<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi all,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> At the last February 2008 ANSS
Net-Ops meeting we discussed a bit about vault systems used by various
institutions/agencies. And, I understood there was interest in a
smaller, versatile, robust, water tight, and easily transportable vault
system that could be utilized by all, i.e., a standardized system. If
I remember correctly, there are several goals of the Net-Ops meetings:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- promote cooperation</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- encourage ideas </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- exchange best practices on instrumentation,
communications, power, grounding, installation techniques, inventory, and
monitoring tools</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- promote standardization especially
for broadband and strong motion stations</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In an effort to move toward these goals,
I present information here to promote vault standardization of small/remote
style vaults which use minimum resources to produce maximum response results
to obtain high-quality data. At meeting Greg Steiner discussed the
CERI vault, there was discussion on several types of vault used by Pasadena
from small to large with their largest being similar to the TA (Transportable
Array) style vault, a small style vault (by whom I do not remember) that
was made out of a PVC tube with a PVC lid, which had a conduit connection
protruding from the top, and a small/remote style vault (which also doubled
as a tabletop at the meeting) shown by myself. The primary differences
from USGS's investigations between good structurally designed and insulated
small vaults and large vaults such as the McMillan, CERI, or TA vaults
are poorer response in the low frequency range below 30 seconds and more
excited by microseisms in the range between 4-10 seconds by about 10 db.
See ANSS Vault Design Test results below:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Vault types annotated in plots are:</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">ALQM - McMillan style to specs except
using a gabled roof rather than lean type; soil mounded up to edge of lid.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">ALTA - TA style to specs; soil mounded
up to edge and over lid.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">ALQT - TA style w/ concrete poured
from base all the way up to surface around outside of corrugated conduit;
soil mounded up to edge and over lid.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">ALCE - CERI style vault to specs; soil
mounded to edge and over lid.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">ALQO - Small/remote style vault composed
of 16" O.D. fiberglass tube embedded 2" into 10"x18"
of concrete with tile base; buried under 20" of soil.</font>
<br><font size=1 face="Courier New">ALQI - Same as for ALQO except the
entire vault was isolated by an outer shell using an overpack barrel; all
buried under 14" of soil</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">For vault test photos and a powerpoint
presentation on vault responses see: </font><a href=ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/VaultTests/><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/VaultTests/</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Since the meeting I have made a few
improvements on the vault and installed the first one at station MOOW in
the IW Network near Moose Ponds below Teewinot Mtn in the Grand Teton National
Park (see photos of the MOOW installation at </font><a href=ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/StationMOOW><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/StationMOOW</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">).
The vault, itself, is made from a standard 18" inner diameter
(ID) fiberglass tube with a 1" wide fiberglass flange attached around
the base, and a polyurethane lid with a silicone seal embedded in the lid
to fit over the 1/4" thick wall of the tube. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The standard vault design specifications
are:</font>
<br><img src=cid:_1_0717D0D80717CE6C0006499600257564>
<br>
<ol>
<li value=1><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Vault -- 18" ID x 18"
H x 1/4" T fiberglass tube with a 1" wide flange:<br>
see </font><a href="ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault2_Lid-Opened.jpg"><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault2_Lid-Opened.jpg</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
-- fiberglass tube is strong and resilient,<br>
-- flange helps anchor vault in concrete,<br>
see vault installed at station MOOW: </font><a href="ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/StationMOOW/MOOW_Vault-in-Concrete.jpg"><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/StationMOOW/MOOW_Vault-in-Concrete.jpg</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
-- Because the vault is made from a tube, the height of the vault can be
changed to accommodate taller instrument configurations.<br>
</font>
<li value=2><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Base -- 1/2" T x 20"
