An Analysis of Three New Infrasound Arrays 

Around Kīlauea Volcano

By Weston A. Thelen and Jennifer Cooper

Open-File Report 2014–1253

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Thelen, W.A., and Cooper, Jennifer, 2015, An analysis of three new infrasound arrays around 

Kīlauea Volcano: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1253, 29 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141253. 

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain 

copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be 

secured from the copyright owner.

ISSN 2331–1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1

Existing Infrasound Research on Kīlauea................................................................................2

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory Arrays ................................................................................3

Station Hardware.....................................................................................................................3

Location...................................................................................................................................5

Data Collection and Initial Processing .....................................................................................9

Data Analysis.........................................................................................................................11

Noise .....................................................................................................................................11

Case Studies Using the HVO Arrays ........................................................................................12

Data Processing ....................................................................................................................12

Halema‘uma‘u Rockfall: October 6, 2012, 23:30:55 UTC ......................................................12

Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō Pit Collapse: August 30, 2012, 20:05 UTC.............................................................19

Rise-Fall Cycle at Halema‘uma‘u Crater: October 19, 2012, 8:00–16:00 UTC......................23

Conclusion................................................................................................................................27

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................27

References Cited......................................................................................................................28

Figures 

 1. Photograph showing the pressure sensor instrumentation at each station......................3

 2. Photograph showing the pressure sensor enclosed in piping and resting on top of the 

bucket containing washed gravel and a buried screened inlet.........................................4

 3. Photograph showing the sensor and bucket at array AIND covered with a fake rock and 

placed in an ideal location in the shrubbery to reduce wind noise. ..................................4

 4. Map showing the arrays operated by the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) located 

on the southern part of the Island of Hawaiʻi. ...................................................................5

 5. Plot showing the infrasound elements in the AHUD array. ..............................................7

 6. Plot showing the infrasound elements in the AIND array. ................................................8

 7. Plot showing the infrasound elements in the HAPU array. ...............................................9

 8. Flow chart detailing the path that infrasound data take before being stored. .................10

 9. Photographs showing the rockfall event at Halema‘uma‘u Crater on October 6, 2012. . 12

10. Graph showing infrasound waveforms from the Halema‘uma‘u rockfall filtered above the 

microbarom. ...................................................................................................................14

11. Polar plots showing f-k analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rockfall at three infrasound 

arrays.. ...........................................................................................................................15

12. Graphs showing PMCC analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rockfall at the AHUD array. ......16

13. Graphs showing PMCC analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rockfall at the AIND array. ........17

14. Graphs showing PMCC analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rockfall at the HAPU array. ......18

15. Histograms of the azimuth of signal detections for the PMCC analysis of the 

Halema‘uma‘u rockfall at three infrasound arrays. .........................................................19

16. Aerial photo of Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō Crater after the pit collapse looking east-southeast................20

17. Graph showing infrasound records at each of the components in the HAPU array. ......21

18. Plots showing f-k and PMCC analysis of the Pu‘u ‘Ō‘ō pit collapse at the HAPU array. 22

19. Graphs showing PMCC analysis of the Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō pit collapse at the HAPU array. ........23

20. Graph showing 1-minute Realtime Seismic Amplitude Measurement at seismic station 

NPT (<1 km from Halema‘uma‘u vent) over 8 hours on October 19, 2012. ...................24
iv

21. Graphs showing the infrasound signal during the Halema‘uma‘u rise-fall cycle at AHUD 

array, element 04. ..........................................................................................................25

22. Graphs showing PMCC analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rise-fall cycles at the AHUD 

array. ..............................................................................................................................26

23. Rose plots showing PMCC analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rise-fall cycle at the AHUD 

array...............................................................................................................................27

Tables 

 1. Critical sensor parameters for removing the instrument response of the infrasound 

sensors operated by the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) on the Island of 

Hawaiʻi.. ...........................................................................................................................4

 2. Precise locations of infrasound stations and time of deployment on the Island of 

Hawai‘i.. ...........................................................................................................................6

 3. Infrasound arrays with the expected back azimuth, distance, and travel time to important 

sources across the Island of Hawai‘i................................................................................6
v

Conversion Factors

International System of Units to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

kilometer (km) 0.5400 mile, nautical (nmi) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Pressure

kilopascal (kPa) 0.009869 atmosphere, standard (atm)

kilopascal (kPa) 0.01 bar

kilopascal (kPa) 0.2961 inch of mercury at 60°F (in Hg)

kilopascal (kPa) 0.1450 pound-force per inch (lbf/in) 

kilopascal (kPa) 20.88 pound per square foot (lb/ft2) 

kilopascal (kPa) 0.1450 pound per square inch (lb/ft2) 

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as °F = (1.8 × °C) + 32.

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as °C = (°F – 32) / 1.8.

Datum 

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
An Analysis of Three New Infrasound Arrays 

Around Kīlauea Volcano

By Weston A. Thelen and Jennifer Cooper

Abstract

A network of three new infrasound station arrays was installed around Kīlauea Volcano between 

July 2012 and September 2012, and a preliminary analysis of open-vent monitoring has been completed 

by Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO). Infrasound is an emerging monitoring method in 

volcanology that detects perturbations in atmospheric pressure at frequencies below 20 Hz, which can 

result from volcanic events that are not always observed optically or thermally. Each array has the 

capability to detect various infrasound events as small as 0.05 Pa as measured at the array site. The

infrasound monitoring network capabilities are demonstrated through case studies of rockfalls, pit 

collapses, and rise-fall cycles at Halema‘uma‘u Crater and Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō. 

