When it comes to generating shake maps with the USGS ShakeMap program there are two main ways to get the job done:
1) Earthworm’s gmew + localmag modules; or
2) SeisComP’s scwfparam module.
Last week a client asked me which I recommended. I responded that though both systems generate the xml files required by ShakeMap, I recommend observatories implement the SeisComP solution as scwfparam has many advantages over gmew:
scwfparam’s advantages over gmew include:
- Whereas gmew generates a single xml input file for ShakeMap, scwfparam can be configured to automatically update the strong motion data available to ShakeMap as the event location is refined.
- scwfparam has an option to remove after shocks
- scwfparam outputs the processed waveforms and their spectra in addition to the xml files
- And gmew has this limitation: “Some warnings about this program: Currently gmew does not know to wait for trace data to appear in the wave_servers. So when run as an Earthworm module, it may not be able to obtain enough trace data for adequate processing. You may want to run gmew manually after all the desired trace data has accumulated in the wave_server.” (source: http://vps.isti.com/trac/ew/wiki/gmew)
With SeisComP the focus is on the end-user experience:
- SeisComP’s graphical user interfaces facilitate troubleshooting and system quality control. You can even configure scwfparam from a graphical user interface without using the command line
- SeisComP’s centralized, database-driven solution for instrument response files, station and event parameters makes it easy to add and maintain new modules like scwfparam.
- SeisComP’s user community is always ready to respond to your questions
- Bug fixes (critical and non-critical ones) are issued continuously throughout the year
Share your experience! All thoughts, opinions and recommendations are welcome.