USGS 

science for a changing world 

A Rapid Array Mobilization Procedure

(RAMP) Agreement for the Central 

United States 

By Paul Bodin, Gary Pavlis, Eugene Schweig, and Joan Gomberg 

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological 

Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. 

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

imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Open-File Report 03-015 

U.S. Department of Interior 

U.S Geological Survey 
Table of Contents 

I. Summary 1

II. Need for a Central U.S. RAMP 2 

III. Objectives 5

A. General Objectives 5

B. Scientific Goals Under Different Earthquake Scenarios 7

1. Moderate,Significant Earthquake Somewhere in the Central U.S. 7

2. Major Earthquake within the Central U.S.

IV. Activation

V. Field Operations

A. Instrumentation and Resources

B. Personnel

C. Communications

D. Transportation

E. Logistics

F. Coordination

VI. Post-RAMP Data Handling Procedures

A. Data Collection and Quality

B. Data Assembly and Documentation

C. Distribution and Archive

VII. Training and Long-term Continuation of a RAMP Plan

References

Appendix A. Participants in the 1995 Workshop

9 

11 

12 

12 

14 

14 

15 

15 

16 

16 

17 

17 

18 

19 

21 

21 
I. Summary 

Thirty-five participants representing 10 universities and 8 governmental 

organizations met at a workshop in Memphis, Tennessee, on January 28-29, 1995 (see 

Appendix A). The participants agreed to cooperate in seismological aftershock studies of 

future moderate and large earthquakes in the Central United States (CUS). Since 1995 

much has changed technologically and organizationally, particularly with regards to the 

birth of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). The ANSS has lead to a new, 

heightened level of cooperation and integration among seismic monitoring networks in the 

Central U.S. Technological advances in communications and in recording capabilities, and 

reduction in the cost of seismographic instrumentation also have been significant since 

1995. Finally, efforts to coordinate post-earthquake response at the national, regional and 

local levels and among scientists, engineers, emergency response agencies, public 

agencies, and the media have resulted in new, coordinated response planning activities. In 

particular, a national-level National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) 

Post-earthquake Investigations Plan has been adopted by NEHRP agencies and the 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), which is linked to a new plan for the 

operations of CUS Post-earthquake Technical Clearing House developed under the 

auspices of the Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC) and the Association of 

CUSEC State Geologists. 

This plan seeks to ensure the most rapid and effective seismological response, as a 

component of the regional and national response plans and the ANSS, and is known as a 

Rapid Array Mobilization Procedure (RAMP). In this context, the RAMP plan provides 

detailed guidance to one scientific aspect of earthquake response. This report summarizes 

the results of the 1995 workshop that focused on the scientific issues relevant to the Central 

U.S. Details of the structure of the cooperation among participants will be covered herein 

as well. Earthquake response is one function of the ANSS and as such, a standing postearthquake response subcommittee of the ANSS-MA (Mid-America region of the ANSS) 

1
should be formed to oversee the maintenance and implementation of this plan. Its members 

need not all be members of the ANSS-MA regional advisory committee, but at least one 

shall be and will be responsible for reporting to the advisory committee. A database of 

likely aftershock study participants and resources will be made available as part of the 

ANSS-MA on-line database at http://www.anss-ma.org/. 

This document addresses the following: 

(1) The need for an earthquake response component of the ANSS-MA 

(2) The scientific goals of future temporary seismographic deployments, 

(3) The current status of available seismographic instrumentation within the region, 

(4) Guidelines for the implementation of studies, 

(5) Post-experiment data handling procedures, and 

(6) Strategies for keeping this plan elastic and strong. 

A RAMP will be implemented if the criteria outlined in the NEHRP Post-earthquake 

Investigations Plan are met; these require that an earthquake a) results in a Presidential 

disaster declaration or b) be declared worthy of response by a NEHRP agency. For 

earthquakes that don’t meet these criteria, a RAMP still may be invoked but in this case 

procedures covered in the NEHRP and CUSEC plans may be implemented on an ad hoc 

basis, depending on the needs and capabilities of the RAMP participants. 