Introduction

Sound propagates through materials in a range of frequencies as a result of pressure changes 

within a medium. The human threshold for sound propagating through the atmosphere encompasses

frequencies from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, and sound waves traveling through the atmosphere below 20 Hz are 

known as infrasound. These low-frequency waves can originate from a variety of sources including 

earth processes and anthropologic activities such as nuclear explosions, supersonic aircraft, aurora, and 

earthquakes (Bedard, 1971; Hedlin and others, 2002). Like audible sound, infrasound typically travels at 

~340 m/s at 15 °C. Infrasound can vary in speed between 320 m/s and 350 m/s under conditions that are 

typically found within the lowermost atmosphere. 

Infrasound array development increased shortly after the approval of the Comprehensive 

Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (National Academy of Sciences, 2002). The treaty prompted the establishment 

of the International Monitoring System (IMS), which has the capability to detect clandestine nuclear 

explosions (McKisic, 1997). The IMS is composed of seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasound, and 

radionuclide station arrays. Currently, there are 60 IMS infrasound stations worldwide (Preparatory 

Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, 2011), and scientists at 

volcanoes in locations such as Antarctica, Russia, and Italy are installing their own infrasound arrays for 

active monitoring (Johnson and others, 2003). 

Detectable infrasound events from volcanoes include explosions, open-system processes, 

shallow earthquakes, tremor, rockfalls, avalanches, and degassing. Each of these events has a unique 

characterization at an infrasonic frequency and occurs over a variety of amplitudes. Explosions typically 

have recorded pressures from 1 to 50 Pa or more depending on the proximity of the observation and the 

type of explosion (Fee and Matoza, 2013). Shallow earthquakes associated with degassing can have 

recorded pressures disturbances on the order of 0.1 Pa (for example, Matoza and others, 2007). A 
2

rockfall at Mount St. Helens had recorded signals in the near field of ~15 Pa (Moran and others, 2008a).

Monitored volcanoes can have optical or thermal cameras at numerous locations; however, the 

variability of the weather can obstruct views from these devices. An infrasonic signal could thus provide 

an alternate monitoring parameter. Where infrasound and seismic stations are colocated, coherent 

signals recorded in both datastreams can aid in earthquake and volcanic interpretation (Johnson and 

others, 2003; Moran and others, 2008b; Garces and Le Pichon, 2011). Infrasonic waves are created only 

when the atmosphere is stimulated, and thus a strong infrasound signal can be diagnostic for explosion 

or fissure detection. 

This report intends to convey an overview of the installation of the new network of infrasound 

arrays at HVO and to provide a preliminary analysis of the capabilities of the new network. It is 

intended both for scientists who intend to use the infrasound data in Hawaii and also other network 

operators who are interested in installing new infrasound sensors. 

Existing Infrasound Research on Kīlauea

The Infrasound Laboratory at the University of Hawaii (ISLA) has had infrasound station arrays 

installed for several years around the Island of Hawai‘i as part of the IMS, as well as to analyze volcanic 

events. The Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō crater complex, an excellent source of continuous tremor, was analyzed using 

two separate arrays (KIPU and MENE) to differentiate between components of the infrasonic spectrum 

(Matoza and others, 2010). Sharply peaked tones concentrated in the 0.6- to 0.9-Hz band may have 

coincided with degassing events from hollow pockets along lava tubes. A larger broadband frequency 

range from 0.5 to 15 Hz may be associated with oscillations of bubbles in the turbulent basaltic magma 

source under the craters that contribute to ongoing tremor. The acoustics of flow dynamics in lava-tube 

systems were noted through jetting, harmonic tremor, and emission of infrasound through lava tube 

skylights. 

The Halema‘uma‘u vent that opened on March 19, 2008, allowed for resonances in the new 

cavity to constrain dimensions of the magmatic and gaseous volume through analysis of ongoing tremor 

(Fee and others, 2010). Degassing events were correlated to very long period (VLP), long period (LP), 

and short period (SP) seismic energy at wavelengths of 0.1–0.3 Hz, 0.1–1 Hz, and 1–10 Hz, 

respectively. A camera deployed at HVO captured the opening and subsequent changes to the 

Halema‘uma‘u vent, including rockfalls and degassing bursts that ultimately widened the vent. Array 

processing was completed in the ranges 0.5–10 Hz and 0.3–1 Hz to construct a probability density 

function of the power spectral density that would highlight resonance peaks. 

The March 6, 2011, Kamoamoa fissure eruption consisted of lava fountaining and jetting at 

remote locations within Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park. The back azimuth of the signal from the 

MENE array was used to determine the precise fissure locations. The signal was also used to track the 

temporal evolution of those fissures (Badger and others, 2012). Recorded signals associated with the 

jetting often exceeded 1 Pa.

Seismic tremor is often associated with unrest and eruptions, but the occurrence of seismic 

tremor alone does not guarantee an eruption at the surface (Moran and others, 2008b). Conversely, 

infrasonic tremor only occurs when there is a disturbance at the surface and thus can be uniquely tied to 

eruptive processes that expel mass into the atmosphere. Together, infrasound and seismic tremor can be 

interpreted to understand eruptive processes at all types of volcanoes (Fee and Matoza, 2013). In remote 

areas that often have poor instrumentation, infrasound arrays could provide real-time data and locations 

where human access is difficult, if not impossible (De Angelis and others, 2012). When coupled with 

other sources of information outside seismology, infrasound can be a useful tool in refining our 

understanding of volcanic conditions and activity. 
3

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory Arrays

Station Hardware 

Instrumentation for each station includes a differential pressure sensor with a reference port 

fitted with a very low pass filter (0.0125 Hz) on port 1, whereas port 2 is open to the atmosphere (fig. 1). 

