<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ESurf</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Earth Surface Dynamics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ESurf</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Earth Surf. Dynam.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2196-632X</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/esurf-6-1219-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Short Communication: Monitoring rockfalls <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>
with the Raspberry Shake</article-title><alt-title>Monitoring rockfalls with the Raspberry Shake</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Monitoring rockfalls with the Raspberry Shake}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{A. Manconi et
al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Manconi</surname><given-names>Andrea</given-names></name>
          <email>andrea.manconi@erdw.ethz.ch</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2930-4422</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Coviello</surname><given-names>Velio</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6845-9115</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Galletti</surname><given-names>Maud</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Seifert</surname><given-names>Reto</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Dept. of Earth Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
Zurich, 8092, Switzerland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Facoltà di Scienze e Tecnologie,
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy </institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Andrea Manconi (andrea.manconi@erdw.ethz.ch)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>11</day><month>December</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>6</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <fpage>1219</fpage><lpage>1227</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>3</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>13</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>23</day><month>November</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>3</day><month>December</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1219/2018/esurf-6-1219-2018.html">This article is available from https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1219/2018/esurf-6-1219-2018.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1219/2018/esurf-6-1219-2018.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1219/2018/esurf-6-1219-2018.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e115">We evaluate the performance of the low-cost seismic
sensor Raspberry Shake to identify and monitor rockfall activity in alpine environments.
The test area is a slope adjacent to the Great Aletsch Glacier in the Swiss Alps, i.e.
the Moosfluh deep-seated instability, which has recently undergone a critical
acceleration phase. A local seismic network composed of three Raspberry Shake was
deployed starting from May 2017 in order to record rockfall activity and its relation
with the progressive rock-slope degradation potentially leading to a large rock-slope
failure. Here we present a first assessment of the seismic data acquired from our network
after a monitoring period of 1 year. We show that our network performed well during the
whole duration of the experiment, including the winter period in severe alpine
conditions, and that the seismic data acquired allowed us to clearly discriminate between
rockfalls and other events. This work also provides general information on the potential
use of such low-cost sensors in environmental seismology.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e125">Rockfalls constitute a major hazard in most steep natural rock slopes. The growing number
of residential buildings and transport infrastructure in mountain areas has progressively
increased the exposure to such processes, making the development of reliable detection
systems crucial for early warning and rapid response (Stähli et al., 2015). Local
geological and geomorphological conditions are the main pre-disposing factors affecting
the sizes of failing rock blocks, the falling dynamics, as well as the total runout
distances
(Corominas et al., 2017). Different triggering agents (mainly earthquakes and/or meteo-climatic
variables) also have an impact on slope failure processes, which can range from a single
block fall scenario to large and more complex rock avalanches. In addition, increase in
rockfall activity has been observed in areas affected by large and deep-seated slope
instabilities prior to catastrophic failure events (Rosser et al., 2007).</p>
      <p id="d1e128">Accurate catalogues (including event location, time, and magnitude) are essential to
understand and forecast rockfalls, as well as other landslide processes (Kirschbaum et
al., 2010). Usual approaches to build catalogues are based on chronicles and observations
of past events; however, catalogues may lack completeness, as the information is often
qualitative and constrained to limited time windows and/or specific locations. This is
especially true for small- to medium-size rockfall events (Paranunzio et al., 2016). For
this reasons there is an increasing focus on more quantitative monitoring approaches,
which can provide accurate and unbiased datasets.</p>
      <p id="d1e131">As rockfall phenomena also induce seismic waves
(Dammeier et al., 2011; Dietze et al., 2017), seismic
instruments can be installed directly on the unstable rock face to catch precursory signs
of rock failure (Arosio et al., 2009), or at relatively large distances to detect a
rockfall event occurrence and its propagation (Manconi et al., 2016). In particular,
seismic sensors present a significant number of advantages as they are (i) compact and
relatively low-cost sensors, (ii) highly adaptable to difficult field conditions, and
(iii) can provide reliable information in their flat-response frequency range on a broad
spectrum of mass wasting processes occurring in relatively large areas (Burtin et al.,
2014; Coviello et<?pagebreak page1220?> al., 2015; Vouillamoz et al., 2018). Consequently, in recent years the
seismic signature of rock-slope failure phenomena has been investigated by several
authors in different environments and monitoring set-ups (e.g. Helmstetter and Garambois,
2010; Zimmer and Sitar, 2015; Fuchs et al., 2018). The results have shown how it is
possible to derive information to characterize rockfalls from the seismic signals, with
different levels of accuracy depending on signal sampling rates, distances between the
sensors, and the event, as well as the network density
(Hibert et al., 2017; Provost et al., 2018). High-resolution, dense seismic networks
are expensive to install and need resource-intense maintenance: one
high-resolution seismic station costs in the order of tens of thousands of US
dollars to build and equip, including sensors,
on-site data acquisition systems, telecommunications, and back-up power.
