors smaller than about 1=10th of the
sample interval (e.g., 0.0025 s for 40 sps data and 0.0005 s
for 200 sps data) do not contribute importantly to incoherent-
noise estimates of seismic instruments at low frequencies. It
is likely that these results differ from previous studies (e.g.,
McDonald, 1994) because of the different SNRs prevailing in
those studies, as well as differing subwindow durations used
by the various authors (Fig. 6).
Comparison of Timing Errors
120
Baseline Sleeman
130
Baseline Holcomb
.125 seconds Sleeman
Power (dB) relative to 1(m/s ) /Hz
.125 seconds Holcomb
140 NLNM
2 2
150
160
170
180
190
200
210 3 2 1 0
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5. Instrument incoherent-noise levels computed with
known timing errors introduced between the various sensors. Thin
dashed black line, Sleeman noise with no time offset; thick dashed
dark-gray line, Holcomb noise with no time offset; thin dashed
light-gray line, Sleeman noise with 0.125 second offset; thick
dashed dark-gray line, Holcomb noise with 0.125 second offset;
solid black line, NLNM.
563
Coherence Differences From Timing Errors, 10,000 seconds
1
0.98
Coherence
0.96
2
0.94
0.92
0 Seconds
1 Seconds 6400
1 Seconds 640
0.9
103 102 101
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6. Coherence variations caused by known timing
errors for subwindow lengths of 640 and 6400 samples using a
10,000 second time window. Solid-gray line, 1-s timing error
with 6400-s window; dashed-gray line, 1-s timing error with
640-s window.
Sensor Configurations
We have shown in our tests with synthetic data that the
two-sensor method is unable to accurately resolve instrument
incoherent noise at high SNR (Fig. 1). This result also is evi-
dent in the real-data self-noise estimates for our colocated
STS-2 seismometers (Fig. 2). Although the three-sensor
method does not suffer to the degree of the two-sensor
method, we still suggest selecting visually quiet time seg-
ments (no large earthquakes, Earth-noise pulses, or instru-
ment glitches) when selecting the data. (This can be done by
applying a low-pass filter, as described previously in this pa-
per.) Although transient signals caused by the instrument it-
self must be taken into account when considering the overall
performance of any seismic instrument, we feel other tests are
more appropriate for such noise (e.g., popcorn noise detec-
tion, as described by Hutt et al., 2009, or electromagnetic-
interference-sensitivity testing, radio-frequency-interference
sensitivity testing, temperature-sensitivity testing, and
pressure-sensitivity testing).
Two-Sensor Equal-Noise Variant Method
Although, the three-sensor method can yield superior
1 estimates of an instruments incoherent noise at frequencies
10 10
greater than about 0.0125 Hz, it is possible under appropriate
conditions to reliably estimate an instruments high-
frequency incoherent noise using only two sensors. For such
performance, one requires that both sensors have approxi-
mately equal expected incoherent-noise levels. Using this
variation on the two-sensor method, we are able to estimate
the instruments incoherent noise reliably at frequencies from
0.0125 Hz up to the corner of the antialiasing filter (Fig. 7).
564 A. T. Ringler, C. R. Hutt, J. R. Evans, and L. D. Sandoval

IncoherentNoise 2009, 103:00;00 duration, 36,000 seconds

120 noise (above 0:1 Hz). In cases like these, long-period inco-
PSD of TST1 00 Z
Sleeman Noise herent noise is estimated more accurately simply because the
130 Holcomb Noise
2 ambient Earth signal is more coherent over larger distances at
Holcomb Noise
Power (dB) relative to 1(m/s2)2/Hz

140 NLNM lower frequencies. Local site conditions can drive up noise
estimates at all frequencies (Fig. 8).
150
The reader may infer from the foregoing information
160 that highly local linear and nonlinear elastic effects (e.g.,
rock fractures, voids such as vaults, and weathered rock or
170
soil) commonly make Earth signals incoherent even at
180 directly adjacent sensors (including well under 1 m separa-
190
tion). This caveat applies particularly to horizontal transla-
tional seismometers because they are highly sensitive to
200 tiny variations in tilt and such tilts are affected strongly by
210 site imperfections, even in the rock of very good vaults.
103 102 101 100 101 Overcoming such site-condition problems requires cositing
Frequency (Hz)
all sensors on a single rigid (e.g., granite) slab that is sup-
Figure 7. Coherence ( 2 ) two-sensor self-noise variant method ported at only three points, guaranteeing that tilt and other
compared to estimates of incoherent noise by the three-sensor and signal sources truly are identical at all sensors. This need also
two-sensor methods. Dashed dark-gray line, PSD of signal and becomes important at frequencies below about 0.05 Hz
noise; dashed black line, Sleeman noise estimate; dashed light-gray because of tilt induced by atmospheric pressure variations
line, Holcomb noise estimate; solid dark-gray line, Holcomb noise
estimate 2 ; solid black line, NLNM.
(e.g., wind).