The filter is a rigid chamber connected to the atmosphere through a very fine needle. This assembly acts 

in a similar manner as an electronic resistor-capacitor (RC) filter. Infrasound signals in the atmosphere 

constitute a pressure change on port 2 that is measured in Pascals (Pa). Enclosed in a rigid plastic 

housing, the sensor is connected through a rigid hose to a screened inlet that is buried in washed gravel 

3⁄4–1 inch in diameter, contained in a 5-gallon bucket (figs. 2, 3). Each sensor is connected to a central 

digitizer through a small box that consolidates the four infrasound sensors into a single cable. Each 

infrasound array has a collocated seismometer. In addition to the gravel, station protection and noise 

reduction is improved by a fake rock enclosure. No lightning protection is in place. To further reduce 

wind noise, each sensor is sited inside a bush or deep within the rainforest, depending on the landscape. 

This sensor design is similar to that of Jeff Johnson (oral commun., 2012), and has been 

modified by Rick LaHusen at the Cascades Volcano Observatory. The new implementation is called the 

VDP-10, which stands for Volcano Differential Pressure 10 mV/Pa. The sensor is an All Sensors 1 inchD-MV differential pressure sensor coupled to a low-noise instrumentation amplifier with a gain of 

1,000. The resultant sensor has a flat response to pressures between 0.0125 Hz and 25 Hz and self noise 

of 13.10 mPa (root mean square). The total output of the system is approximately 100 Pa/V where the 

frequency response is flat. A listing of poles, zeros, and amplification to remove the instrument response 

is included in table 1. All of our infrasound sensors are sampled at a rate of 40 Hz. 

Figure 1. Photograph showing the pressure sensor instrumentation at each station.
4

 

Figure 2. Photograph showing the pressure sensor enclosed in piping and resting on top of 

the bucket containing washed gravel and a buried screened inlet.

 

Figure 3. Photograph showing the sensor and bucket at array AIND covered with a fake rock 

and placed in an ideal location in the shrubbery to reduce wind noise (element 04). 

Table 1. Critical sensor parameters for removing the instrument response of the infrasound 

sensors operated by the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) on the Island of Hawaiʻi. 

[Two poles and one zero are present] 

Real part Imaginary part

Poles, hertz -157.08, -0.07430195 0,0

Zeros, hertz 0 0

Amplification 1.56115 V/Pa
5

Location 

The ongoing eruption at Kīlauea has prompted the inclusion of advanced methods to interpret

volcanic activity around the island, one of which is infrasound. The observatory already uses a dense 

seismic, GPS, tilt, gas, and webcam network to analyze Hawaiian volcanoes. There are now 12 

infrasound elements that constitute 3 arrays; AHUD and AIND are colocated at preexisting 

seismometers, while HAPU is a new infrasound and seismic station (fig. 4, table 1). The AHUD array is 

~4 km south of Halema‘uma‘u Crater, while AIND and HAPU are ~19 km west and east of 

Halema‘uma‘u, respectively. The HAPU array is located ~3 km north of Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō so that there is

widespread coverage of island activity including Mauna Loa and Kīlauea’s lower East Rift Zone and 

Southwest Rift Zone (table 2). 

Figure 4. Map showing the arrays operated by the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) 

(gray triangles), located on the southern part of the Island of Hawai‘i. The MENE and KHLU

arrays (black triangles) are infrasonic arrays operated by the Infrasound Laboratory at the 

University of Hawaii (ISLA) and monitored by HVO in real time. Individual volcanoes are 

delineated by dotted lines in the map inset.
6

Table 2. Precise locations of infrasound stations and time of deployment on the Island of 

Hawai‘i.

Array Element Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Elev (km) Installation date (UTC)

AHUD 01 19.371500 -155.26340 1.08 9/20/2012 21:16:47

AHUD 02 19.371840 -155.26347 1.0805 9/20/2012 21:16:47

AHUD 03 19.371370 -155.26285 1.0796 9/20/2012 21:16:46

AHUD 04 19.371195 -155.26388 1.0753 9/20/2012 21:16:47

AIND 01 19.372062 -155.45717 1.5538 7/19/2012 23:16:32

AIND 02 19.372244 -155.45771 1.5481 7/19/2012 23:16:36

AIND 03 19.372158 -155.45680 1.5426 7/19/2012 23:16:26

AIND 04 19.371567 -155.45741 1.5483 7/19/2012 23:16:26

HAPU1 01 19.416011 -155.10156 0.7346 7/19/2012 23:16:37

HAPU1 02 19.416370 -155.10202 0.7420 7/19/2012 23:16:34

HAPU1 03 19.416224 -155.10111 0.7375 7/19/2012 23:16:27

HAPU1 04 19.415662 -155.10173 0.7377 7/19/2012 23:16:30

MENE2 01 19.425587 -155.21944 1.04 3/30/2004

MENE2 02 19.425881 -155.22014 1.0468 3/30/2004

MENE2 03 19.425660 -155.21957 1.0362 3/30/2004

MENE2 04 19.435270 -155.22026 1.0407 3/30/2004

KHLU2 01 19.591460 -155.89358 0.958 11/25/2004

KHLU2 02 19.591591 -155.89356 0.958 11/25/2004

KHLU2 03 19.591429 -155.89352 0.958 11/25/2004

KHLU2 04 19.591372 -155.89369 0.958 11/25/2004

1

The HAPU array was uninstalled on June 15, 2012, because of an advancing lava flow.

2

The MENE and KHLU arrays are operated by the Infrasound Laboratory at the University of Hawaii (ISLA) and are included for 

completeness.