II. Need for a Central U.S. RAMP 

The Central U.S. (CUS) is threatened by earthquakes within the New Madrid 

seismic zone, the Wabash Valley seismic zone, the Appalachian seismic zone, along the 

Grenville front, and other seismogenic areas in the region (Figure 1). While the earthquake 

potential of the New Madrid seismic zone is a matter of historical record, geological and 

paleoseismic investigations have pointed to these other source areas in the region as having 

the potential to cause damaging earthquakes. The historical and instrumental seismic 

2
records indicate that the potential exists for a moderate, but damaging, earthquake 

anywhere, even outside of these seismic zones. 

A CUS Rapid Array Mobilization Procedure (RAMP) provides the framework for 

effective efficient deployment of portable seismographic instrumentation, and for timely 

analysis and dissemination of resulting data. Most importantly, a RAMP facilitates the 

seismologic response to moderate or large earthquakes in the CUS. A RAMP also 

facilitates planned short-term seismologic field experiments, often conducted in response to 

unforeseen experimental opportunities. Both types of responses yield information that 

serves as critical input to scientific seismic hazard assessment studies, to design of 

seismically engineered structures, and to long-term mitigation efforts. 

A RAMP is especially necessary in a region like the CUS, which includes the states 

of Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Mississippi, and 

surrounding states where appropriate. The CUS differs from more tectonically active 

regions in that the Earth's surface reveals few clues about the location of faults, 

characteristics of previous ruptures, and the response of the ground to seismic deformation. 

3
To the extent that the past provides keys to the future, uncertainty about the earthquake 

history of the CUS region challenges our ability to anticipate the hazard from future 

earthquake events. Also, unlike more tectonically active regions with more frequent 

earthquakes, the CUS has had few opportunities to learn directly from moderate to large 

earthquakes. A RAMP will enable us to maximize such opportunities when they do occur. 

While a significant seismic hazard clearly exists in the CUS, a relatively low occurrence 

rate of significant earthquakes has led to the operation of relatively few permanent seismic 

stations. (A list and map of these will be available on the ANSS-MA website at 

http://www.anss-ma.org/.) Thus, when a significant earthquake happens in the CUS, we 

may not be able to collect data critical to constraining the fundamental characteristics (e.g., 

accurate location, causative faults) provided by mainshock recordings at near distances. 

Because aftershock data provide important constraints on these characteristics, such data 

must be collected and analyzed as rapidly as possible. A possibly short duration of 

aftershock sequences following moderate CUS earthquakes also necessitates rapid 

response. One purpose of a RAMP is to ensure that the response is rapid. 

A RAMP provides a framework for how resources may be shared in order to 

maximize the yield and utility of valuable data. The geographic and political diversity of the 

fourteen states comprising the CUS present significant logistical challenges to coordinating 

responses to hazards that do not respect state or institutional boundaries. CUS diversity 

also applies to communications within the region; information is transmitted through widely 

varied means to many institutions. A RAMP facilitates the complex networking required 

for an effective earthquake response. This networking extends beyond the seismologic 

community, to those concerned with aspects of post-earthquake recovery and, ultimately, 

with long-term planning. 

As discussed in more detail below, the current regional seismograph network coverage 

is inadequate to ensure precise estimation of aftershock focal parameters. Moreover, there 

may be large uncertainties in source parameters of moderate mainshocks should they not 

4
occur within the few well-instrumented portions of the region. It is also likely that 

scientifically important earthquakes will occur on the periphery of such regions, or in ones 

that are poorly instrumented. In addition to the possibility of using aftershocks to study 

propagation and engineering questions, aftershock studies in this region provide the basic 

seismological data to reveal mainshock focal parameters, rupture dimensions, and so forth. 

III. Objectives 

A. General Objectives 

The appropriate scientific response to a significant earthquake in the CUS is driven 

by one overriding issue — the regional distribution of permanent seismographic network 

stations. At this time, the vast majority of the CUS is sparsely instrumented with 

seismographs. The exception is the heart of the New Madrid seismic zone, which is 

monitored by Cooperative New Madrid Seismic Network (CNMSN), operated by The 

University of Memphis and Saint Louis University (see 

http://folkworm.ceri.memphis.edu/). On the other hand, the ANSS-MA ultimately will 

provide outstanding monitoring capabilities at regional distances for the entire region (see 

http://www.anss-ma.org/). With modern waveform inversion techniques, we expect it will 

be possible to determine accurate source parameters routinely for any event larger than 

about M 3.5 to M 4. 

