[SAC-HELP] sac-help Digest, Vol 39, Issue 1
Anne Deschamps
deschamps at geoazur.unice.fr
Sat Oct 25 13:18:20 PDT 2008
Hi
I would like to use the type evalresp to compute the signal corrected
from the instrumental response (files provided by rdseed).
What is the IDEP value which should be insered in the header to say that
I have raw data? Presently in my data IDEP is not defined
I have accelerometric data.
What is the result on accelerometric data of the command
transfer from evalresp to none
What is the result of
transfer from evalresp to acc
the amplitudes are different (even after removing the high frequencies...)
the IDEP in one is ACCELERATION (CM/SEC/SEC)
in the other DISPLACEMENT (NM)
the RESP file indicates
B053F05 Response in units lookup: M/S**2 - Acceleration
So if you could give me the rules, it will be great as presently the
result is not what we expect. May be there is a compatibility problem of
our RESP file.
from yours indications I will try to find the rule for the velocimetric
data.
Thanks
Anne Deschamps
sac-help-request at iris.washington.edu a écrit :
> Send sac-help mailing list submissions to
> sac-help at iris.washington.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.iris.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/sac-help
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sac-help-request at iris.washington.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sac-help-owner at iris.washington.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of sac-help digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. GSE writing (Sheila Peacock)
> 2. response spectra (Olga-Joan Ktenidou)
> 3. how does SAC define the header variable CMPINC, exactly?
> (Val Zimmer)
> 4. Re: how does SAC define the header variable CMPINC, exactly?
> (Frederik Tilmann)
> 5. Re: [sac-dev] [Fwd: GSE writing] (Brian Savage)
> 6. Re: [sac-dev] [Fwd: GSE writing] (Brian Savage)
> 7. Do Loop Bug (Bob Hancock)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:57:34 +0100
> From: Sheila Peacock <s.peacock at blacknest.gov.uk>
> Subject: [SAC-HELP] GSE writing
> To: sac-help at iris.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <48E1E9FE.5020002 at blacknest.gov.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> (re-sent)
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> SAC v. 101.1 either fails or crashes when I try to use "writegse". SAC v. 100 is OK
> with writegse. Is this a known bug?
>
> Regards,
> Sheila Peacock.
>
> SAC v. 100 (is OK)
> $ sacb
> SEISMIC ANALYSIS CODE [03/01/2005 (Version 100.00)]
> Copyright 1995 Regents of the University of California
>
> SAC> r 1986.213.14.03.12.3600.DW.COL..SHZ.D.SAC
> SAC> writegse 198608011403COL.gse.int
> Converting waveforms .
> Writing station data .
> Writing channel data .
> Writing arrival data .
> 1 waveforms written in 198608011403COL.gse.int
> SAC> end
>
>
> SAC v. 101.1 fails:
>
> $ sac1011
> SEISMIC ANALYSIS CODE [01/19/2008 (Version 101.1)]
> Copyright 1995 Regents of the University of California
>
> SAC> r 1986.213.14.03.12.3600.DW.COL..SHZ.D.SAC
> SAC> writegse 198608011403COL.gse.int
> Segmentation fault
>
>
> or.... (trying various parameters in the parameter list)
>
> SAC> r 1986.213.14.03.12.3600.DW.COL..SHZ.D.SAC
> SAC> writegse int 198608011403COL.gse.int
> ERROR 1312: Bad number of files in write file list:
> SAC> writegse int source off 198608011403COL.gse.int
> ERROR 1312: Bad number of files in write file list:
> SAC> writegse int source off commit 198608011403COL.gse.int
> ERROR 1312: Bad number of files in write file list:
>
> $ sac1011
> SEISMIC ANALYSIS CODE [01/19/2008 (Version 101.1)]
> Copyright 1995 Regents of the University of California
>
> SAC> r 1986.213.14.03.12.3600.DW.COL..SHZ.D.SAC
> SAC> writegse CM6 198608011403COL.gse.cm6
> Segmentation fault
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:09:22 -0500
> From: "Olga-Joan Ktenidou" <ktenidou at civil.auth.gr>
> Subject: [SAC-HELP] response spectra
> To: <sac-help at iris.washington.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <00ab01c923f0$d7db81a0$49e7f884 at isismologica.iingen.unam.mx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> dear all,
>
> just wondering if anyone had come across a way to calculate response spectra through sac..
> any help/suggestion much appreciated!
> thanks,
>
> olga
>
> ----
> Olga-Joan Ktenidou
> Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
> Department of Civil Engineering
> Lab. of Soil Mechanics, Foundation Eng. & Geotechnical Earthquake Eng.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.iris.washington.edu/pipermail/sac-help/attachments/20081001/c3733df2/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:35:54 -0700
> From: Val Zimmer <valzimmer at berkeley.edu>
> Subject: [SAC-HELP] how does SAC define the header variable CMPINC,
> exactly?