Table 3. Infrasound arrays with the expected back azimuth, distance, and travel time to 

important sources across the Island of Hawai‘i. [Sound speed assumed to be 340 m/s] 

Array

Halema‘uma‘u Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō Mauna Loa Summit

Back 

azimuth

(°)

Distance

(km)

Travel 

time (s)

Back 

azimuth 

(°)

Distance

(km)

Travel 

time (s)

Back 

azimuth 

(°)

Distance

(km)

Travel 

time (s)

AHUD 334 4 12 83 17 49 288 36 106

AIND 79 19 56 87 37 109 309 17 50

HAPU 266 19 55 187 3 9 277 52 153

MENE1 252 7 21 109 13 38 277 41 121

KHLU1 107 68 200 104 87 256 114 35 103

1

The MENE and KHLU arrays are operated by the Infrasound Laboratory at the University of Hawaii (ISLA) and are included for 

completeness.

The arrays are designed to be a 100-m equilateral triangle with a sensor (element) at each point 

and one in the center (figs. 5, 6, and 7). Topography and impediments on the ground mean that this 

geometry is never fully realized; however, the basic layout is maintained. This method of installation is 

utilized because it offers spatial parameters such as back azimuth and apparent or trace velocity that a 

single station cannot offer. As a signal waveform crosses the array, the arrival time at each station will 

differ depending on the apparent speed and back azimuth, which can be inferred from the data. 

Similarly, the signal-to-noise ratio can be improved with this array design through coherence stacking. 
7

Figure 5. Plot showing the infrasound elements in the AHUD array. Numbers refer to location 

code of the given sensor. A seismometer is colocated with element 01. Arrows give 

approximate directions to Halema‘uma‘u, Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō, and Mauna Loa Summit. 
8

 

Figure 6. Plot showing the infrasound elements in the AIND array. Numbers refer to location 

code of the given sensor. A seismometer is colocated with element 01. Arrows give 

approximate directions to Halema‘uma‘u, Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō, and Mauna Loa Summit. 
9

 

Figure 7. Plot showing the infrasound elements in the HAPU array. Numbers refer to location 

code of the given sensor. A seismometer is colocated with element 04. Arrows give 

approximate directions to Halema‘uma‘u, Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō, and Mauna Loa Summit. 

Data Collection and Initial Processing 

Infrasound data must undergo a certain amount of transfer and processing in order to be further 

analyzed. This process is far from straightforward, so we have detailed the data flow in figure 8. Data 

from the four infrasound sensors at a single array are collected at a single 6-channel Reftek RT-130 

digitizer. After being transmitted over a digital link to a Reftek Transfer Protocol Daemon (RTPD) 

server, data are transmitted into the Earthworm processing environment through a ref2ew module 

(http://www.isti2.com/ew/modules.html). From the Earthworm environment, data are stored in Winston 

wave servers (WWS) for storage and rudimentary processing. Once infrasound data enter the WWS, 

they are stored and archived the same as any other seismic data. The data are also exported to the 

Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) for public consumption and long-term storage.

Our Earthworm processing imports data from the MENE and KHLU arrays (operated by ISLA) in nearreal time. Imported stations are also stored in WWS. Certain processing environments require the Center 

for Seismic Studies (CSS) format, so we store CSS flat files as well (using Earthworm modules archman 

and waveman2disk). CSS flat files are kept only for a short time. The CSS flat files can be readily made 

from the data stored on the WWS for periods of interest that may exceed the time of our standard CSS 

storage.
10

 

Figure 8. Flow chart detailing the path that infrasound data take before being stored. The 

upper and lower boxes contain those processes that are completed in the field and office, 

respectively. We use a Reftek model 130 digitizer (RT-130) in the field and a Reftek Transfer 

Protocol Daemon (RTPD) for data acquisition.
11

Data Analysis

Because we use arrays in our infrasound network, our processing relies on many of the concepts 

of array seismology (for example, Rost and Thomas, 2002). Arrays are beneficial because the signal-tonoise ratio (which increases with the square root of the number of components) is improved and spatial 

information such as back azimuth and slowness (defined as 1/speed) can be determined. One way to 

calculate the slowness and back azimuth directly is to transform the time signal into frequencywavenumber (f-k) space. The f-k methods are described in Aki and Richards (2002), and this method is 

implemented in the ObsPy package (Beyreuther and others, 2010) as the function sonic. Our analysis 

using this technique uses the full bandwidth of the signal. In practice, this meant that detections were 

only achieved with large broadband infrasonic transients such as vent collapses at Halema‘uma‘u (see 

“Case Studies Using the HVO Arrays”). Infrasonic tremor at Halema‘uma‘u was not easily identified 

using this technique. 

An alternative, though complementary, method is the Progressive Multi-Channel CrossCorrection (PMCC) method (Cansi, 1995). This method uses cross-correlation of waveforms between 

subarrays (subsets of elements in a single array) to detect and characterize infrasonic phases, including 

the slowness and back azimuth of the detection. If the detection differs in back azimuth, slowness, or 

time between subarrays, then the detection is discarded. In our data, each array can be divided into 4 

unique subarrays of three elements each. Data are also analyzed in many narrow bands to isolate 

specific signals. The result is a very powerful detection and analysis tool that allows a user to easily 

discriminate coherent signals from noise. We are encouraged by initial results obtained using the PMCC 

method implemented through the WinPMCC code (Le Pichon and Cansi, 2003; Le Pichon and others, 

2010). Not only can the algorithm reliably detect variations in infrasonic tremor from Halema‘uma‘u, it 

can also detect signals from the Pōhakuloa Training Area on the north side of Mauna Loa. Given our 

array geometry and quality results from the PMCC method, it seems a natural step to calculate 

triangulated locations in near-real time.

