1 / 16

Instrumentation Centers: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory A. Barclay, J. Gaherty, M. Tolstoy

www.obsip.org. Instrumentation Centers: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory A. Barclay, J. Gaherty, M. Tolstoy Scripps Institution of Oceanography J. Babcock, A. Harding, G. Kent, J. Orcutt Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution J. Collins, K. Peal, B. Wooding. Oversight Committee:

sani
Download Presentation

Instrumentation Centers: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory A. Barclay, J. Gaherty, M. Tolstoy

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. www.obsip.org Instrumentation Centers: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory A. Barclay, J. Gaherty, M. Tolstoy Scripps Institution of Oceanography J. Babcock, A. Harding, G. Kent, J. Orcutt Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution J. Collins, K. Peal, B. Wooding Oversight Committee: Doug Toomey, Chair, U. Oregon Gail Christeson, UTIG Rob Dunn, U. Hawaii Jim Fowler, IRIS Francis Wu, SUNY-Binghamton Funded by the NSF, Marine Geology and Geophysics Program

  2. Enhancement of the OBSIP Pool for Amphibious Experiments Contour interval 1000 m

  3. Amphibious Experiments Present Major Challenges for OBS Deployments • Shallow Water Deployment (<1000 m) • Trawling • Biofouling • Current-induced noise (all depths) • Reliability Contour interval 500 m

  4. Timeline • April: Early discussions with NSF • Early May: OC consults with ad hoc science group • Mid May: Earthscope meeting   • Mid-late May:  OC report to IICs and NSF the results of the above discussions, via e-mail and conference call and prepares request for bids (RFB). • June 1:  IICs respond to request for bids, providing costs estimates and delivery schedule to OC. • June 5:  OC (does not) report to NSF. Begs for delay until after this meeting. • By July 10: External panel reviews RFBs and reports to NSF. • Summer 2010: Initial Cascadia deployment Contour interval 500 m

  5. Cascadia Amphibious Array: First Guess The OC consulted with the scientific community in order to obtain guidance on the types, capabilities and numbers of OBSs to build for Cascadia as well as future amphibious experiments. • The backbone of the effort should consist of intermediate-band instruments deployed to mirror the onshore array. Assuming that the coast defines the edge of the onshore array, this would consist of 3 north-south columns of instruments extending to roughly 200 km offshore. • We should also plan for a “flex” array capability to focus on smaller targets with dense spacing, probably to consist of a mix of intermediate-band and short-period instruments. Determining the mix of instruments for the flex array will consider both Cascadia and future amphibious experiments. Contour interval 500 m

  6. General description of amphibious array • It is very desirable to bury (or shield) sensors at intermediate-water sites to improve data quality. • Trawl resistant OBSs are a must for shallow-water sites, and may mitigate noise due to currents. Trawl resistant instruments may require an ROV for recovery and possibly deployment. • It may be desirable to equip some OBSs with APGs in order to detect vertical deformation. • It may be desirable to equip some OBSs with accelerometers. Contour interval 500 m

  7. Shallow water (<1000 m) requires trawl resistant mounts Typical Cascadia Profile ~50-100 km Shallow Water Intermediate Water This is doable in terms of repackaging. May have implications for operations and ship-time, depending on water depth.

  8. Burial improves performance Collins et al., 2001 Horizontal components on buried seismometer (red traces) are much less noisy at long periods than the horizontal components of an identical seismometer sitting on the seafloor (blue traces).

  9. Burial/Shielding improves performance

  10. Intermediate water (1000-5500 m): Examples of shielding Not all have been tested.

  11. Prototypes for Burial Burial has not been well tested. High risk, high payoff

  12. Existing broadband instruments: Shielding or burial not implemented SIO BB • Advantages: • Less risk in delivery • Known design • Disadvantages: • No shielding/burial • Not trawl resistant WHOI BB LDEO BB

  13. Other Considerations Leveling of sensor Sensor configurations • Intermediate band OBS • Trillium Compact • Broadband OBS • Trillium 120 or 240 • Guralp CMG3T • Short-period OBS • DPG • APG • Accelerometer

  14. Cost per Unit

  15. Delivery Schedule Delivery of instruments for the 2010 field season will be a challenge. LDEO: 1 per week beginning Jan. 2010. 10 by April for beginning of testing, at-sea certification. SIO: Anticipates building fleet by summer of 2010. Faster if unmodified broadband instruments. Non-specific schedule. WHOI: No schedule given.

  16. What will our recommendations address? • What types of instruments should be procured (e.g., short period, broadband, sensor types)? • What is the optimal spacing of instruments given the scientific objectives? • Should some of the instruments be buried to achieve better data quality? • Are shallow water deployments required, if so can they be made trawl resistant and at what cost? • What is the cost of each type of instrument? • What is the delivery schedule? These are just some of the issues that we are considering. They are provided here to give you an idea of what to start thinking about.

More Related