Thus, low-cost solutions are becoming more and more attractive to increase
the capability of detection and investigation of seismic activity (Cochran,
2018). Moreover, low-procurement, as well as limited installation and
maintenance efforts, is envisaged in case of the deployment of seismic
networks including tens (or even hundreds) of sensors. In this scenario, a
recently developed low-cost seismic sensor, i.e. the Raspberry Shake (RS)
seismometers, provides an interesting low-cost plug-and-play solution. The RS
devices have become more and more popular, mainly for home use, educational
purposes, and outreach. However, their potential for seismic monitoring in
challenging environmental conditions is still unexplored. In this work, we
show the results of a 1-year pilot test performed in the Swiss Alps,
deploying a network of three Raspberry Shake seismometers to monitor
rock-slope failure events associated with a large, deep-seated slope
instability. In the following sections, we provide a short technical
description of the sensor, introduce the study area selected, and provide
details on the performance of the Raspberry Shake.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>The Raspberry Shake</title>
      <p id="d1e140">The RS is an all-in-one plug-and-go solution for seismological applications.
Developed by OSOP, S.A. in Panamá, the RS integrates geophone sensors,
24-bit digitizers, period-extension circuits, and computer into a single
enclosure (see details in the Supplement). Currently, available RS versions
(V6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>) measure ground velocities with one (1-D, vertical component) or three
(3-D, one vertical and two horizontal components) geophones (4.5 Hz
Racothech RGI-20DX) and sampling rates are adaptable up to 100 Hz. Moreover,
combination of geophones with other devices like MEMS and omnidirectional
pressure sensors are also available. The power supply is 5 V (2.5 A supply)
and consumption is estimated in 2.8 W at start-up time and 1.5 W during
running time. Data are saved on a local SD card (default 8 Gb, but larger
cards can be installed), and the estimated data amount per channel is below
10 Mb day<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> years of local storage). Local storage can be
thus adapted depending on the SD card mounted, the number of sensors
available, and sampling rate selected. By default, time synchronization is
based on NTP (Network Time Protocol); however, a GPS module can be connected
via USB for situations where internet connection is not available. We refer
the reader to the Supplement and to the web page
<uri>https://raspberryshake.org</uri> (last access: 10 December 2018) for
additional technical details on power consumption and communication issues.
At the moment of our procurement (January 2017) only the RS-V4 was available
on the market, and thus the results and performance assessments presented
below refer to the 1-D version (vertical component 4.5 Hz geophone, with
50 Hz sampling rate). Recently, Anthony et al. (2018) provided the results
of systematic lab and field tests to assess the performance of RS-4Ds and
suggested that they are suitable to complement existing networks aimed at
studying local and regional seismic events.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e177">(left panel) Map of the area of investigation with indication of the location of
the three RS seismic stations starting from May 2017. <bold>(a–c)</bold> Pictures of the RS
installation (<bold>a</bold>, RS-1; <bold>b</bold>, RS-2; <bold>c</bold>, RS-3). Continuous records
of seismic signals at the three stations are available since the beginning of July 2017.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1219/2018/esurf-6-1219-2018-f01.jpg"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Area of study and monitoring network</title>
      <p id="d1e204">The Great Aletsch Glacier region (Swiss Alps, see Fig. 1) has undergone several cycles of
glacial advancement and retreat, which have deeply affected the evolution of the
surrounding landscape (Grämiger et al., 2017). In this region, the effects of the
current climate change are striking, as the Aletsch glacier (blue shading in Fig. 1) is
experiencing remarkable retreat with rates in the order of 50 m every year (Jouvet et
al., 2011). In particular, a deep-seated slope instability located in the southern slope
of the Aletsch valley, more specifically in the area called Moosfluh, has shown evidence
of progressive increase in surface displacement during the past decades (Kos et al.,
2016; Strozzi et al., 2010). In the late summer 2016, an unusual acceleration of the
Moosfluh rockslide was observed, with maximum velocities locally reaching up to 1 m per
day (Manconi et al., 2018). Such a critical evolution caused the generation of deep
tensile cracks, and resulted in an increased number of rock failures at different
locations of the landside body.</p>
      <p id="d1e207">In this scenario, we have installed a local network composed of three RS V4
sensors. RS-1 (installed on 19 May 2017) and RS-2 (installed on 27 June 2017)
are co-located within precedent monitoring infrastructure and exploit the
necessary power from them (solar panels and batteries) and the internet
connection (GSM) necessary for real-time data transmission (Loew et al.,
2017). RS-3 (installed on 3 July 2017) is located in the basement of the
Moosfluh cable-car station, and depends on existing power and Internet
connection facilities. The coupling between the station and the ground is
established through an aluminium plate
(10 mm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 180 mm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 280 mm) screwed directly on the rock
face by means of three M10 bolt anchors. The standard RS enclosure provided
is made of plastic plates (5 mm thickness) and classified as IP10 (see
directive IEC 60529, Edition<?pagebreak page1221?> 2.2, 2013, for IP coding). Due to the expected
harsh conditions at our monitoring locations, especially during winter
periods, we assembled the RS on a polycarbonate enclosure (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">180</mml:mn><mml:mtext> mm</mml:mtext><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">75</mml:mn><mml:mtext> mm</mml:mtext><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">180</mml:mn><mml:mtext> mm</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, IP67, model PC 175/75 HG –
<uri>https://www.distrelec.ch/</uri>, last access: 10 December 2018) to isolate
the sensor and the electronic parts from direct effects of external agents
(rain, snow, wind, dust, animals, see also details in the Supplement). IP67
enclosures are currently available to buy from the RS shop (not available at
the time of our procurement). Data acquired from RS-1 and RS-2 are
transmitted in real time to the ETH Zurich servers via cellular network