Noise 

Each site has particular environmental and anthropogenic activity that influences the background 

noise. A main source of nearly constant noise at these stations is wind; around the Kīlauea Volcano, 

trade winds generally blow from the northeastern direction at a range of 4–7 m/s. Wind is the most 

common source of noise at frequencies above 0.5 Hz (Bowman and others, 2005). Other variable 

infrasonic sources in the region include oceanic movements that create frequencies between 0.1 and 0.5 

Hz, often called the microbarom (Arendt and Fritts, 2000), automobiles, airplanes, and the Pōhakuloa

Training Area (on the northwest flank of Mauna Loa) used by the U.S. Army. Bombing in this area 

produces a strong signal that is detected at AIND at ~270°. Topographic distortion of the infrasound 

signal over Mauna Loa was shown by Garces and Le Pichon (2011). The HAPU array occasionally has 

a small signal at a back azimuth of 0–24°, which could be originating from the town of Volcano or Hilo, 

Hawaii. To analyze the noise at each array, we typically calculate a probabilistic power spectral density 

or PPSD (McNamara and Buland, 2004) for each element of each array. Current PPSD functions for 

each station are available at IRIS (http://www.iris.edu/ds/products/pdf-psd), where the data are archived 

and available to the public. 
12

Case Studies Using the HVO Arrays

Data Processing 

The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory is currently monitoring two open vents on Kīlauea Volcano 

that have had infrasound-detectable events. The lava lakes at Halema‘uma‘u Crater and Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō 

produce a variety of activity, which was analyzed in the three case studies below. Data analysis is 

accomplished with the sonic function of ObsPy and the Progressive Multi-Channel Correlation (PMCC) 

method using WinPMCC software. Frequency-wavenumber (f-k) analysis in ObsPy produces two plots: 

(1) a time series of the wave propagation’s relative power compared to background noise, absolute 

power, back azimuth, and slowness; and (2) a polar plot that shows the signal intensity and its direction 

based on relative power. We only show polar plots in this report. 

The PMCC also allows for a full array analysis but includes tools to mask various components 

of an incoming waveform based on direction, power, speed, and time. This can create a filter for 

unwanted noise and allow for more discrete analysis on a coherent signal. These capabilities are also 

possible with the results of the f-k analysis; however, they are not currently implemented. 

Halema‘uma‘u Rockfall: October 6, 2012, 23:30:55 UTC

This moderately sized rockfall at Kīlauea’s summit in Halema‘uma‘u Crater was accompanied 

by several other similar events in the following 12 hours, all of which had detectable, coherent seismic 

signals correlated with visual observations of wall collapses in the crater. The rockfall analyzed here 

originated from the northwestern wall and impacted the lava lake, which created small explosive events 

and spatter (fig. 9). At that time, it was estimated that the lava lake was ~50 m below the crater floor, 

which translates to ~130 m from the webcam. 

Figure 9. Photographs showing the rockfall event at Halema‘uma‘u Crater on October 6, 

2012. A, Halema‘uma‘u lava lake before the rockfall at 23:29:38.148 UTC. There are two 

spatter zones at the west (left) and east (right) areas of the crater. B, The rockfall occurred on 

the western part of the crater (left side of the image) over the west spatter area at 

23:29:42.258 UTC. C, As the rock lands in the lava lake, it creates a large spatter and debris 

plume at 23:29:49.730 UTC. The lava lake experiences a wave-like motion from the impact, 

and some lava is pushed up onto the southwestern ledge in the left corner of the frame.
13

Both AHUD and AIND recorded distinct infrasonic signals from the rockfall event, but HAPU 

only weakly recorded the rockfall (fig. 10). Using the raw signal, the f-k analysis shows positive 

identifications on AHUD and AIND and a poor identification on HAPU (fig. 11). Amplitudes of the 

stacked signals on the AHUD, AIND, and HAPU arrays were approximately 0.65 Pa, 0.065 Pa, and 

0.05 Pa, respectfully. For a majority of similar rockfall events, the HAPU array does not obviously 

detect signals from the summit. A more detailed view of the event at the three arrays was calculated 

with WinPMCC (figs. 12–15). Wind speeds varied during the event from 3–4 m/s, and wind direction 

was from the south (~156°). 

One clear result from the analysis of this infrasound signal is the greater utility of arrays

compared to single sensor (element) installations. The rockfall from Halema‘uma‘u was relatively 

small, particularly with respect to signals typically recorded during a breakout or stratovolcanic 

eruption. Even so, two arrays that were nearly 20 km away from the source were able to detect the 

signal with enough fidelity to get azimuthal information. Having single elements at each of those sites 

would not have provided the same information. It is also important to note that these signals were not 

easily seen in the raw signal.

Our analysis also compares results of two different processing schemes. Comparison of figure 

11 and figure 15 shows that the spatial processing employed by the PMCC method can be more precise 

and sensitive to high frequency transients associated with rockfall than the traditional f-k method as 

implemented in ObsPy. The histograms calculated with PMCC (fig. 15) have higher signal-to-noise 

ratios closer to the expected azimuth than those polar plots calculated by the f-k method (fig. 11).
14

 

Figure 10. Graph showing infrasound waveforms from the Halema‘uma‘u rockfall filtered 

above the microbarom (0.4 Hz). The signal first appears at the AHUD array at 18 seconds 

after the rockfall, then at ~62 seconds after the rockfall at the AIND array. The rockfall is only 

weakly recorded at the HAPU array between 60 and 70 seconds after the rockfall. The signal 

at HAPU is not visible in the raw signal.
15

Figure 11. Polar plots showing f-k analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rockfall at three infrasound 

arrays. A, AHUD. B, AIND. C, HAPU. Colored boxes indicate where energy is detected.

