ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Performance Test of the Rotational Sensor blueSeis-3A in a Huddle Test in Fürstenfeldbruck.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Processing of Raw Data Recorded Continuously Using a FORS-Fibre-Optic Rotational Seismograph.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Rotation Rate Sensors and Their Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Rotation, Strain, and Translation Sensors Performance Tests with Active Seismic Sources.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rotational motions play a key role in measuring seismic wavefield properties. Using newly developed portable rotational instruments, it is now possible to directly measure rotational motions in a broad frequency range. Here, we investigated the instrumental self-noise and data quality in a huddle test in Fürstenfeldbruck, Germany, in August 2019. We compare the data from six rotational and three translational sensors. We studied the recorded signals using correlation, coherence analysis, and probabilistic power spectral densities. We sorted the coherent noise into five groups with respect to the similarities in frequency content and shape of the signals. These coherent noises were most likely caused by electrical devices, the dehumidifier system in the building, humans, and natural sources such as wind. We calculated self-noise levels through probabilistic power spectral densities and by applying the Sleeman method, a three-sensor method. Our results from both methods indicate that self-noise levels are stable between 0.5 and 40 Hz. Furthermore, we recorded the 29 August 2019 ML 3.4 Dettingen earthquake. The calculated source directions are found to be realistic for all sensors in comparison to the real back azimuth. We conclude that the five tested blueSeis-3A rotational sensors, when compared with respect to coherent noise, self-noise, and source direction, provide reliable and consistent results. Hence, field experiments with single rotational sensors can be undertaken.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.