through a mobile access router (AnyRover, see details at
<uri>https://www.anyweb.ch/</uri>, 10 December 2018). Instead, the RS-3 data are
stored locally and also forwarded (optional feature in the RS configuration)
to a Winston Wave Server (Wave INformation STOrage Network, developed by the
Alaska Volcano Observatory to replace the Earthworm Wave Server, data resides
in an open source MySQL database).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e254">Comparison of background-noise levels between a broadband station (CH.FIESA) and
the Raspberry Shake stations (RS-1, RS-2, and RS-3) installed in the Aletsch region for
1 year. Probability density functions (PDFs) of the power spectral densities (PSDs) were
computed by stacking windows of 10 min in two reference weeks, one in winter
(<bold>a</bold>, 1–8 March 2017) and one in summer (<bold>b</bold>, 1–8 August 2017). The black
lines represent high and low reference noise models. The broadband station CH.FIESA
managed by the Swiss Seismological Service is installed in the Aletsch region about 5 km
away from the RS network. Branching of PSD/PDF at RS-3 is caused by diurnal operations of
the cable car.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1219/2018/esurf-6-1219-2018-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Monitoring performance</title>
      <p id="d1e280">RS-1 and RS-2 stations, both installed on
the ground surface at elevations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m a.s.l. in an alpine environment, provided
continuous records of seismic data since the installation without any site intervention
in the 1-year monitoring period presented here. Air temperatures in this period ranged
from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in winter to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in summer, and snow cover up to
3 m was recorded at the RS-2 location and around 1.5 m at the RS-1 location between
January and March 2018. This confirms that the enclosure we have deployed was sufficient
to protect the Raspberry Pi components against alpine environmental conditions. We
reported only very limited data loss (in total less than 5 min records over 1 year) at
the stations RS-1 and RS-2, associated with planned system restarts after configuration
changes (performed through remote access). However, at the RS-3 location, the data loss
was more consistent (in total 1 week of data loss), due to power outage at the cable-car
station during a period of planned maintenance. However, the problem was unrelated to the
RS-3 system itself, which started to properly record data again without intervention when
the power was set back to normal. Data transfer through the cellular network links (RS-1
and RS-2) also worked smoothly during the 1-year period. The results of systematic ping
tests (20 ICMP echo pings of 56 bytes every 300 s) show an average response time below
100 ms. No remarkable network outage is reported during the period of observation (see
also the Supplement), thus ensuring continuity for potential near-real-time analyses, as
well as for the NTP service synchronization. Estimated timing quality is thus in the
order of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s (1 sample) or better. The current network density (three stations
with inter-station distance of about 1 km) is sufficient for detection and validation of
the seismic signals but probably not enough to achieve accurate source locations. These
inaccuracies can be further enhanced by time synchronization issues between the stations
due to the use of NTP services; however, expected timing errors are in the order (or
smaller) of the biases due to incorrect velocity models or imprecise phase picking
(Anthony et al., 2018; Lacroix and Helmstetter, 2011).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e344">Performance of the RS-1 station in recording earthquakes. (top panel) Spatial
distribution of earthquake events identified in the RS-1 waveforms out of a catalogue of
64 earthquakes that occurred within the 1-year time period at distances up to
15 000 km. <bold>(a–d)</bold> Examples of seismic signals recorded by RS-1 associated with
earthquakes of different magnitudes that occurred at increasing distances from the
monitoring station. Signals are band-pass filtered (Butterworth, second-order) between
0.5 and 15 Hz.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1219/2018/esurf-6-1219-2018-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e356">We investigated the quality of the seismic data acquired by comparing the
background noise (McNamara and Buland, 2004) of our three RSs against a
reference broadband seismic station (CH.FIESA, managed by the Swiss
Seismological Service, SED; see details at
<uri>http://stations.seismo.ethz.ch</uri>, 10 December 2018) located at about
5 km distance from the RS-1 station (Fig. 2). The results show that the RS
stations performed within the expected boundaries for such low-cost<?pagebreak page1222?> sensors
(see also nominal instrumental noise levels in the Supplement). As expected,
the main difference between the CH.FIESA and our stations is the performance
for long period signals (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s), due to bandwidth limitation of the RS
sensors. We also note that during winter, performance for short period
signals (0.1–1 s) is comparable to CH.FIESA, while in summer it is still
within the noise model boundaries
(Peterson, 1993) but slightly worse. This is probably because
in winter the snow cover (maximum during the observation period 3 m at RS-1 and 1.5 m
at RS-2) protected the sensors (which are installed at the surface) against surficial
noise sources. Moreover, during winter the glacial environment is relatively quiet
compared with the spring and summer periods, when during the day surface water run-off,
as well as glacier flows, is very active and may affect the background-noise levels. In
addition, anthropic disturbances in this region are stronger during summer periods due to
the large number of tourists visiting the Great Aletsch Glacier area. The data acquired
from RS-3 systematically suffered from a higher noise level (see the clear PSD/PDF
branching in Fig. 2) during the cable-car operational time period (between 08:00 and
16:30 LT, local time), while during evenings and nights the background-noise level was
similar to RS-1 and RS-2 stations.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e375">Selection of signals associated with rockfall events. Signals are band-pass
filtered (Butterworth, second-order) between 0.5 and 15 Hz Times are in UTC. Note the
high noise level at station RS-3 caused by the cable-car operations (see also Sect. 4 for
more details).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1219/2018/esurf-6-1219-2018-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e386">Details of a rockfall event that occurred on 27 July 2017 around 15:37 UTC.