Slowness increases outward on the polar plot between 0 (center, vertically incident) and 3 

s/km (outer edge). The azimuth of the colored box represents the back azimuth. Expected 

back azimuths (red arrows) at the AHUD, AIND, and HAPU arrays are 334°, 79°, and 266°, 

respectively. Note the differing color scales in each plot.
16

Figure 12. Graphs showing PMCC analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rockfall at the AHUD

array. Only detections with a correlation coefficient of 0.9 or greater are shown. The correlation 

refers to the consistency of the waveform between array elements. The amplitude is the 

averaged amplitude across the array. Azimuth refers to the direction that the wave is 

originating from, and speed refers to the speed of the event across the array. The filtered 

event waveforms from AHUD are shown in figure 10. 
17

Figure 13. Graphs showing PMCC analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rockfall at the AIND array. 

Only signals with a correlation of 0.8 or greater are shown. The rockfall is the obvious signal 

around 23:32:00 UTC. The filtered waveforms for the event are shown in figure 10. The 

correlation refers to the consistency of the waveform between array elements. The amplitude 

is the averaged amplitude across the array. Azimuth refers to the direction that the wave is 

originating from, and speed refers to the speed of the event across the array.
18

Figure 14. Graphs showing PMCC analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rockfall at the HAPU

array. Only signals with correlations above 0.6 are included. The rockfall is the obvious signal 

around 23:32:00 UTC. The filtered waveforms for the event are shown in figure 10. The 

correlation refers to the consistency of the waveform between array elements. The amplitude 

is the averaged amplitude across the array. Azimuth refers to the direction that the wave is 

originating from, and speed refers to the speed of the event across the array. 
19

Figure 15. Histograms of the azimuth of signal detections for the PMCC analysis of the 

Halema‘uma‘u rockfall at three infrasound arrays. A, AHUD. B, AIND. C, HAPU. Times are 

shown in the pane at the bottom. Obvious detections are present on the AHUD and AIND

arrays. The HAPU array also detects the signal; however, it’s much less clear. Expected back 

azimuths at AHUD, AIND, and HAPU arrays are 334°, 79°, and 266°, respectively. Note the 

differing lengths of the histograms, which represent the number of coherent detections in the 

evaluation period (gray numbers).

Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō Pit Collapse: August 30, 2012, 20:05 UTC

In the western part of Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō Crater, a floor collapse on the north side of the crater was 

preceded by a similar occurrence nearly 6 hours earlier that widened the southern edge of the pit; 

however, the event at 20:09 UTC also produced a fuming source on the eastern boundary of the crater. 

Images taken via helicopter overflights are used to illustrate the pit shape before and after the collapse 

(fig. 16). Since this occurred before AHUD was installed, only AIND and HAPU were available; only 

HAPU detected the event. 

The infrasound signal was fairly small, despite a strong seismic signal (fig. 17). The stacked 

infrasonic signal on HAPU only amounted to 0.06 Pa. Analysis using f-k and WinPMCC yield similar 

azimuthal results (fig. 18). Spectrally, the signal is clearly seen between 1 and 3 Hz (fig. 19). The upper 

limit is likely due to the spacing of the stations within the array. Interestingly, there are several other 

detections from the direction of Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō both before and after the main collapse that do not have an 

obvious seismic signal and may be related to the northeast lava lake or the refilling of the collapse pit.
20

Figure 16. Aerial photo of Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō Crater looking east-southeast. The collapse pit (dotted 

ellipse) was already filled with lava at the time of this picture. The collapse pit was estimated to 

be 30–40 m wide.
21

Figure 17. Graph showing infrasound records at each of the components in the HAPU 

array. The signal from the Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō pit collapse arrives at 20:05:57 UTC. Signals are filtered 

above the microbarom (0.4 Hz).
22

Figure 18. Plots showing f-k and PMCC analysis of the Pu‘u ‘Ō‘ō pit collapse at the HAPU 

array. A, Polar plot of f-k analysis for the pit collapse at Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō. B, Histogram rose diagram 

from PMCC analysis for the pit collapse at Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō. The expected back azimuth at the HAPU

array is 187°(red arrow in A). HAPU has a clear back azimuth towards the collapse in both 

analyses. Results of the event recorded at the AIND array (37 km from the pit collapse) did not 

show any signal in the proper direction. The AHUD array was not yet installed.
23

Figure 19. Graphs showing PMCC analysis of the Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō pit collapse at the HAPU array. 

The signal of interest occurs around 20:06:00 UTC. The correlation refers to the consistency of 

the waveform between array elements. Only detections with correlations above 0.6 are shown. 

The amplitude is the averaged amplitude across the array. Azimuth refers to the direction that 

the wave is originating from, and speed refers to the speed of the event across the array. The 

filtered waveforms are shown in figure 17. 

Rise-Fall Cycle at Halema‘uma‘u Crater: October 19, 2012, 8:00–16:00 UTC

Rise-fall cycles at Kīlauea summit are caused by the trapping and releasing of gas within the 

lava lake (Patrick and others, 2011). Typically, gas release is concentrated into one or two spattering 

sources, which produce ample seismic and infrasonic tremor. At times, the spattering stops abruptly, and 

the level of the lava lake rises as the gas pushes the surface of the lava lake upward. Eventually, gas 

pierces the surface of the lava lake, and spattering resumes. In this section, we analyze two rise-fall 

cycles (fig. 20). 

