Evaluating the Reliability of Phones as Seismic Monitoring Instruments

Emergency responders must “see” the effects of an earthquake clearly and rapidly for effective response. This paper presents a novel use of cell phone and information technology to measure ground motion intensity parameters. The phone sensor is an imperfect device and has a limited operational range. Thus, shake table tests were performed to evaluate their reliability as seismic monitoring instruments. Representative handheld devices, either rigidly connected to the table or free to move, measured shaking intensity parameters well. Bias in 5%-damped spectral accelerations measured by phones was less than 0.05 and 0.2 [log(g)] during one-dimensional (1-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) shaking in frequencies ranging from 1 Hz to 10 Hz. They did tend to overestimate the Arias Intensity, but this error declined for stronger motions with larger signal-to-noise ratios. With these ubiquitous measurement devices, a more accurate and rapid portrayal of the damage distribution during an earthquake can be provided.

[1]  K. Mani Chandy,et al.  Rapid detection of rare geospatial events: earthquake warning applications , 2011, DEBS '11.

[2]  L. Megget,et al.  Bulletin of the New Zealand society for earthquake engineering , 2002 .

[3]  Andreas Krause,et al.  The next big one: Detecting earthquakes and other rare events from community-based sensors , 2011, Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks.

[4]  Matthew Faulkner,et al.  Helping Humanity with Phones and Clouds , 2011 .

[5]  A. Bayen,et al.  iShake: Using Personal Devices to Deliver Rapid Semi- Qualitative Earthquake Shaking Information , 2011 .

[6]  H. Riedwyl.  Goodness of Fit , 1967 .

[7]  Christer Sjöström,et al.  State-of-the-art report , 1997 .

[8]  G. Atkinson,et al.  “Did You Feel It?” Intensity Data: A Surprisingly Good Measure of Earthquake Ground Motion , 2007 .

[9]  Steven D. Glaser,et al.  Consistency of Ground-Motion Estimates Made using System Identification , 2000 .

[10]  Kuo-Wan Lin,et al.  Quantifying and Qualifying USGS ShakeMap Uncertainty , 2008 .

[11]  E. Cochran,et al.  A novel strong-motion seismic network for community participation in earthquake monitoring , 2009, IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine.

[12]  R. P. Kromer,et al.  Method for calculating self-noise spectra and operating ranges for seismographic inertial sensors and recorders , 2010 .

[13]  Jonathan D. Bray,et al.  An Empirical Geotechnical Seismic Site Response Procedure , 2001 .

[14]  Radu Popescu,et al.  Comparison between VELACS numerical ‘class A’ predictions and centrifuge experimental soil test results , 1995 .

[15]  D. Wald,et al.  Utilization of the Internet for rapid community intensity maps , 1999 .

[16]  A. Arias.  A measure of earthquake intensity , 1970 .

[17]  H. D. Black,et al.  A passive system for determining the attitude of a satellite , 1964 .

[18]  Jonathan D. Bray,et al.  DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS NEAR ACTIVE FAULTS , 2009 .