There are two significant consequences of the present state of seismic network 

capabilities in this area. 

(i) A large fraction of significant earthquakes are likely to occur in an area with poor 

seismic station coverage. 

(ii) Most aftershocks of significant earthquakes will not even be recorded, and few 

will have any well-constrained estimates of their source parameters. 

These facts have a controlling influence on the scientific objectives of any RAMP 

deployment in the CUS. In particular, it was universally recognized by participants in the 

5
RAMP workshop held in January, 1995, that the highest scientific priority for most RAMP 

deployments will be simply to field a temporary network designed to retrieve reliable 

source parameters of aftershocks. That is, in most cases seismic stations would be 

deployed in a relatively uniform distribution near the aftershock zone. Data from these 

stations would be used with conventional seismological analysis procedures to produce 

estimates of aftershock source parameters: epicentral location, depth, focal mechanism, 

and magnitude. Furthermore, for larger aftershocks, the use of modern high dynamic 

range instruments in the near-field, in combination with regional stations will provide 

important scientific returns, such as imaging more complex source phenomena (e.g., 

irregularities in slip along a fault surface or directivity effects) or quantifying site response. 

The retrieval of source parameters of major earthquakes is important for addressing 

these major scientific issues related to any earthquake in this region: 

(i) What are the geologic structures with which the earthquake was associated, and 

what is the geometry of the fault system that produced the earthquake? 

In the CUS, our knowledge of the structures capable of producing major 

earthquakes is very limited. Accumulating knowledge on the nature of these 

structures is important for understanding the long-term earthquake hazards in 

the region. 

(ii) What is the stress drop of a mainshock and its aftershocks? 

There is a longstanding debate about whether the stress drops of infrequent, 

intracontinental earthquakes are much higher (and hence occur on much smaller 

faults) than earthquakes of similar magnitude in a tectonically active region like 

California. If so, it has a tremendous impact on appraising the hazard imposed 

by any potentially active fault in the region. High quality data provided by 

RAMP deployments following a significant earthquake will provide some of the 

basic data required to answer this question. 

6
 (iii) After a large earthquake, how is the aftershock sequence evolving? Is it a 

mainshock-aftershock sequence, or is the earthquake that just happened a 

foreshock? 

This is a very important issue for intracontinental earthquakes. The only major 

earthquake that have occurred historically in the region (the New Madrid 

earthquakes of 1811-1812) were not a single large earthquake but a sequence of 

at least three major earthquakes. Paleoseismological studies in the New Madrid 

region (e.g., Tuttle et al., 2002) suggest that sequences may be characteristic of 

large earthquakes in the region. Thus, in the event of a major Central U.S. 

earthquake, defining the temporal evolution of the sequence will be very 

important information to provide the public to either assure them that the 

sequence is probably dying down or to warn them that a potentially larger event 

could be on the way. 

(iv) Was this earthquake induced? 

It has been proposed that some moderate earthquakes in the Central and Eastern 

U.S. have been induced by impoundment of reservoirs or from fluid injection 

in wells. Such hypotheses cannot be tested without accurate estimates of 

aftershock source parameters. 

B. Scientific Goals Under Different Earthquake Scenarios 

1. Moderate, significant earthquake somewhere in the Central U.S. 

It is expected that the general objectives listed above will define the principal 

research effort for the majority of earthquakes that are likely to occur within the CUS. The 

reason for this is that by far the most likely scenario we will face is a moderate earthquake 

(M 4.5 to M 5.5). Experience has shown that an earthquake of this size will be widely felt, 

but would probably cause little, if any, loss of life and relatively modest property damage 

compared to recent much larger California earthquakes such as the Loma Prieta or the 

7
Northridge earthquakes. On the other hand, such an event would be significant 

scientifically within the region, and in most cases would be worthy of study. To clarify this 

we consider two end member situations, and then simply state that all other examples are 

somewhere in between. 

(i) A magnitude 4.5 earthquake occurs near the center of the New Madrid seismic 

zone. Because the network coverage should be adequate for most scientific 

needs, some of the auxiliary experiments noted below for larger events might be 

appropriate. 