However, the full two-sensor incoherent-noise method gives

better estimates at low frequencies (Fig. 7). High-Frequency Weak-Motion
The performance differences between incoherent-noise
estimate methods for high-frequency weak-motion sensors
Sensor Locations (e.g., geophones) is similar to that of broadband sensors.
A key assumption in incoherent-noise coherence tech- That is, elevated ambient noise increases the estimation
niques is that the instruments are recording identical ambient errors in the two-sensor method (Fig. 9). The increase in
noise signals. This assumption can be violated when the cultural noise at high frequencies also introduces errors in
sensors are not directly adjacent to one another and mounted all incoherent-noise methods (e.g., 60 Hz noise from
on a surface that deforms in the presence of ambient Earth electromagnetic interference and vibrations from people
noise, especially when estimating high-frequency incoherent- and machinery).
IncoherentNoise 2008, 249:00:00 duration, 46,234 seconds IncoherentNoise 2009, 171:18:29 duration, 2621 seconds
120 100
PSD of ANMX 00 Z PSD of TST2 10 Z
Sleeman Noise Sleeman Noise
130 110
Holcomb Noise Holcomb Noise
Power (dB) relative to 1(m/s ) /Hz

Power (dB) relative to 1(m/s ) /Hz

NLNM 120 NLNM

140
2 2

2 2

130
150
140
160 150

170 160
170
180
180
190
190
200
200
210 210
103 102 101 100 101 102 101 100 101 102
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 8. The incoherent-noise estimate of a Geotech KS-
54000, as recorded in a borehole at ASL. Thin dashed black line,
PSD of signal and noise; thick dashed light-gray line, Sleeman noise
estimate; thick dashed dark-gray line, Holcomb noise estimate; so-
lid black line, NLNM.
Figure 9. The instrument incoherent-noise estimate of a Geo-
tech GS-13 recorded in the ASL underground vault. Thin dashed
black line, PSD; thick dashed light-gray line, Sleeman noise esti-
mate; thick dashed dark-gray line, Holcomb noise estimate; solid
black line, NLNM.
A Comparison of Seismic Instrument Noise Coherence Analysis Techniques
IncoherentNoise 2009, 259:06:15 duration, 1311 seconds
100
PSD of TST2 10 E
105 Sleeman Noise
Holcomb Noise
Power (dB) relative to 1(m/s ) /Hz
NLNM
110
2 2
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
101 100
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 10. The incoherent noise estimates of an Episensor ES-
T strong-motion accelerometer. Thin dashed black line, PSD of sig-
nal and noise; thick dashed light-gray line. Sleeman noise estimate;
thick dashed dark-gray line, Holcomb noise estimate; solid black
line, NLNM.
Strong-Motion Accelerometers
Both noise-estimation techniques yield reliable, gener-
ally similar estimates of incoherent noise for strong-motion
accelerometers, though low-noise accelerometers sometimes
detect the microseismic peak (Fig. 10). This robustness can
be attributed to the fact that the sensitivity of these instru-
ments is lower than that of weak-motion sensors. In fact,
the total power spectrum commonly matches the instrument
incoherent noise rather closely outside the microseism band,
allowing one to use a single-sensor noise-estimation method
(that is, by assuming that the PSD of an instruments total
output is entirely instrument noise during quiet time periods).
Within the microseism band, particularly in winter months,
the two-sensor and three-sensor methods are more accurate
(lower) than the PSD from a single accelerometer.
Discussion
By understanding the variability in incoherent-noise
estimation techniques, one can understand and predict how
small changes in test conditions and instrument quality
influence the estimated incoherent noise. Characterizing
incoherent-noise variability between sensor designs and
individual sensors of the same design is important to the
design process, for objective comparison of sensors for
manufacturers and users, and for understanding the physical
limits of detectable seismic signals (Laske, 2004). Although,
the three-sensor method often is preferable, particularly for
estimating the incoherent noise for broadband weak-motion
instruments, we have seen that the two-sensor method can
give comparable results under certain conditions (Fig. 8).
In any case, it is important to understand and record the pre-
565
vailing test conditions and to select an appropriate method
when estimating instrument incoherent noise.
From well-controlled real and synthetic incoherent-noise
tests, we have shown how test conditions and methods con-
tribute to the overall incoherent-noise estimate for a seismic
instrument. An obvious shortcoming of this study, because all
of the tests were done either in ASL boreholes or its under-
ground vault, is that we have not constrained the contributions
of local site conditions, nonseismic sources, or installation
techniques (e.g., shielding from thermal convection). These
sources can contribute to the overall estimates of sensor inco-