D glass plate, sand blasted on both sides, and bonded to 1" wide flange
on base:<br>
see </font><a href="ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault5-Tilted_GlassBase.jpg"><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault5-Tilted_GlassBase.jpg</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
-- </font><font size=2 color=#002041 face="sans-serif">rough surface helps
bond concrete, <br>
-- provides electrical isolation with the Earth, <br>
-- provides a nice flat, even surface for seismometer,<br>
-- sand blasted surface minimizes seismometer slippage,<br>
-- it is a water tight seal.<br>
</font>
<li value=3><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Lid -- a 2" thick polyurethane
lid with embedded U-shaped silicone seal:<br>
see </font><a href="ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault3_Lid-SilconeSeal.jpg"><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault3_Lid-SilconeSeal.jpg</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
-- the polyurethane makes the lid lightweight and strong,<br>
-- the U-shaped seals against both sides of the vault as well as along
the top of the rim providing a water tight seal.<br>
</font>
<li value=4><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Cable Access -- vault engineered
with two approx. 4" square fiberglass, flat-based mounting plates
built into the vault wall:<br>
see </font><a href=ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault12_Shelf_SeisTemplate.jpg><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault12_Shelf_SeisTemplate.jpg</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
-- mounting plates provide a flat base to attach conduit fittings for cable
access,<br>
-- the fittings are PVC bulkhead water-tight fittings </font><font size=3>w/
EPDM gaskets (</font><a href=http://www.plumbingsupply.com/bulkhead.html><font size=2 color=#002041 face="sans-serif">http://www.plumbingsupply.com/bulkhead.html</font></a><font size=3>)
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif">and provide a water-tight seal,<br>
-- the mounting plates are 180 deg from each other and just below the lid;
and will allow side by side vaults to be installed w/ conduit installed
in between,<br>
-- one of the plates is initially drilled to accept a 3-1/8" bulkhead
fitting which will accept 2" ID PVC or liquidtight conduit,<br>
<b>Note</b>: we used liquidtight conduit at station MOOW:
</font><a href=ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/StationMOOW/MOOW_LiquidtightConduit.jpg><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/StationMOOW/MOOW_LiquidtightConduit.jpg</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
-- reducers can be used to accept smaller 1.5" PVC or liquidtight
conduit or other.<br>
</font>
<li value=5><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Latch system -- the lid is clamped
to the vault using three EPDM rubber latches:<br>
see </font><a href="ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault9_Latch-system-closeup-closed.JPG"><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault9_Latch-system-closeup-closed.JPG</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
-- EPDM is a strong, weather resistant rubber,<br>
-- keeper of the latch is galvanized steel mounted/bonded on edge of the
2" wide lid,<br>
-- base of the latch will be made of fiberglass bonded to side of the vault
with a stainless steel bolt instead of the metal base as seen in the photo.<br>
<b>Note:</b> the vault installed at station MOOW has latches that will
be replaced with the ones described above.<br>
</font>
<li value=6><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Inner shelf system -- a shelf
has been engineered inside the vault<br>
see </font><a href=ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault12_Shelf_SeisTemplate.jpg><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault12_Shelf_SeisTemplate.jpg</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
-- shelf is 7" Wide and can be removed to access seismometer,<br>
-- shelf resides about 11" up from the base and below cable access
mounting plates,<br>
-- shelf can be used to rest/anchor other components such as surge protector,<br>
-- optional: add another opposite shelf to possibly allow datalogger
to reside inside vault; may also need to increase height of vault depending
datalogger; Note: some CMG systems have a digitizer cap which will
fit inside vault too.<br>
</font>
<li value=7><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Broadbands -- The design can
accommodate any number of seismometers:<br>
-- Currently we install both a CMG3T- ESP and a MEMS seismometer in the
vault for our remote regional stations,<br>
-- a STS-2 with room to adjust the legs,<br>
-- a CMG-40T or CMG-40TD w/ digitizer cap<br>
-- Trillium 120<br>
</font>
<li value=8><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Strong Motion Mount -- a type
of elevator bolt which can be bonded to glass plate:<br>
see </font><a href="ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault16_SM-ElavatorBolt-Closeup.jpg"><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/CurrentPhotos/Vault16_SM-ElavatorBolt-Closeup.jpg</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
-- nominally a 1/4" x 20 elevator bolt.<br>