(ii) A magnitude 5+ event well outside the New Madrid seismic zone, but within 

the CUS region would almost certainly justify a RAMP deployment. Any such 

event is a rare occurrence that could be, literally, a once in a lifetime 

opportunity. The focus of a RAMP for an event of this type would almost 

certainly be estimation of source parameters. Experience has shown that 

aftershock sequences following regional events of this size tend to have very 

short durations. Thus, experiments that depend upon deployments that could 

not be fielded within a few days of the mainshock would, in most cases, be not 

worthwhile. 

For events not deemed significant according to the NEHRP Plan criteria, the decision to 

invoke a RAMP will, without doubt, most likely depend on two basic issues: 

(i) Is anyone interested in fielding equipment to conduct such an exercise? 

(ii) Can these people sequester promises for funds to support the effort on short 

notice? 

In most cases with events of this size the most prominent secondary experimental 

objective will be deployment of quality digital instruments at existing strong-motion 

stations. The use of empirical Green's functions derived from aftershock deployments to 

deconvolve strong-motion records from a mainshock is a well-established technique. 

Given the wide spacing of strong-motion instruments in the region, the number of 

8
candidate stations that might be useful in this type of analysis is probably small. Therefore, 

we anticipate that this type of experiment could often be integrated into the aftershock 

network deployed to determine aftershock source parameters. It should therefore be 

standard practice that any free field strong-motion accelerograph within 50 km of the 

mainshock be a prime candidate for use as a broadband, high-dynamic range, digital 3-

component, aftershock network station. The potential gain in knowledge, and the ease of 

carrying this out offsets concerns that the utility of the empirical Green’s function technique 

for events of this magnitude range are still debatable. 

2. Major earthquake within the central U.S. 

For seismological response purposes in the CUS an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 or 

larger can probably safely be defined as "major". There have been no earthquakes of this 

magnitude in the past century and only 2 since the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquake 

sequence, so by any reasonable measure an event of this size is rare. Furthermore, the 

likelihood of significant damage and loss of life begins to become important for such 

events. The key issue following a major earthquake will not be if there will be a RAMP 

response, but rather how it will be organized. The 1995 workshop participants recognized 

that, for major earthquakes, as the size of the event increases, the complexity of organizing 

the field effort will undoubtedly increase. 

Three factors drastically change the rules for larger earthquakes within this scenario: 

(i) The number of potential participants increases with the size of the mainshock. 

(ii) Many of the new players are likely to have their own instruments. 

Furthermore, it is a stated IRIS-PASSCAL policy that in the event of a "major" 

earthquake instruments can be recalled from other experiments. Thus, the pool 

of quality instruments that might be available is also likely to increase with 

source size. 

9
(iii) Rapid deployment becomes less important as mainshock magnitude increases 

because aftershocks are likely to occur at significant rates for much longer time 

periods after the mainshock. 

As a result of these factors, the range of potential experiments that could be conceived 

of and executed expands dramatically. The organizational model discussed below would 

sort out priorities for competing experiments by requiring each group in the RAMP 

deployment to negotiate with the Principal Investigator Team to stage a particular type of 

experiment. 

Examples of experiments that were considered by participants include: 

• Small-aperture-array experiments designed to study sources and wave propagation. 

• Experiments with broadband sensors to study large scale basin response. 

• Crustal structure experiments. 

Aftershocks provide an active source area that could be used to estimate crustal 

structure using 3-D tomographic methods. Alternatively, one could deploy 

stations in linear profiles directed radially away from the source area to determine 

crustal structure using a modified refraction analysis. Both of these techniques 

have yielded valuable results from aftershocks of recent large events in California. 

• Site response studies. 

Site response studies are especially critical for any earthquake happening near a 

major urban area. However, similar studies are equally important for earthquakes 

that happen in more remote areas as they may, in some cases, provide analogs to 

near surface conditions at nearby urban areas that could be at risk. For example, 

site response studies of moderate earthquakes occurring under the thick 

sedimentary sequences of the New Madrid seismic zone are highly relevant for 

hazard mitigation in the city of Memphis because near-surface site conditions 

there may be similar. 

