Any earthquake service that maintains a seismic network operates an earthquake monitoring system (EMS), which is a combination of software capable of acquiring, processing, and archiving large volumes of real-time continuous seismic data. Crucially, the processing includes the automatic detection, location, and quantification of earthquakes. Manual review and alert dissemination are typically also core components of an EMS. There are a small number of modern and complete EMSs available to the seismological community; only a couple of these are free. A new seismic network must decide which EMS to operate, and even established networks are periodically required to consider either updating or overhauling their operational EMS. Often, a seismic network has operated a particular EMS for several years and, in some cases, decades. Although there are few options, the selection of the appropriate EMS to operate is not at all a trivial choice.
The enduringly popular Earthworm was the first true EMS. Carl Johnson from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a lead developer of the original system, followed a set of design principles that “guide the design and implementation of a seismic processing system”: modularity, system independence, scalability, connectivity, and robustness (from www.earthwormcentral.org/). More than two decades later, these could still serve as the guiding principles for the general design and development of a sustainable EMS.
In this opinion piece, we compare two of the leading cost-free options: Earthworm and SeisComP3. This opinion paper is intended to aid network seismologists who need to select or migrate to a new monitoring system for earthquake surveillance. We do not pretend to have the definitive answer to this complex decision. Indeed, selecting the right software is highly network dependent, requiring reflection on the specific network goals, existing network boundary conditions (e.g., field sensors), and available expertise. Nonetheless, we aim to offer a summary …
[1]
Lars Ottemöller,et al.
A Tsunami Warning System for the Northeast Atlantic
,
2008
.
[2]
R. V. Allen,et al.
Automatic earthquake recognition and timing from single traces
,
1978,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.
[3]
Jens Havskov,et al.
Challenges When Establishing a Seismic Network
,
2011
.
[4]
R. V. Allen,et al.
Automatic phase pickers: Their present use and future prospects
,
1982
.
[5]
Laura Scognamiglio,et al.
Tuning an Earthworm phase picker: some considerations on the pick_ew parameters
,
2010
.
[6]
Fred W. Klein,et al.
User's guide to HYPOINVERSE-2000, a Fortran program to solve for earthquake locations and magnitudes
,
2002
.
[7]
Andres Heinloo,et al.
Networked Seismographs : GEOFON Real-Time Data Distribution
,
2000
.
[8]
T. C. Bache,et al.
Locating events with a sparse network of regional arrays
,
1988
.
[9]
Paul Friberg,et al.
Earthworm in the 21st century
,
2010
.
[10]
Peter Bormann,et al.
The New IASPEI Standard Broadband Magnitude mB
,
2008
.
[11]
Danijel Schorlemmer,et al.
QuakeML: status of the XML-based seismological data exchange format
,
2011
.
[12]
M. Leonard,et al.
Multi-component autoregressive techniques for the analysis of seismograms
,
1999
.
[13]
John A. Power,et al.
A Comparison of Seismic Event Detection with IASPEI and Earthworm Acquisition Systems at Alaskan Volcanoes
,
2005
.
[14]
Winfried Hanka,et al.
Real-time earthquake monitoring for tsunami warning in the Indian Ocean and beyond
,
2010
.
[15]
Manfred Baer,et al.
An automatic phase picker for local and teleseismic events
,
1987
.