<bold>(a)</bold> Seismic signal is clearly visible at the three RS stations. Note the
differences in amplitudes and phases. <bold>(b)</bold> Three snapshots with 10-min baseline
acquired by the webcam. The rockfall event is clearly visible (white circle). Future work
will jointly exploit seismic and optical images to locate and characterize rockfall
events.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://esurf.copernicus.org/articles/6/1219/2018/esurf-6-1219-2018-f05.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Earthquakes</title>
      <?pagebreak page1223?><p id="d1e407">In a monitoring scenario where the main interest is to detect rockfalls, recognition of
earthquake events in the seismic traces is very important for two main reasons:
(i) ground shaking due to local earthquakes (distances <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km) can cause rockfalls
(e.g. Romeo et al., 2017), thus their
identification is important to properly study the triggering factors affecting the
rock-slope degradation; (ii) the signals associated with distant events, such as regional
earthquakes (distance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km) and teleseisms (distance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km) have
characteristics that might be similar (in terms of amplitudes and durations) with the
signals caused by mass wasting phenomena (Dammeier et al., 2011; Helmstetter and
Garambois, 2010; Manconi et al., 2016; Provost et al., 2018), and thus introduce a bias
in the aimed for rockfall catalogue. In order to test the performance of our local RS
network, we selected seismic events from the catalogue provided by USGS (NEIC, see
catalogue in the Supplement, Table S1), considering crustal events at depths shallower
than 50 km, magnitudes larger than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and distances up to 15 000 km from our
study area within the 1-year time period (19 May 2017 and 19 May 2018). We found that 47
out of the 64 selected earthquake events (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">73</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) were clearly visible in the
waveform recorded by the RS-1 (Fig. 3). As expected, the detectable magnitude as well as
the signal amplitude scales with the distance from the seismic event's source. From the
waveforms (Fig. 3a–d) it is possible to recognize the main differences in terms of
amplitudes, duration, and signal characteristics for different events.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Rockfall signals</title>
      <p id="d1e467">About 250 rockfall events have been visually identified in the seismic traces
(recorded by at least in two stations) during the period between 1 July and
31 October 2017, and systematically validated using the images from the
camera installed on the right side of the valley. In Fig. 4 we show a
selection of waveforms associated with rockfall events. Qualitative analysis
on the signals recorded by the three stations may already provide preliminary
indications on the rockfall processes. Considering the amplitudes and
durations of the waveforms, we can derive first-order interpretations on the
size of the rockfall and/or on the complexity of the event. For example, the
rockfall signal recorded on 21 August 2017 is very different from the one
acquired on 19 September 2017 in terms of maximum amplitude and total
duration. Indeed, the first one is associated with the failure of a single
block that did not run out very long due to low energy and/or unfavourable
kinematic conditions (presence of obstacles such as deep counterscarps
present in the Moosfluh area; Manconi et al., 2018), while the second is
associated with a relatively large rock avalanche involving several rock
blocks with some of them reaching the glacier (see also pictures in the
Supplement). In general, the RS-2 station, which is located on the same slope
affected by the rock failure at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km distance from the source area,
records larger amplitudes compared to RS-1 (located in front of the rockfall
area but on the other side of the valley) and to RS-3 (installed at the
cable-car location). This is always true for the relatively small rockfalls,
while in the case of events with longer durations (see for example the
19 September 2017 event in Fig. 4) RS-3 recorded the largest amplitude. The
webcam pictures helped to confirm events recorded during daylight, cloud-free
conditions;<?pagebreak page1224?> however, as the majority of the events in our period of
observation occurred over night (see Supplement, Fig. S3), the identification
is often not straightforward when there is more than one event per night. In
some cases, despite clear seismic signals, we did not see any changes in the
webcam pictures acquired before and after. This can be caused by the low
resolution of the pictures and/or by rockfall events that occurred out of the
camera's view, as well as by other processes occurring in the subsurface
(i.e. creeping and stick-slip behaviour) observed also at other large
rock-slope instabilities (Poli et al., 2017). In Fig. 5, we show a clear
example where the seismic signals recorded at the three RS stations are
unambiguously validated as a rockfall event by consecutive pictures.