10
• Liquefaction and nonlinear soil response experiments. 

Liquefaction and nonlinear soil response cannot be studied without the strong 

shaking provided by larger earthquakes. The aftershocks of any major 

earthquake provide important natural laboratories to study these phenomena. 

IV. Activation 

A RAMP may be invoked for earthquakes that do not satisfy the NEHRP 

Post-earthquake Investigations Plan criteria. In these cases, the procedures described 

below may be invoked on an ad hoc basis depending on the particulars of the 

earthquake, participants, etc. 

(i) All scientists interested in participating in an activated RAMP will assemble at the 

Post-earthquake Technical Clearing House designated as part of the NEHRP 

Post-earthquake Investigations Plan as soon as possible. A RAMP Coordinator 

and a Data Coordinator will be selected by RAMP participants and in 

consultation with the NEHRP Investigations Coordinator. Plans will be drawn 

up for immediate instrument deployment based on available instruments and 

experimental requirements. The RAMP Coordinator will assume responsibility 

for the deployment, and all coordination with the NEHRP Investigations 

Coordinator, the ANSS-MA regional advisory committee, and IRIS. The Data 

Coordinator will oversee data quality control and assembly of the final data 

product (see Section VI). 

(ii) The RAMP Coordinator, or his/her designate, will act as the initial link to IRIS 

regarding the immediate availability of PASSCAL instruments, and the details 

of the mobilization. These details include: who is to be in charge of the 

deployment, how many instruments to ship, and where to ship them. 

(iii) In the event that a RAMP is activated before a Post-earthquake Technical 

Clearing House has been designated, a provisional RAMP Coordinator and a 

11
Data Coordinator will be selected by RAMP participants. The composition of 

the participant group will depend on the location and magnitude of the 

earthquake, availability of personnel, etc., particularly for moderate and smaller 

events. The RAMP Coordinator will be responsible for seeing that RAMP 

activities are coordinated in whatever manner is most expedient, consistent with 

RAMP objectives, and allow for integration with the Post-earthquake Technical 

Clearing House once established. He/she will also be responsible for the latter 

once feasible. 

V. Field Operations 

This section discusses the field operations of a CUS RAMP deployment. We 

assume that, at this point, decisions related to the scope and scientific objectives of a 

RAMP deployment and initial funding commitments have been made. Because time is a 

critical factor related to RAMP deployment objectives, we emphasize aspects of the field 

operations plans, particularly pre-arrangement plans, which will enhance rapid as well as 

effective deployment. 

A. Instrumentation and Resources 

Three main types of seismographs are likely to be used in CUS RAMP deployments: 

short-period analog, short-period digital, and broadband digital instruments. Short-period 

analog seismographs have the advantages of rapid deployment and a visual record, which 

can be used for immediate determination of the level of earthquake activity and 

determination of preliminary event locations. For these reasons, short-period analog 

seismographs should be used in initial stages of a RAMP deployment. However, analog 

instruments will be of more limited use in post-experiment data analysis and interpretation. 

Additionally, available analog instruments are mostly single component (usually vertical 

component), which limits their effectiveness in recording shear wave phases. Short-period 

12
digital seismographs will likely be the most useful instrument for CUS RAMP deployments 

because they can be rapidly deployed and provide digital records for subsequent data 

analysis and interpretation. The short-period digital seismographs are mostly multichannel 

instruments that have the advantage of providing 3-component seismic data that can be used 

to analyze and interpret all seismic phases. Furthermore, a large number (ten, initially from 

IRIS/PASSCAL; additional from both IRIS/PASSCAL and University and government 

sources) of reasonably matched, digital seismographs are available on short notice for 

RAMP deployments. Broadband digital seismographs can be used for a CUS RAMP 

deployment and could provide scientifically interesting data. However, effective 

deployment of broadband seismometers is more complicated and takes more time than 

short-period seismometer deployment. Furthermore, broadband seismometers deployed in 

the relatively unconsolidated surficial materials that characterize much of the seismically 

active CUS may be unstable. 