We have chosen to analyze a time period when the lava lake transitioned from rise (low 

infrasonic and seismic tremor) to fall (high infrasonic and seismic tremor) and back to rise. The fall 

begins October 19, 2012, at approximately 8:50 UTC and lasts until approximately 9:30 UTC and is 

accompanied by high seismic and infrasonic tremor (figs. 20, 21). The next fall cycle extends between 

12:00 and 13:20 UTC. A rise cycle continues from 13:20 UTC through the end of our analysis period. 

The AHUD infrasound clearly shows the fall part of the rise-fall cycle as a significant increase in highcorrelation detections calculated from WinPMCC. The increase in high-correlation detections was 

concurrent with spattering in the lava lake (fig. 22). Infrasonic signals on the AHUD array during 
24

periods of infrasonic tremor did not exceed 0.20 Pa (fig. 21). Detections of the rise fall cycle are not 

clear on AIND and HAPU.

Comparing the direction of quality detections between rise and fall cycles clearly shows the 

correlation of high tremor levels to both spattering at the summit and high-correlation infrasound 

detections from the direction of Halema‘uma‘u (fig. 23). During the fall cycles, the azimuth points 

unequivocally toward Halema‘uma‘u, while during rise cycles, fewer detections are present with no 

obvious directionality toward Halema‘uma‘u. 

The infrasonic tremor detected by WinPMCC apparently is too small to be obviously detected 

using the f-k method. We detected no reliable difference between rose diagrams from the f-k method 

during rise-fall cycles. This exemplifies the increased sensitivity that the PMCC algorithm has over the 

f-k analysis method, most likely because of how the PMCC algorithm searches for detections across 

several narrow frequency bands. 

 

Figure 20. Graph showing 1-minute Realtime Seismic Amplitude Measurement (RSAM; 

Endo and Murray, 1991) at seismic station NPT (<1 km from Halema‘uma‘u vent) over 8 hours

from 8:00–16:00 UTC on October 19, 2012. 
25

 

Figure 21. Graphs showing the infrasound signal during the Halema‘uma‘u rise-fall cycle at 

AHUD array, element 04. A, Bandpass-filtered infrasound signal (0.4–3 Hz) from element 04 of 

AHUD. B, 1-minute Realtime Seismic Amplitude Measurement (RSAM) of the bandpassfiltered infrasound signal.
26

Figure 22. Graphs showing PMCC analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rise-fall cycles at the 

AHUD array. The fall cycles are between approximately 8:50 and 9:30 UTC and between 

approximately 12:00 and 13:20 UTC. The correlation refers to the consistency of the waveform 

between array elements. Only detections with correlations above 0.6 are shown. The 

amplitude is the averaged amplitude across the array. Azimuth refers to the direction that the 

wave is originating from, and speed refers to the speed of the event across the array.
27

Figure 23. Rose plots showing PMCC analysis of the Halema‘uma‘u rise-fall cycle at the 

AHUD array. A, Rose plot of the rise segment, 9:28–12:01 UTC. B, Rose plot of the fall 

segment, 12:00–12:33 UTC. As expected, the fall portion has a clear signal toward

Halema‘uma‘u, and the rise segment is scattered and does not have a clear back azimuth

toward Halema‘uma‘u. Note the different number of coherent detections in each plot (gray 

numbers within circle).

Conclusion 

The initial installation and location of the three infrasound arrays around Kīlauea Volcano has 

proven to be effective in monitoring activity at Halema‘uma‘u Crater and Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō. The AIND and 

AHUD arrays are the main contributors for analyzing Kīlauea’s summit lava lake activity, and, 

depending on the intensity of the event, these arrays can also detect occurrences at Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō. The third 

station, HAPU, is most effective for activity at Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō because of its close proximity to the source. It 

appears the arrays are sensitive to signals as weak as 0.05 Pa. We have also shown the PMCC method to 

be more sensitive to our volcanic signals of interest than the f-k method, especially for analyzing 

infrasonic tremor. The f-k method appears adequate for the detection and characterization of discrete 

broadband signals. When infrasound is coupled with seismic, optical, and thermal data, it is possible to 

better characterize surface volcanic activity such as lava lake activity. 

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the HVO technician group for their support in installing the infrasound 

network. Dr. Yves Cansi provided us with the WinPMCC software. We would also like to thank ISLA 

for providing technical consultation and calibrations for our infrasound instruments. Darren Hart 
28

graciously tested our instruments to empirically determine the poles and zeros. Richard Lahusen and 

Matthew Haney provided comments that improved the final product. Lastly, Richard LaHusen and 

Kelly Swinford were critical in building the instruments and providing them to HVO. Jennifer Cooper 

extends her appreciation to HVO for hosting the volunteer program.

References Cited

Aki, K., and Richards, P.G., 2002, Quantitative seismology; theory and methods (2d ed.): Sausalito, 

Calif., University Science Books, 700 p. 

Arent, S., and Fritts, D.C., 2000, Acoustic radiation by ocean surface waves: Journal of Fluid 

Mechanics, v. 415, p.1–21. 

Arrowsmith, S.J., Whitaker, R.W., Taylor, S.R., Burlacu, R., Stump, B., Hedlin, M.A.H., Randall, G., 

Hayward, C., and ReVelle, D., 2008, Regional monitoring of infrasound events using multiple arrays; 

application to Utah and Washington State: Geophysical Journal International, v. 175, no. 1, p. 291–

300. 

