Advances in Operational Processing at the International Data Centre

The International Data Centre (IDC) of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) Preparatory Commission receives and processes in near-real-time data from the International Monitoring System (IMS), a globally distributed network of seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasound and radionuclide stations. Once completed, the IMS network will comprise 60 infrasound stations of which 49 have been installed and certified as of beginning of 2017 (Fig. 6.1). The infrasound stations are arrays of measurement systems that are sensitive to acoustic pressure variations in the atmosphere in the IMS frequency band between 0.02 and 4 Hz. The array configurations include 4–15 elements, with typical designs of 4–8 elements, and with apertures between 1 and 3 km following IMS requirements (Marty 2018; Christie and Campus 2010). After a design and development phase of more than 10 years, the IDC automatic processing system and interactive analysis are fully operational for infrasound technology since February 2010. After reception, storage and referencing in the IDC database, the station data are automatically processed individually (e.g. the station processing stage) (Brachet et al. 2010). Based on the results of the station processing the network processing is initiated to form events with all three waveform technologies. The event information is then reported in IDC products (or bulletins) referred to as Standard Event Lists (SELs). Since 2010, the bulletin production deadlines have been revised and accommodate late arriving data and the signal propagation times for all waveform technologies (Coyne et al. 2012). The final automatic bulletin containing infrasound signals associated to waveform events is the SEL3, which is reviewed by IDC analysts. The result of the interactive review process is the Late Event Bulletin (LEB) on which event definition criteria are applied to produce the Reviewed Event Bulletin (REB). The REB is the final waveform product of the IDC and currently, during provisional operations, the target timeline for publishing the REB is within 10 days of real time. After Entry Into Force (EIF) of the Treaty, the target timeline is reduced to 48 h. Specialized software has been developed for every processing stage at the IDC in order to improve signal-to-noise ratio, detect infrasound signals, categorize and identify relevant detections, form automatic events and perform interactive review analysis. For the period 2010–2017, thousands of waveform events containing infrasound associations appear in the IDC bulletins, and in particular in the REB and the LEB (Late Event Bulletin). This demonstrates the sensitivity of the IMS infrasound component and the IDC ability to globally monitor the infrasound activity. The unique information gathered by the IMS systems have been widely used for civil and scientific studies and have resulted in numerous publications on meteor impacts such as the largest ever infrasound recorded event that is the Chelyabinsk meteor in February 2013 (Brown 2013; Pilger et al. 2015; Le Pichon et al. 2013; Pilger et al. 2019) as well as other observed fireballs and meteors (Marcos et al. 2016; Caudron et al. 2016; Silber and Brown 2019), on powerful volcanic eruptions (Matoza et al. 2017, 2019), on controlled explosions (Fee et al. 2013), on announced underground nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) (CTBTO 2013b, 2017b; Che et al. 2009, 2014) or on atmospheric dynamic research (Le Pichon et al. 2015; Blanc et al. 2019), on characterizing the infrasound global wavefield (Matoza et al. 2013; Ceranna et al. 2019), or on gravity waves study (Marty et al. 2010; Chunchuzov and Kulichkov 2019; Marlton et al. 2019) that could lead to deriving a space and time-varying gravity wave climatology (Drob 2019).

[1]  Yves Cansi,et al.  An automatic seismic event processing for detection and location: The P.M.C.C. Method , 1995 .

[2]  Lars Ceranna,et al.  Incorporating numerical modeling into estimates of the detection capability of the IMS infrasound network , 2011 .

[3]  Jelle Assink,et al.  The stratospheric arrival pair in infrasound propagation. , 2015, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  P. Brown,et al.  Large Meteoroids as Global Infrasound Reference Events , 2018, Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies.

[5]  L. Ceranna,et al.  Systematic Array Processing of a Decade of Global IMS Infrasound Data , 2018, Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies.

[6]  P. Mialle,et al.  Homing in for New Year: impact parameters and pre-impact orbital evolution of meteoroid 2014 AA , 2016, 1610.01055.

[7]  Infrasound and seismic detections associated with the 7 September 2015 Bangkok fireball , 2016, Geoscience Letters.

[8]  P. Brown,et al.  Infrasound Monitoring as a Tool to Characterize Impacting Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) , 2018, Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies.

[9]  Milton A. Garces,et al.  On Infrasound Standards, Part 1 Time, Frequency, and Energy Scaling , 2013 .

[10]  N. Brachet,et al.  RECENT ENHANCEMENTS OF THE PMCC INFRASOUND SIGNAL DETECTOR , 2010 .

[11]  E. Marchetti,et al.  Assessing and optimizing the performance of infrasound networks to monitor volcanic eruptions , 2017 .