Differences in signal phases and amplitudes, as well as in first arrivals,
can be related to the different source-station distances, propagation of
surface waves through different materials, or site effects at the station
locations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <title>Other sources of seismic signals</title>
      <?pagebreak page1225?><p id="d1e486">We report a signal recorded on 23 August 2017 (see Supplement, Fig. S4) which
presented typical characteristics of a surficial mass wasting, i.e. emerging
onset and major spectral content between 2 and 5 Hz; however, the first
arrivals as well as the amplitudes were very similar at both RS-1 and RS-2
(high noise levels due to the cable-car operations did not allow us to detect
this event at RS-3). Moreover, the webcam pictures acquired before and after
the event did not show changes potentially referring to a mass wasting in the
local study area. Indeed, this signal is the seismic signature of the Piz
Cengalo rock avalanche (ca. 3 million cubic metres of failed material)
occurred more than 100 km away from the monitoring location (Amann et al.,
2018). This confirms the potential of low-cost RS sensors to detect
relatively large surface mass wasting processes not only at very local scales
but also at regional scales. <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>
      <p id="d1e490">Apart from geophysical
phenomena, we systematically observed seismic signals associated with
environmental variables (such as rainfall events) of an anthropic nature (for
example helicopter and airplane flights) and/or of an unclear source (see the
Supplement) during the monitoring period presented here. In the Supplement we
present examples of these signals. Since our future work is aimed at
exploring ad hoc algorithms to attempt automatic detection and location of
the rockfall events in alpine settings, sources of disturbances on seismic
signals will be carefully evaluated and further investigated to understand
their nature and mitigate their effect on data analysis
(Meyer et al., 2018).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Summary</title>
      <p id="d1e501">In this work we show the performance of a network of three Raspberry Shake (RS) during a
1-year pilot project aimed at testing such low-cost seismic sensors (developed for home
use) to study rockfall activity in alpine environments. Our results highlight that,
despite installation on the rock surface and only moderate protection from the expected
harsh environmental conditions, the RS seismometers provided continuous waveforms during
the 1-year observation period, without any further intervention after the installation.
Continuous seismic monitoring for rockfall detection is of high relevance in alpine
areas, where the use of other instruments can be hindered due to environmental
conditions, logistics, and/or high costs. We also show that low background-noise levels
at our RS stations allowed for the detection of local, regional, and distant earthquakes,
as well as large mass wasting at relatively large distances. Currently, visual
interpretation of the waveform properties in time and frequency domains allowed us to
discriminate between rockfall events associated with the evolution of the slope
instability, e.g. rockfall phenomena of different size and runout, and seismic events,
such as regional earthquakes and teleseisms. Future work is aimed at developing automatic
detection and discrimination, as well as at attempting location of seismic signals due<?pagebreak page1226?> to
rockfalls. During the design of this pilot study, we aimed at retrieving the number of
rockfall events that occurred and use the event amplitudes and durations as a proxy to
classify their size. However, as demonstrated in this work, the performance of the RS in
alpine environment look better than expected, and the use of higher sampling rates, as
well as 3-D ground velocity records instead of 1-D vertical components only, might
further enhance the capacity of better describing rockfall events. We thus foresee that
due to their good performance and low cost, RS will be more and more adopted in research
studies.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e508">The Raspberry Shake worldwide network (<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.7914/SN/AM" ext-link-type="DOI">10.7914/SN/AM</ext-link>,
Raspberry Shake Community, 2016) is accessible through FDSN web services at
<uri>http://caps.raspberryshakedata.com/</uri> (last access: 10 December 2018).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e517">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-1219-2018-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-1219-2018-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p id="d1e526">AM designed the study, installed the instruments, analyzed the data,
and wrote the paper. VC and MG participated in the field campaigns, analyzed
the data, and participated in the paper writing. RS provided support for the
design and installation of the instruments in the Aletsch region. All the
authors revised the manuscript.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e532">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement">

      <p id="d1e538">This article is part of the special issue “From process to
signal – advancing environmental seismology”. It is a result of the EGU
Galileo conference, Ohlstadt, Germany, 6–9 June 2017.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e544">We thank Branden Christensen and Richard Boaz (OSOP) for detailed technical information
on the RS sensors. Discussions with John Clinton (ETHZ-SED), Matteo Picozzi (University
of Naples, Fedefico II), Angelo Strollo (GFZ Potsdam), and Víctor Márquez (CGEO
UNAM) provided important hints during the pilot study and the paper writing. We are
indebted to Robert Tanner from ETHZ-SED for the RS network communication settings and
continuous support on automatic data transfer. We thank the reviewers Jan Beutel (ETHZ)
and Florian Fuchs (University Vienna), as well as the editor Fabian Walter (ETHZ), for
their insightful comments and suggestions to improve the
manuscript.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>Edited by: Fabian Walter <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: Florian Fuchs and Jan Beutel</p></ack><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Amann, F., Kos, A., Phillips, M. Kenner, R.: The Piz Cengalo Bergsturz and
subsequent debris flows, Geophys. Res. Abstr., 20, EGU2018-14700, EGU General
Assembly 2018, Vienna, Austria, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Anthony, R. E., Ringler, A. T., Wilson, D. C., and Wolin, E.: Do Low-Cost
Seismographs Perform Well Enough for Your Network? An Overview of Laboratory
Tests and Field Observations of the OSOP Raspberry Shake 4D, Seismol. Res.
Lett., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180251" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1785/0220180251</ext-link>, online first, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Arosio, D., Longoni, L., Papini, M., Scaioni, M., Zanzi, L., and Alba, M.:
Towards rockfall forecasting through observing deformations and listening to
microseismic emissions, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 1119–1131,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-1119-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/nhess-9-1119-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Burtin, A., Hovius, N., McArdell, B. W., Turowski, J. M., and Vergne, J.:
Seismic constraints on dynamic links between geomorphic processes and routing
of sediment in a steep mountain catchment, Earth Surf. Dynam., 2, 21–33,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2-21-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-2-21-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Cochran, E. S.: To catch a quake, Nat. Commun., 9, 2508,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04790-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-018-04790-9</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Corominas, J., Mavrouli, O., and Ruiz-Carulla, R.: Magnitude and frequency
relations: are there geological constraints to the rockfall size?,
Landslides, 15, 829–845, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0910-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10346-017-0910-z</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Coviello, V., Arattano, M. and Turconi, L.: Detecting torrential processes
from a distance with a seismic monitoring network, Nat. Hazards, 78,
2055–2080, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1819-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11069-015-1819-2</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Dammeier, F., Moore, J. R., Haslinger, F., and Loew, S.: Characterization of
alpine rockslides using statistical analysis of seismic signals, J. Geophys.