herent noise because of changes in overall background noise
and instrument sensitivity to nonseismic sources and will
require additional work to be differentiated better. We note
101 102 that the variability in incoherent noise between like models
of sensor at low frequencies is high enough that the same
set of instruments should be tested at multiple sites to under-
stand how low-frequency incoherent-noise estimates vary
with location; unfortunately the logistic complications of such
a study are prohibitive. We suspect that, at frequencies greater
than about 0.01 Hz, there will be little to no change in instru-
ment incoherent-noise estimates.
Guidelines for Incoherent-Noise Estimates
Based on our analysis of incoherent-noise estimation
methods and data-gathering methods, we suggest guidelines
for estimating the incoherent noise of seismometers and, by
inference, of recorders; these suggestions are consistent with
and enumerated by Hutt et al. (2009) and Evans et al. (2010).
All data for incoherent-noise estimates should be
obtained in the quietest possible location having the most
stable possible temperature level. Most instruments are quite
susceptible to temperature variation, but this source is not
inevitably a significant part of the sensors estimated incoher-
ent noise if the instruments are well-installed and properly
protected during tests. Because different instruments will
respond differently to varying temperature and other nonseis-
mic sources, thus assuming the characteristics of incoherent
noise, it is important to isolate the instruments from these
noise sources so they do not elevate the incoherent-noise
estimates that were intended to reflect self-noise alone. To
maximize the coherence of ambient Earth-noise measured
during such tests, we suggest that the seismometers be
located as close as possible to one another and upon a three-
point-supported rigid slab (e.g., granite) that minimizes tilt
variations between adjacent sensors. When possible, three
sensors with similar expected incoherent-noise levels should
be used in a given test run. Although it is possible that
instruments of the same model could have coherent non-
Earth-noise (e.g., respond to temperature or tilt coherently;
Wielandt, 2002), using instruments with significantly
different self-noise levels can artificially elevate estimated
incoherent-noise estimates of at least the quieter sensors. If
three of the same model sensors are not available, then three
sensors of comparable anticipated quality should be used.
566
Test data should be acquired for at least 24 hours so as to be
likely to yield at least one 10-hr sample with a few or no
detectable transient Earth signals or instrument pulses. To
maximize the meaningful bandwidth of the incoherent-noise
estimate, the data should be recorded simultaneously at
40 sps and 1 sps (and perhaps also at 200 sps), and the
estimated noise spectra from these time series should be
merged in the frequency domain at some frequency that is
well-measured by both spectra.
If three sensors of comparable quality are unavailable
but two are available, we recommend using the two-sensor
incoherent-noise method with the sampling and processing
techniques as described previously in this paper. If both sen-
sors used have similar expected incoherent-noise levels, then
the 2 incoherent-noise technique for frequencies greater
than 0.025 Hz yields similar estimates to those of the three-
sensor method when the minimum SNR of the test data is
below approximately 10 dB (Holcomb, 1989). At frequen-
cies lower than 0.025 Hz, Holcombs two-sensor method will
yield incoherent-noise estimates similar to those of the three-
sensor method as long as the SNR is not exceptionally high.
If these guidelines are followed, one can compare self-noise
estimates of various sensors yielding similar results unen-
cumbered by the processing methods per se.
We demonstrate that errors from a number of sources are
present in incoherent-noise estimates. At present, however,
we have not introduced an estimate of these errors because
(1) errors at long periods (frequencies below 0:025 Hz) are
within 1 dB between the two methods evaluated, (2) our
methods for estimating the power spectra are at the 99% con-
fidence level, and (3) variations in incoherent-noise estimates
for different data sets (if all were obtained when visually
quiet) have standard deviations of only a few decibels; that
is, the quantifiable error is small. On the other hand, errors in
estimating incoherent noise using differing sensors or instal-
lation methods contribute more to the variability in such
estimates; because such errors are not easily quantified, we
recommend that the comparable model(s) of sensors be used
and their installation methods be well documented and as
close to the guidelines as possible.
Data and Resources
All data used in this study were recorded at ASL and are
available from us upon request.