The number of seismographs used in a CUS RAMP deployment will depend on a 

number of factors including: the magnitude and effects of the event that triggers the 

deployment, scientific and mitigation objectives, and the availability of funding, field 

personnel and instruments. Initial deployments will most likely use locally available analog 

and digital seismographs and perhaps the IRIS/PASSCAL RAMP instruments. If an 

extensive deployment is planned, additional seismographs (probably including some 

broadband instruments) will be available on relatively short notice (1-3 days) from 

IRIS/PASSCAL and university and government laboratories. 

Because permanent networks of seismographs exist in the CUS, design and operation 

of a temporary RAMP deployment should consider both the locations of the network 

stations and availability of near-real-time data from network operators. A listing of these 

stations and their characteristics will be available from the ANSS-MA on-line database at 

http://folkworm.ceri.memphis.edu. It should be noted that potential damage to data links, 

instrumentation or network data centers may cause some network station data to be 

13
unavailable during a RAMP deployment. Because rapid response and locally available 

seismographs and other resources will be required for a CUS RAMP deployment, a list of 

available portable instrumentation and resources available in the CUS also will be available 

from the ANSS-MA on-line database. 

B. Personnel 

A list of names, addresses, and phone numbers of key personnel in the CUS and from 

other interested university, government or industry laboratories has been prepared and 

should be maintained. A list will be available from the ANSS-MA on-line database. Preevent planning of possible field operations and training exercises for key personnel is 

suggested because of the need for a rapid response of a CUS RAMP deployment. A 

member of the ANSS-MA post-earthquake response standing subcommittee, or their 

designate, will be responsible for keeping the response portion of the ANSS-MA GIS 

database and website up to date. 

C. Communications 

Rapid and effective RAMP field operations will require good communications among 

the RAMP participants and with emergency management teams and the media. Availability 

and distribution of field communications devices (e.g., cellular phones, two-way 

communications radios) will be coordinated through the Post-earthquake Technical 

Clearing House. RAMP activities also will be coordinated using post-earthquake Web tools 

set up by the USGS. The NEHRP Post-earthquake Investigations Plan also requires that a 

special website be established for communicating to the public, officials, etc. The RAMP 

Coordinator, together with the Data Coordinator, will be responsible for utilization of these 

field website tools and for seeing that appropriate information is posted on the special event 

NEHRP website. The RAMP Coordinator is also responsible for keeping the NEHRP 

14
Investigations Coordinator informed so that he/she may communicate information to the 

media. 

D. Transportation 

The use and availability of field vehicles, other than those belonging to RAMP 

participants, will be coordinated through the Post-earthquake Technical Clearing House. 

Use of aircraft for rapid deployment or data collection will be similarly coordinated. This 

will maximize efficiency in implementation of both scientific and emergency management 

operations. 

E. Logistics 

Potential logistical problems in a CUS RAMP deployment will depend on a large 

number of factors including: the size and scope of the deployment, the locations of array 

stations, the time of day of the triggering event (which will affect the speed of the response 

effort), the time of year of the triggering event (will affect weather, access and vegetation 

conditions), and degree of damage caused by the triggering event. In the event of a major 

earthquake that causes substantial damage, access to desirable field locations may be limited 

by emergency management, police or government decisions. In such a situation, it will be 

useful to provide RAMP field personnel with official letters or badges (from state 

geological surveys, emergency management personnel or state government offices) to 

facilitate access to restricted areas. Such materials will require pre-arrangement because of 

the need for rapid response for a RAMP deployment. Such arrangements are being made 

under the Post-earthquake Technical Clearing House plan being developed by the CUSEC 

Emergency Managers and State Geologists. 

15
F. Coordination 

The RAMP field operations described herein are focused primarily on seismological 

data acquisition. In a post-major-earthquake situation, many other related field operations 

are likely to be conducted. These operations include: GPS/geodesy surveys; structural and 

geotechnical engineering studies, geological investigations, strong motion seismograph 

deployment (which could be part of the RAMP effort), rapid data management, integration 

and assessment efforts, and emergency management activities. Because RAMP 

implementation is part of the CUSEC Post-earthquake Technical Clearing House plan, this 

should guarantee that RAMP field operations are coordinated with these related activities. 