-- it's base is flat, wide and circular with a number of holes that
allow bonding material to envelop it and hold fast,<br>
-- the bolt fits both an Episensor and a MEMS mounts.<br>
<b>Note:</b> Currently the bolt is not included in vault manufacture but
I can provide info where to purchase and bonding agent if interest. </font></ol>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Well that is the best I can do to describe
the vault and show its response characteristics in an email. Most
of you have seen its main design at the last meeting and some have seen
it installed at the vault test site in Albuquerque. My interest is
to promote its adoption and use. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Since the meeting several members have
expressed interest and I have sent them some info already. Currently,
I am interested in manufacturing about 6-8 of these. The cost of
each is estimated to be somewhere between $500-600. I know this may
sound expensive to some or if not most of the regional networks. But
if you add up the costs of each of us visiting different stores by vehicle
or searching on-line for appropriate materials, talking to reps on the
phone, shipping the hardware bought (if it is the correct hardware), and
the effort, time, and salary to build our individual style vaults, then
you will discover that much expense and personal time were incurred. This
system will be essentially off-of-the-shelf and ready to be deployed with
little to no tinkering. However, in part because of these economic times,
in part due to the creation of some fiberglass templates, and in part to
devoting some custom labor, the manufacture is hard pressed to produce
less than 20-30 vaults to make it worthwhile; and, of course, the more
systems to be produced the cheaper an individual system will cost.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thus, I am asking everyone to please
evaluate what I have proposed and respond with your interests or comments
especially in light of the Net-Ops goals and cooperation amongst ANSS regional
networks. I make no bones that I have a personal, professional interest
to encourage others to join in the manufacture and purchasing of these
vaults. Currently, I have one major interest -- Bureau of Reclamation
to replace about 6-8 vaults in the Paradox Valley Seismic Network in western
Colorado which monitors the Delores/Colorado Rivers desalination project
which the USGS is a cooperator. Also, currently, I am planning to
install two new IW stations where these type of vaults would be beneficial
to the remote, quiet locations they will be installed.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Finally, sure some may want a different
type of bulkhead fitting possibly or some other small change; but in my
26 years of installing vaults for regional network monitoring and for teleseismic
monitoring where I have used CERI vaults, McMillan vaults, TA vault style,
numerous irrigation style vaults, electronic pedestal type vaults, quick
PVC tube style vaults, upside down garbage can vaults, small salad bowl
style vaults, etc., this style vault satisfies all requirements I have
encountered thus far. And, I have noticed these days, there is more
interest to not only install the seismometers in the vault but the datalogger
too. Guralp's systems with digitizer caps makes it simple for others
who use the RT-130 or Q330 systems, the option to increase height tube
makes it possible. Of course, my interest is to install the vault
at least 1 foot below the Earth's surface or more. Hence, why I rather
have an above ground electronic shelter for regional network installations
especially remote installations like we have in IW network and two more
(McCall and Fox Creek, ID) are planned for this summer.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">see:</font>
<br><a href=ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/StationMOOW/MOOW_BelowSurface1.jpg><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/StationMOOW/MOOW_BelowSurface1.jpg</font></a>
<br><a href=ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/StationMOOW/MOOW_BelowSurface2.jpg><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/meremonte/VaultDesign/StationMOOW/MOOW_BelowSurface2.jpg</font></a>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I have tried to include all parties
that may have an interest. If you are on the Net-Ops list already and receive
a duplicate copy, I apologize.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thank you for your time,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mark</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">******************************************************************************<br>
Mark E. Meremonte Geophysicist
USGS/ANSS/NEIC<br>
<br>
U.S. Geological Survey Work: 303-273-8670 Cell:
303-478-5766<br>
MS 966, Box 25046 Email:
meremonte@usgs.gov<br>
Denver, CO 80225
Web: </font><a href=http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/><font size=2 face="sans-serif">http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov</font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Ship: U.S. Geological Survey, 1711 Illinois St., Golden, CO 80401<br>
******************************************************************************</font>