Res., 116, F04024, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002037" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JF002037</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Dietze, M., Mohadjer, S., Turowski, J. M., Ehlers, T. A., and Hovius, N.:
Seismic monitoring of small alpine rockfalls – validity, precision and
limitations, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 653–668,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-653-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-5-653-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Fuchs, F., Lenhardt, W., Bokelmann, G., and the AlpArray Working Group:
Seismic detection of rockslides at regional scale: examples from the Eastern
Alps and feasibility of kurtosis-based event location, Earth Surf. Dynam., 6,
955–970, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-955-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-6-955-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Grämiger, L. M., Moore, J. R., Gischig, V. S., Ivy-Ochs, S., and Loew,
S.: Beyond debuttressing: Mechanics of paraglacial rock slope damage during
repeat glacial cycles, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 122, 1004–1036,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF003967" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JF003967</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Helmstetter, A. and Garambois, S.: Seismic monitoring of Séchilienne
rockslide (French Alps): Analysis of seismic signals and their correlation
with rainfalls, J. Geophys. Res., 115, F03016, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001532" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JF001532</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Hibert, C., Malet, J.-P., Bourrier, F., Provost, F., Berger, F., Bornemann,
P., Tardif, P., and Mermin, E.: Single-block rockfall dynamics inferred from
seismic signal analysis, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 283–292,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-283-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-5-283-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1227?><ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Jouvet, G., Huss, M., Funk, M., and Blatter, H.: Modelling the retreat of
Grosser Aletschgletscher, Switzerland, in a changing climate, J. Glaciol.,
57, 1033–1045, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Kirschbaum, D. B., Adler, R., Hong, Y., Hill, S., and Lerner-Lam, A. L.: A
global landslide catalog for hazard applications – Method, results, and
limitations, Nat. Hazards, 52, 561–575, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9401-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11069-009-9401-4</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Kos, A., Amann, F., Strozzi, T., Delaloye, R., von Ruette, J., and Springman,
S.: Contemporary glacier retreat triggers a rapid landslide response, Great
Aletsch Glacier, Switzerland, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 12466–12474,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071708" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL071708</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Lacroix, P. and Helmstetter, A.: Location of Seismic Signals Associated with
Microearthquakes and Rockfalls on the Séchilienne Landslide, French Alps,
B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 101, 341–353, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100110" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1785/0120100110</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Loew, S., Gischig, V., Glueer, F., Seifert, R., and Moore, J. R.:
Multidisciplinary monitoring of progressive failure processes in brittle rock
slopes, in: Rock Mechanics and Engineering Volume 4: Excavation, Support and
Monitoring, CRC Press, London, 4, 629–662, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Manconi, A., Picozzi, M., Coviello, V., De Santis, F., and Elia, L.:
Real-time detection, location, and characterization of rockslides using
broadband regional seismic networks, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6960–6967,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069572" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL069572</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Manconi, A., Kourkouli, P., Caduff, R., Strozzi, T., and Loew, S.: Monitoring
Surface Deformation over a Failing Rock Slope with the ESA Sentinels:
Insights from Moosfluh Instability, Swiss Alps, Remote Sens., 10, 672,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050672" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs10050672</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>McNamara, D. E. and Buland, R. P.: Ambient Noise Levels in the Continental
United States, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 94, 1517–1527, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1785/012003001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1785/012003001</ext-link>,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Meyer, M., Weber, S., Beutel, J., and Thiele, L.: Systematic Identification
of External Influences in Multi-Year Micro-Seismic Recordings Using
Convolutional Neural Networks, Earth Surf. Dynam. Discuss.,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2018-60" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-2018-60</ext-link>, in review, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Paranunzio, R., Laio, F., Chiarle, M., Nigrelli, G., and Guzzetti, F.:
Climate anomalies associated with the occurrence of rockfalls at
high-elevation in the Italian Alps, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16,
2085–2106, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2085-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/nhess-16-2085-2016</ext-link>, 2016. </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Peterson, J. R.: Observations and modeling of seismic background noise,
Report, USGS Open-File Report 93-322, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr93322" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3133/ofr93322</ext-link>, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Poli, P.: Creep and slip: Seismic precursors to the Nuugaatsiaq landslide
(Greenland), Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 2017GL075039,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075039" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL075039</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Provost, F., Malet, J.-P., Hibert, C., Helmstetter, A., Radiguet, M.,
Amitrano, D., Langet, N., Larose, E., Abancó, C., Hürlimann, M., Lebourg,
T., Levy, C., Le Roy, G., Ulrich, P., Vidal, M., and Vial, B.: Towards a
standard typology of endogenous landslide seismic sources, Earth Surf.