Badger, N.B., Garces, M., Perttu, A., Poland, M., and Thelen, W.A., 2012, Infrasonic jetting from the 

Kamoamoa fissure eruption, Kīlauea Hawaiʻi, 5–9 March 2011: Kona, Hawaii, AGU Chapman 

conference poster M-27, presented August 20, 2012. 

Bedard, A.J., 1971, Seismic response of infrasonic microphones: Journal of Research of the National 

Bureau of Standards, v. 75C, no. 1, p. 41–45. 

Beyreuther, M., Barsch, R., Krischer, L., Megies, T., Behr, Y. and Wassermann, J., 2010, ObsPy; a 

Python toolbox for seismology: Seismological Research Letters, v. 81, no. 3, p. 530–533, doi: 

10.1785/gssrl.81.3.530. 

Bowman, J.R., Baker, G.E., and Bahavar, M., 2005, Ambient infrasound noise: Geophysical Research

Letters, v. 32, no. 9, L09803, 5 p.

Cansi, Y., 1995, An automatic seismic event processing for detection and location: Geophysical 

Research Letters, v. 22, no. 9, p. 1021–1024. 

De Angelis, S., Fee, D., Haney, M., and Schneider, 2012, Detecting hidden volcanic explosions from 

Mt. Cleveland Volcano, Alaska, with infrasound and ground-coupled airwaves: Geophysical Research

Letters, v. 39, no.21, L21312, 6 p. 

Endo, E.T., and Murray, T., 1991, Real-time seismic amplitude measurement (RSAM)—a volcano 

monitoring and prediction tool: Bulletin of Volcanology, v. 53, no. 7, p. 533–545. 

Fee, D., Garcés, M., Patrick, M., Chouet, B., Dawson, P., and Swanson, D., 2010, Infrasonic harmonic 

tremor and degassing bursts from Halema‘uma‘u Crater, Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 115, no. B11, B11316, 15 p. 

Fee, D., and Matoza, R.S., 2013, An overview of volcano infrasound; from Hawaiian to Plinian, local to 

global: Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 249, p. 123–139. 

Garcés, M., Hetzer, C., Merrifield, M., Willis, M., and Aucan, J., 2003, Observations of surf infrasound 

in Hawai‘i: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 30, no. 24, 2264, 3 p. 

Garces, M., and Le Pichon, A., 2011, Infrasound from earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes, in Meyers, 

R.A., ed., Extreme environmental events, complexity in forecasting and early warning: New York, 

Springer New York, p. 663–679. 

Hedlin, M., Garces, M., Bass, H., Hayward, C., Herrin, G., Olson, J., and Wilson, C., 2002, Listening to 

the secret sounds on Earth’s atmosphere: Eos (American Geophysical Union Transactions), v. 83, no. 

48, p. 557–565. 
29

Johnson, J.B., Aster, R.C., Ruiz, M.C., Malone, S.D., McChesney, P.J., Lees, J.M., and Kyle, P.R., 

2003, Interpretation and utility of infrasonic records from erupting volcanoes: Journal of Volcanology 

and Geothermal Research, v.121, p. 15–63. 

Le Pichon, A., and Cansi, Y., 2003, PMCC for infrasound data processing: InfraMatics, no. 2, p.1–9. 

Le Pichon, A., Matoza, R., Brachet, N., and Cansi, Y., 2010, Recent Enhancements of the PMCC 

Infrasound Signal Detector: Inframatics, no. 26, p. 5–8. 

Matoza, R.S, Fee D., and Garcés, M.A., 2010, Infrasonic tremor wavefield of the Pu‘u ‘Ōʻō crater 

complex and lava tube system, Hawaii, in April 2007: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 115, no. 

B12, B12312, 16 p. 

Matoza, R.S., Hedlin, M.A.H., and Garcés, M.A., 2007, An infrasound array study of Mount St. Helens: 

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, vol. 160, no. 3–4, p. 249–262. 

McKisic, J.M., 1997, Infrasound and the infrasonic monitoring of atmospheric nuclear explosions: 

Department of Energy document PL-TR-97-2123, 310 p. 

McNamara, D.E., and Buland, R.P., 2004, Ambient noise levels in the continental United States:

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 94, no. 4, p. 1517–1527. 

Moran, S.C., Matoza, R.S., Garcés, M.A., Hedlin, M.A.H., Bowers, D., Scott, W.E., Sherrod, D.R. and 

Vallance, J.W., 2008a, Seismic and acoustic recordings of an unusually large rockfall at Mount St. 

Helens, Washington: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 35, no. 19, L19302, 6 p. 

Moran, S.C., McChesney, P.J., and Lockhart, A.B., 2008b, Seismicity and infrasound associated with 

explosions at Mount St. Helens, 2004–2005, chap. 6 of Sherrod, E.R., Scott, W.E., and Stauffer, P.H., 

eds., A volcano rekindled; the renewed eruption of Mount St. Helens, 2004–2006: USGS Professional 

Paper 1750, p. 111–127. 

National Academy of Sciences, 2002, Technical Issues Related to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 

Treaty: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, International standard book number 0-309-

08506-3, 96 p. 

Patrick, M., Wilson, D., Fee, D., Orr, T., and Swanson, D., 2011, Shallow degassing events as a trigger 

for very-long-period seismicity at Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai‘i: Bulletin of Volcanology, v. 73, no. 9, p. 

1179–1186. 

Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, 2011, Annual 

Report 2011: Vienna, Austria, Provisional Technical Secretariat of the Preparatory Commission for 

the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, 73 p. 

Rost, S., and Thomas, C., 2002, Array seismology: Methods and applications: Review of Geophysics, v. 

40, no. 3, p. 2-1–2-27.