> To: sac-help at iris.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <48EBC82A.2090300 at berkeley.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hello SAC users,
>
> I have a dataset from a station that was NOT placed perfectly level -
> e.g. the sensor was placed on a ledge that had a little bit of tilt,
> such that Z is not perfectly up/down, and N + E have some down or upward
> component in the data. I'm now trying to analyze that data, but have
> yet to find a good definition of cmpinc in the manual (all it says is
> "Component incident angle (degrees from vertical)"). CMPINC has no
> inherent orientation (like CMPAZ, from north, and looking down with 90
> to the right e.g. east), but I can think of only one good, logical way
> to define cmpinc. Although, I'm probably missing something, and would
> like to verify that this is correct, hence the email to you all.
>
> I can infer the following things from pulling the data from an
> earthquake seismology station (cmb.bk):
>
> * +Z is probably up, (not down like in the oilfield): Up = 0, hence
> Down = 180.
> * the other components have cmpinc = 90 (N + E)
> * Therefore, the direction of the cmpinc vector *must* be relative
> to the cmpaz vector AND that cmpinc vector corresponds to apparent
> tilt along that vector (not absolute/maximum tilt for the whole
> instrument in whatever direction that happens to be).
> * It follows other axes would have to be defined as follows:
> o DIR CMPAZ CMPINC
> o south 180 90
> o west 270 90
> o n + a little up 0 75
> o e + a little down 90 110
>
> Can anyone tell me if this reasoning is correct, and if not, point me to
> some documentation with a clear definition?
>
> Oh, and if any of you know how Antelope defines the <vang> vector, I'm
> also trying to figure that out (I think that Antelope's definition of
> "vertical" is different, e.g. Up = 180 and Down = 0, although, I cannot
> confirm it).
>
> Thanks for your time!
> Valerie Zimmer
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: 08 Oct 2008 00:19:21 +0100
> From: Frederik Tilmann <fjt21 at cam.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [SAC-HELP] how does SAC define the header variable
> CMPINC, exactly?
> To: Val Zimmer <valzimmer at berkeley.edu>
> Cc: sac-help at iris.washington.edu
> Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.0.0810080019210.6235 at hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Dear Valerie
>
> as far as I know your interpretation is essentially correct except that I
> am not entirely clear with what you mean by
>> * Therefore, the direction of the cmpinc vector *must* be relative
>> to the cmpaz vector AND that cmpinc vector corresponds to apparent
>> tilt along that vector (not absolute/maximum tilt for the whole
>> instrument in whatever direction that happens to be).
>
> If you think of each component as a vector then cmpinc is the angle the
> vector makes with vertical up, and cmpaz is the azimuth clockwise from
> north of the horizontal projection of the component vector. It does not
> make sense to talk about the cmpinc or cmpaz vector. For cmpinc=0 or
> cmpinc=180 the value of cmpaz is irrelevant, of course. As far as I know
> nowhere in SAC is cmpinc actually used except to check whether components
> are horizontal for application of the "rot to gcp" command.
>
> A few years back I wrote a SAC command to rotate an arbitrarily oriented
> sensor (3 components needed to be perpendicular) into either VRT, ZNE, or
> LQT system, and this command used cmpinc. This used the extern mechanism of
> sac2000 but I am not sure whether this way of loading up user-defined
> commands works with the more recent versions of sac. If you are interested
> I can send you the source.
>
> Regards
> Frederik
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 7 2008, Val Zimmer wrote:
>
>> Hello SAC users,
>>
>> I have a dataset from a station that was NOT placed perfectly level -
>> e.g. the sensor was placed on a ledge that had a little bit of tilt,
>> such that Z is not perfectly up/down, and N + E have some down or upward
>> component in the data. I'm now trying to analyze that data, but have
>> yet to find a good definition of cmpinc in the manual (all it says is
>> "Component incident angle (degrees from vertical)"). CMPINC has no
>> inherent orientation (like CMPAZ, from north, and looking down with 90
>> to the right e.g. east), but I can think of only one good, logical way
>> to define cmpinc. Although, I'm probably missing something, and would
>> like to verify that this is correct, hence the email to you all.
>>
>> I can infer the following things from pulling the data from an
>> earthquake seismology station (cmb.bk):
>>
>> * +Z is probably up, (not down like in the oilfield): Up = 0, hence
>> Down = 180.
>> * the other components have cmpinc = 90 (N + E)
>> * Therefore, the direction of the cmpinc vector *must* be relative
>> to the cmpaz vector AND that cmpinc vector corresponds to apparent
>> tilt along that vector (not absolute/maximum tilt for the whole
>> instrument in whatever direction that happens to be).
>> * It follows other axes would have to be defined as follows:
>> o DIR CMPAZ CMPINC
>> o south 180 90
>> o west 270 90
>> o n + a little up 0 75
>> o e + a little down 90 110
>>
>> Can anyone tell me if this reasoning is correct, and if not, point me to
>> some documentation with a clear definition?
>>
>> Oh, and if any of you know how Antelope defines the <vang> vector, I'm
>> also trying to figure that out (I think that Antelope's definition of
>> "vertical" is different, e.g. Up = 180 and Down = 0, although, I cannot
>> confirm it).
>>
>> Thanks for your time!
>> Valerie Zimmer
>> _______________________________________________
>> sac-help mailing list
>> sac-help at iris.washington.edu
>> http://www.iris.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/sac-help
>>
>
More information about the sac-help
mailing list