[12]  J. Borovička,et al.  A 500-kiloton airburst over Chelyabinsk and an enhanced hazard from small impactors , 2013, Nature.

[13]  Alain Hauchecorne,et al.  Comparison of co‐located independent ground‐based middle atmospheric wind and temperature measurements with numerical weather prediction models , 2015 .

[14]  Christoph Pilger,et al.  The 2013 Russian fireball largest ever detected by CTBTO infrasound sensors , 2013 .

[15]  Jelle Assink,et al.  Propagation Modeling Through Realistic Atmosphere and Benchmarking , 2018, Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies.

[16]  D. Revelle,et al.  Estimates of meteoroid kinetic energies from observations of infrasonic airwaves , 2006 .

[17]  Lars Ceranna,et al.  Analyzing the detection capability of infrasound arrays in Central Europe , 2008 .

[18]  Douglas R. Christie,et al.  The IMS Infrasound Network: Design and Establishment of Infrasound Stations , 2010 .

[19]  Pierrick Mialle,et al.  On the use of remote infrasound and seismic stations to constrain the eruptive sequence and intensity for the 2014 Kelud eruption , 2015 .

[20]  W. Edwards,et al.  Effect of interarray elevation differences on infrasound beamforming , 2012 .

[21]  S. Kulichkov,et al.  Internal Gravity Wave Perturbations and Their Impacts on Infrasound Propagation in the Atmosphere , 2018, Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies.

[22]  Jelle Assink,et al.  Overview of the 2009 and 2011 Sayarim Infrasound Calibration Experiments , 2013 .

[23]  P. Brown,et al.  Infrasonic detection of a near‐Earth object impact over Indonesia on 8 October 2009 , 2011 .

[25]  S. Kulichkov,et al.  Simulating the influence of an atmospheric fine inhomogeneous structure on long-range propagation of pulsed acoustic signals , 2010 .

[26]  Maurice Charbit,et al.  Slowness estimation from noisy time delays observed on non-planar arrays , 2014 .

[27]  Inho Kim,et al.  Infrasound signals from the underground nuclear explosions of North Korea , 2014 .

[28]  L. Ceranna,et al.  CTBT infrasound network performance to detect the 2013 Russian fireball event , 2015 .

[29]  F. Lott,et al.  Non-orographic Gravity Waves: Representation in Climate Models and Effects on Infrasound , 2018, Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies.

[30]  M. Rapp,et al.  Middle Atmosphere Variability and Model Uncertainties as Investigated in the Framework of the ARISE Project , 2018, Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies.

[31]  D. Bouche,et al.  A low-order reduced model for the long range propagation of infrasounds in the atmosphere. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  Stuart J. Russell,et al.  Global seismic monitoring as probabilistic inference , 2010, NIPS.

[33]  Lars Ceranna,et al.  Modeling the Detection Capability of the Global IMS Infrasound Network , 2018, Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies.

[34]  Jeannine Siviy,et al.  Using the Technology Readiness Levels Scale to Support Technology Management in the DoD's ATD/STO Environments (A Findings and Recommendations Report Conducted for Army CECOM) , 2002 .

[35]  Julien Marty,et al.  Using the International Monitoring System infrasound network to study gravity waves , 2010 .

[36]  Erik B. Sudderth,et al.  NET‐VISA: Network Processing Vertically Integrated Seismic Analysis , 2013 .

[37]  P. Mialle,et al.  Volcano Infrasound and the International Monitoring System , 2018, Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies.

[38]  P. Shearer,et al.  Automated detection and cataloging of global explosive volcanism using the International Monitoring System infrasound network , 2016 .

[39]  Mark K. Prior,et al.  The IDC Seismic, Hydroacoustic and Infrasound Global Low and High Noise Models , 2014, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[40]  Joshua D. Carmichael,et al.  Infrasound Signal Detection: Re-examining the Component Parts that Makeup Detection Algorithms , 2018, Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies.

[41]  D. Bowers,et al.  Estimating the detection capability of the International Monitoring System infrasound network , 2010 .

[42]  Il-Young Che,et al.  Infrasound observation of the apparent North Korean nuclear test of 25 May 2009 , 2009 .

[43]  A. J. Zuckerwar,et al.  Atmospheric absorption of sound: Further developments , 1995 .

[44]  Nicolas Brachet,et al.  Monitoring the Earth’s Atmosphere with the Global IMS Infrasound Network , 2010 .

[45]  Julien Marty,et al.  The IMS Infrasound Network: Current Status and Technological Developments , 2018, Infrasound Monitoring for Atmospheric Studies.