Dynam., 6, 1059–1088, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-1059-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-6-1059-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Raspberry Shake Community: Other/Seismic Network, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.7914/SN/AM" ext-link-type="DOI">10.7914/SN/AM</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Romeo, S.,  Di Matteo, L., Melelli, L., Cencetti, C., Dragoni, W., and
Fredduzzi, A.: Seismic-induced rockfalls and landslide dam following the
October 30, 2016 earthquake in Central Italy, Landslides, 14, 1457–1465,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0841-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10346-017-0841-8</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Rosser, N., Lim, M., Petley, D., Dunning, S., and Allison, R.: Patterns of
precursory rockfall prior to slope failure, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 112,
F04014, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000642" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JF000642</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Stähli, M., Sättele, M., Huggel, C., McArdell, B. W., Lehmann, P., Van
Herwijnen, A., Berne, A., Schleiss, M., Ferrari, A., Kos, A., Or, D., and
Springman, S. M.: Monitoring and prediction in early warning systems for
rapid mass movements, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 905–917,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-905-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/nhess-15-905-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Strozzi, T., Delaloye, R., Kääb, A., Ambrosi, C., Perruchoud, E., and
Wegmüller, U.: Combined observations of rock mass movements using
satellite SAR interferometry, differential GPS, airborne digital
photogrammetry, and airborne photography interpretation, J. Geophys. Res.,
115, F01014, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001311" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JF001311</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Vouillamoz, N., Rothmund, S., and Joswig, M.: Characterizing the complexity
of microseismic signals at slow-moving clay-rich debris slides: the
Super-Sauze (southeastern France) and Pechgraben (Upper Austria) case
studies, Earth Surf. Dynam., 6, 525–550,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-525-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/esurf-6-525-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Zimmer, V. L. and Sitar, N.: Detection and location of rock falls using
seismic and infrasound sensors, Eng. Geol., 193, 49–60,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.04.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.04.007</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Short Communication: Monitoring rockfalls with the Raspberry Shake</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>We evaluate the performance of the low-cost seismic
sensor Raspberry Shake to identify and monitor rockfall activity in alpine environments.
The test area is a slope adjacent to the Great Aletsch Glacier in the Swiss Alps, i.e.
the Moosfluh deep-seated instability, which has recently undergone a critical
acceleration phase. A local seismic network composed of three Raspberry Shake was
deployed starting from May 2017 in order to record rockfall activity and its relation
with the progressive rock-slope degradation potentially leading to a large rock-slope
failure. Here we present a first assessment of the seismic data acquired from our network
after a monitoring period of 1 year. We show that our network performed well during the
whole duration of the experiment, including the winter period in severe alpine
conditions, and that the seismic data acquired allowed us to clearly discriminate between
rockfalls and other events. This work also provides general information on the potential
use of such low-cost sensors in environmental seismology.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Amann, F., Kos, A., Phillips, M. Kenner, R.: The Piz Cengalo Bergsturz and
subsequent debris flows, Geophys. Res. Abstr., 20, EGU2018-14700, EGU General
Assembly 2018, Vienna, Austria, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Anthony, R. E., Ringler, A. T., Wilson, D. C., and Wolin, E.: Do Low-Cost
Seismographs Perform Well Enough for Your Network? An Overview of Laboratory
Tests and Field Observations of the OSOP Raspberry Shake 4D, Seismol. Res.
Lett., <a href="https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180251" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180251</a>, online first, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Arosio, D., Longoni, L., Papini, M., Scaioni, M., Zanzi, L., and Alba, M.:
Towards rockfall forecasting through observing deformations and listening to
microseismic emissions, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 1119–1131,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-1119-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-1119-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Burtin, A., Hovius, N., McArdell, B. W., Turowski, J. M., and Vergne, J.:
Seismic constraints on dynamic links between geomorphic processes and routing
of sediment in a steep mountain catchment, Earth Surf. Dynam., 2, 21–33,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2-21-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2-21-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Cochran, E. S.: To catch a quake, Nat. Commun., 9, 2508,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04790-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04790-9</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Corominas, J., Mavrouli, O., and Ruiz-Carulla, R.: Magnitude and frequency
relations: are there geological constraints to the rockfall size?,
Landslides, 15, 829–845, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0910-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0910-z</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Coviello, V., Arattano, M. and Turconi, L.: Detecting torrential processes
from a distance with a seismic monitoring network, Nat. Hazards, 78,
2055–2080, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1819-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1819-2</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Dammeier, F., Moore, J. R., Haslinger, F., and Loew, S.: Characterization of
alpine rockslides using statistical analysis of seismic signals, J. Geophys.