VI. Post-RAMP Data Handling Procedures 

Past experiences of data collectors and distributors have taught us that planning for all 

stages of the data management process increases the likelihood of a final product that is the 

least costly, is of high quality, and is most useful to a large number of investigators. The 

guiding premise behind the policies and recommendations to follow is that data collected 

through a RAMP deployment should be assembled in a usable form and made openly 

available to all interested parties in a timely manner. 

The recommendations fall into three areas of concern related to data management: 1) 

collection and quality assurance, 2) assembly and documentation, and 3) distribution and 

archive. The ANSS-MA post-earthquake response subcommittee will be responsible for 

addressing the recommendations in each of these areas and to work out the details. This 

subcommittee should work with the IRIS Data Management Center (DMC) to arrange for 

assistance with management and long-term archive of data collected through a CUS RAMP 

deployment. We also suggest that a test experiment be conducted to help potential RAMP 

participants anticipate problems. 

16
A. Data Collection and Quality 

Data collection must be coordinated closely with the operations component of the 

RAMP effort to ensure a final product of high quality, usable data. It is anticipated from 

the list of equipment currently available for a RAMP deployment that a large number of 

different instrument types—analog and digital, antiquated and modern—can be anticipated. 

The final data product is to consist of data from as many of these disparate sources as 

possible. Because of the great diversity of instruments, it is particularly important to 

develop standardized forms (e.g., field sheets) to record instrument types, calibration, 

timing, positions, etc. It is recommended that the ANSS-MA post-earthquake response 

subcommittee develop such forms and make them available via the ANSS-MA website. 

B. Data Assembly and Documentation 

CUS RAMP participants should adopt a common data format to which all RAMP data 

will ultimately be converted and archived. To the extent possible, this format should be 

compatible with ANSS-MA processing and archival formats. It is recognized that data 

from a multi-institutional effort will be collected and analyzed in a wide variety of formats. 

However, the final data product should contain all the data in one format for ease of 

handling and archive. Each institution would be expected to submit its data in the adopted 

format. A large array of algorithms now exists for converting among formats and is 

available through the IRIS DMC. Identifying such algorithms would not only make the 

final assembly easier to effect, but would assist in the distribution to, and access by, those 

who prefer the data in a different format. 

To ease the assembly process, a Data Coordinator for each RAMP deployment will be 

designated at the start of the collection effort to work with all participating institutions to 

assemble the final data product. He/she should either be a member of, or coordinate with 

the ANSS-MA post-earthquake response committee to insure compatibility with ANSS-MA 

permanent network data. The Data Coordinator will work with each institution to ensure 

17
that the data submitted for inclusion in the final product is not only in the adopted standard 

format but is accompanied by metadata, or the ancillary information necessary for its use by 

other researchers. While it is recognized that properly documented data sets require 

substantial effort to prepare, data without proper documentation are at best of limited value. 

For this reason, the coordinator will facilitate the assembly of the data documentation as 

well as of the data themselves, and funds should be identified for this effort as soon as 

possible in the experiment. 

The concept of an integrated data product, which includes not only digital waveform 

data but as many related data sets as can be assembled, should be intimately woven into the 

plans for a RAMP deployment. This is discussed in the NEHRP Post-earthquake 

Investigations Plan, and relevant RAMP activities should be coordinated accordingly. 

C. Distribution and Archive 

Data collected in a RAMP deployment and assembled according to the above 

recommendations should be openly available to all interested researchers within a period of 

six months to one year. Because a CUS RAMP deployment is by its nature a temporary 

effort, we recommend that the data collected be held, distributed, and archived by an 

existing data center that can offer long-term data management. This should be the same 

management system employed by the ANSS-MA permanent networks, which is still in 

development. If this system is not the IRIS DMC, then we recommend that RAMP data 

also be archived at the IRIS DMC. IRIS policy currently requires that data collected with 

IRIS instruments be submitted to the DMC within a period of 6 months to one-year after 

the completion of the experiment. Anyone who participated directly or facilitated a RAMP 

experiment should have access to the data immediately after initial quality-control has been 

completed. This arrangement does not preclude other institutions from assembling and 

distributing their own data sets or products. A policy of timely distribution of RAMP data 

to all interested parties has important implications. It may impact the manner in which 

18
instruments are deployed and data are collected, and those not participating in the collection 

effort will greatly benefit from the efforts (and possibly the expense) of those that do (with 

credit given appropriately). 