Acknowledgments
We thank D. Anderson for help with running the coherence azimuth
software that we used to align the sensors under test. We also thank D. Hart
for suggestions on the processing techniques and L. G. Holcomb for many
useful conversations about our methods and the two-sensor technique in par-
ticular. We also thank L. G. Holcomb and R. Sleeman for very helpful reviews
of the manuscript. Finally, we thank an anonymous reviewer for a very
thoughtful and thorough review that substantially improved the manuscript.
A. T. Ringler, C. R. Hutt, J. R. Evans, and L. D. Sandoval
References
Banka, D., and D. Crossley (1999). Noise levels of superconducting
gravimeters at seismic frequencies, Geophys. J. Int. 139, 8797.
Evans, J. R., F. Followill, C. R. Hutt, R. P. Kromer, R. L. Nigbor,
A. T. Ringler, J. M. Steim, and E. Wielandt (2010). Method for
calculating self-noise spectra and operating ranges for seismo-
graphic inertial sensors and recorders, Seismol. Res. Lett. 81, no. 4,
640646.
Holcomb, L. G. (1989). A direct method for calculating instrument noise
levels in side-by-side seismometer evaluations, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open
File Rep., 89-214, 34 pp.
Holcomb, L. G. (1990). A numerical study of some potential sources of error
in side-by-side seismometer evaluation, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File
Rep. 90-406, 41 pp.
Hutt, C. R. (1990). Standards for seismometer testing: A progress
report, U. S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 20091055, 23 pp.
Hutt, C. R., R. L. Nigbor, and J. R. Evans (Editors), (2009). Proceedings of
the guidelines for seismometer testing workshop, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, 910 May 2005 (GST2), U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep.
2009-1055 48 pp.
Kafka, A. L., and D. J. Weidner (1979). The focal mechanisms and depths of
small earthquakes as determined from Rayleigh wave radiation pat-
terns, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 69, no. 5, 13791390.
Laske, G. (2004). The needs for/of low-frequency seismology, IRIS broad-
band instrumentation workshop, Incorporated Research Institutions
for Seismology, http://www.iris.edu/stations/seisWorkshop04/ (last ac-
cessed June 2010).
Lyons, R. G. (2004). Understanding Digital Signal Processing, Second Ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 688 pp.
McDonald, T. S. (1994). Modified noise power ratio testing of high
resolution digitizers, Sandia National Laboratory Report, SAND94-
0221, 37 pp.
Nolet, G. (2008). A Breviary of Seismic Tomography Imaging the Interior of
the Earth and Sun, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,
344 pp.
Oppenheim, A. V., and R. W. Schafer (1975). Digital Signal Processing,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 585 pp.
Otnes, R. K., and L. Enochson (1972). Digital Time Series Analysis, Wiley,
New York, 467 pp.
Peterson, J. (1993). Observations and modeling of seismic background
noise, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep. 93-322, 94 pp.
Peterson, J., C. R. Hutt, and L. G. Holcomb (1980). Test and calibration
of the seismic research observatory, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File
Rep. 80-187, 89 pp.
Phillips, W. S., and R. J. Stead (2008). Attenuation of Lg in the western U.S.
using USArray, J. Geophys. Res. 35, 5.
Priesto, G. A., R. L. Parker, D. J. Thomson, F. L. Graham, and R. L. Vernon
(2007). Reducing the bias of multitaper spectrum estimates, Geophys.
J. Int. 171, 12691281.
Rodgers, P. W. (1994). Self-noise spectra for 34 common electromagnetic
seismometer/preamplifier pairs, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, no. 1,
222228.
Ringler, A. T., and C. R. Hutt (2010). Self-noise models of seismic instru-
ments, Seismol. Res. Lett. 81, no. 6, 972983.
Sleeman, R., A. van Wettum, and J. Trampert (2006). Three-channel
correlation analysis: A new technique to measure instrumental noise
of digitizers and seismic sensors, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, no. 1,
258271.
Stearns, S. D., and R. A. David (1988). Signal Processing Algorithms,
Prentice-Hall, Rochelle Park, New Jersey, 349 pp.
Welch, P. D. (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, 7073.
Wielandt, E. (2002). Seismic sensors and their calibration, in New Manual
of Seismological Observatory Practices, GeoForschungsZentrum,
Potsdam, Germany, 49 pp.
A Comparison of Seismic Instrument Noise Coherence Analysis Techniques 567

U.S. Geological Survey Honeywell Technology Solutions Incorporated

Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory P. O. Box 82010
P. O. Box 82010 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87198-2010
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87198-2010 (L.D.S.)
(A.T.R., C.R.H.)

U.S. Geological Survey

345 Middlefield Road, MS-977
Menlo Park, California 94025
(J.R.E.) Manuscript received 29 June 2010