Res., 116, F04024, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002037" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JF002037</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Dietze, M., Mohadjer, S., Turowski, J. M., Ehlers, T. A., and Hovius, N.:
Seismic monitoring of small alpine rockfalls – validity, precision and
limitations, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 653–668,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-653-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-653-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Fuchs, F., Lenhardt, W., Bokelmann, G., and the AlpArray Working Group:
Seismic detection of rockslides at regional scale: examples from the Eastern
Alps and feasibility of kurtosis-based event location, Earth Surf. Dynam., 6,
955–970, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-955-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-955-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Grämiger, L. M., Moore, J. R., Gischig, V. S., Ivy-Ochs, S., and Loew,
S.: Beyond debuttressing: Mechanics of paraglacial rock slope damage during
repeat glacial cycles, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 122, 1004–1036,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF003967" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JF003967</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Helmstetter, A. and Garambois, S.: Seismic monitoring of Séchilienne
rockslide (French Alps): Analysis of seismic signals and their correlation
with rainfalls, J. Geophys. Res., 115, F03016, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001532" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001532</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Hibert, C., Malet, J.-P., Bourrier, F., Provost, F., Berger, F., Bornemann,
P., Tardif, P., and Mermin, E.: Single-block rockfall dynamics inferred from
seismic signal analysis, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 283–292,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-283-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-5-283-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Jouvet, G., Huss, M., Funk, M., and Blatter, H.: Modelling the retreat of
Grosser Aletschgletscher, Switzerland, in a changing climate, J. Glaciol.,
57, 1033–1045, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Kirschbaum, D. B., Adler, R., Hong, Y., Hill, S., and Lerner-Lam, A. L.: A
global landslide catalog for hazard applications – Method, results, and
limitations, Nat. Hazards, 52, 561–575, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9401-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9401-4</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Kos, A., Amann, F., Strozzi, T., Delaloye, R., von Ruette, J., and Springman,
S.: Contemporary glacier retreat triggers a rapid landslide response, Great
Aletsch Glacier, Switzerland, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 12466–12474,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071708" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071708</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Lacroix, P. and Helmstetter, A.: Location of Seismic Signals Associated with
Microearthquakes and Rockfalls on the Séchilienne Landslide, French Alps,
B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 101, 341–353, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100110" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100110</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Loew, S., Gischig, V., Glueer, F., Seifert, R., and Moore, J. R.:
Multidisciplinary monitoring of progressive failure processes in brittle rock
slopes, in: Rock Mechanics and Engineering Volume 4: Excavation, Support and
Monitoring, CRC Press, London, 4, 629–662, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Manconi, A., Picozzi, M., Coviello, V., De Santis, F., and Elia, L.:
Real-time detection, location, and characterization of rockslides using
broadband regional seismic networks, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6960–6967,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069572" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069572</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Manconi, A., Kourkouli, P., Caduff, R., Strozzi, T., and Loew, S.: Monitoring
Surface Deformation over a Failing Rock Slope with the ESA Sentinels:
Insights from Moosfluh Instability, Swiss Alps, Remote Sens., 10, 672,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050672" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050672</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>McNamara, D. E. and Buland, R. P.: Ambient Noise Levels in the Continental
United States, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 94, 1517–1527, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1785/012003001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1785/012003001</a>,
2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Meyer, M., Weber, S., Beutel, J., and Thiele, L.: Systematic Identification
of External Influences in Multi-Year Micro-Seismic Recordings Using
Convolutional Neural Networks, Earth Surf. Dynam. Discuss.,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2018-60" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-2018-60</a>, in review, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Paranunzio, R., Laio, F., Chiarle, M., Nigrelli, G., and Guzzetti, F.:
Climate anomalies associated with the occurrence of rockfalls at
high-elevation in the Italian Alps, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16,
2085–2106, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2085-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2085-2016</a>, 2016. 
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Peterson, J. R.: Observations and modeling of seismic background noise,
Report, USGS Open-File Report 93-322, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr93322" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr93322</a>, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Poli, P.: Creep and slip: Seismic precursors to the Nuugaatsiaq landslide
(Greenland), Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 2017GL075039,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075039" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075039</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Provost, F., Malet, J.-P., Hibert, C., Helmstetter, A., Radiguet, M.,
Amitrano, D., Langet, N., Larose, E., Abancó, C., Hürlimann, M., Lebourg,
T., Levy, C., Le Roy, G., Ulrich, P., Vidal, M., and Vial, B.: Towards a
standard typology of endogenous landslide seismic sources, Earth Surf.
Dynam., 6, 1059–1088, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-1059-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-1059-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Raspberry Shake Community: Other/Seismic Network, <a href="https://doi.org/10.7914/SN/AM" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.7914/SN/AM</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Romeo, S.,  Di Matteo, L., Melelli, L., Cencetti, C., Dragoni, W., and
Fredduzzi, A.: Seismic-induced rockfalls and landslide dam following the
October 30, 2016 earthquake in Central Italy, Landslides, 14, 1457–1465,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0841-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0841-8</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Rosser, N., Lim, M., Petley, D., Dunning, S., and Allison, R.: Patterns of
precursory rockfall prior to slope failure, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 112,
F04014, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000642" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JF000642</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Stähli, M., Sättele, M., Huggel, C., McArdell, B. W., Lehmann, P., Van
Herwijnen, A., Berne, A., Schleiss, M., Ferrari, A., Kos, A., Or, D., and
Springman, S. M.: Monitoring and prediction in early warning systems for
rapid mass movements, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 905–917,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-905-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-905-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Strozzi, T., Delaloye, R., Kääb, A., Ambrosi, C., Perruchoud, E., and
Wegmüller, U.: Combined observations of rock mass movements using
satellite SAR interferometry, differential GPS, airborne digital
photogrammetry, and airborne photography interpretation, J. Geophys. Res.,
115, F01014, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001311" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001311</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Vouillamoz, N., Rothmund, S., and Joswig, M.: Characterizing the complexity
of microseismic signals at slow-moving clay-rich debris slides: the
Super-Sauze (southeastern France) and Pechgraben (Upper Austria) case
studies, Earth Surf. Dynam., 6, 525–550,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-525-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-525-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Zimmer, V. L. and Sitar, N.: Detection and location of rock falls using
seismic and infrasound sensors, Eng. Geol., 193, 49–60,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.04.007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.04.007</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