VII. Training and Long-term Continuation of a RAMP Plan 

The scope of this section is to outline a plan (or at least define the problem) to: 

a) develop the ability to respond to a RAMP and 

b) maintain that capability. 

The regional Post-earthquake Technical Clearing House plan addresses the general 

issues of developing the capability to respond to a significant earthquake as well as 

maintaining it through regularly scheduled response exercises. These exercises should 

include RAMP components. This would facilitate development of technical deployment 

and operation procedures that interface effectively with other aspects of earthquake 

response (e.g., with emergency management efforts). 

The concept of a full-scale RAMP deployment in the CUS has yet to be tested. Due to 

lack of practice, the seismological community is currently underprepared to respond to the 

next moderate, let alone large or devastating, earthquake in the CUS. As it may be years 

until the first full, and between subsequent, RAMP deployments regular exercising of a 

RAMP is of particular concern in the CUS. The basic approach for dealing with this is to 

institutionalize a continuous process of training that is: 

a) comprehensive - involving as many aspects of a RAMP deployment as 

possible, 

b) low cost, 

c) productive - in particular minimizing lost time. 

Since training all RAMP members on each type of recording instrument is impractical, a 

variety of training exercises should be considered. 

19
1) Hold training exercises centered on the IRIS/RAMP Reftek systems, which are 

state-of-the-art seismic recording instruments, and are a large share of the available 

digital recorders. While individuals could be trained at the IRIS Instrument Center at 

New Mexico Tech, it is more efficient to have a training exercise in the CUS. One 

example of this was a 2-day IRIS/RAMP sponsored instrument training exercise 

during September 18-23, 1995 held at The University of Memphis and attended by 

researchers from many CUS groups. Future exercises could be designed with dual 

purpose that includes some scientific objective (e.g. collection of site-response data) 

along with instrument training. 

2) Institute the practice of inviting participants from a range of CUS institutions when 

responding to smaller earthquakes. Examples in which this has happened to a limited 

extent include the M4.5 earthquake near Ashtabula, Ohio in Jan. 2001, the Enola, 

Arkansas swarm that began in May, 2001 and the most recent M5 earthquake near 

Evansville, IN, in June, 2002 

3) Regional planned PASSCAL experiments using either RAMP or IRIS broadband 

array instrumentation. Experiment PIs agree to invite as volunteers regional 

seismologists who are likely to be participants in a future RAMP deployment; this 

offers a low- to moderate-stress opportunity to deploy and operate instruments in a 

realistic environment. 

4) At a minimum, each institution with potential to respond to an earthquake should be 

sure that its own personnel are trained to use the resources (hardware, software, etc.) 

they are likely to work with during a RAMP. 

20
References 

Pavlis, G.L., A.J. Rudman, B.M. Pope, M.W. Hamburger, G.W. Bear, and H. AlShukri, Seismicity of the Wabash Valley seismic zone based on a temporary seismic 

array experiment, Seismo. Res. Letts., 73, 751-761, 2002. 

Tuttle, M. P., E.S. Schweig, J.D. Sims, R.H. Lafferty, L.W. Wolf, M.L. Haynes, 

Marion L., The Earthquake Potential of the New Madrid Seismic Zone, Bull. Seismo. 

Soc. Am., 92, 2080-2089, 2002. 

Appendix - Participants in the 1995 workshop: 

Geoff Abers

Haydar Al-Shukri

Chuck Ammon

Robert Bauer

Thomas M. Berg

James R. Blacklock

Lawrence W. Braile

Paul Bodin

Wang-Ping Chen

Jer-Ming Chiu

Timothy J. Clarke

Scott Davis

Tom Durham

Jim Fowler

Joan Gomberg

Michael W. Hamburger

Robert Herrmann

Norman Hester

David Hoffman

Steve Horton

Doug Johnson

Arch Johnston

John D. Kiefer

Cragin Knox

Timothy Long

Edward T. Luther

Jeff Munsey

Gary Pavlis

Eugene Schweig

John L. Sexton

Bob Smalley

Don Steeples

Seth Stein

Richard T. Williams

Doug Wiens

James H. Williams

Norman F. Williams

Lorraine Wolf

Michael E. Wysession

21