Robert H. Hamstra Jr. Paul Spudich Christoph Kundig Patrick Camina John A. Rogers John R. Evans 2003 The length of Evans et al. (2003) necessitated transfer of several less germane sections to this alternate forum to meet that venue’s needs. These sections include a description of the development of Figure 1, the plot of spatial variability so critical to the argument for dense arrays of strong-motion instruments; the description of the rapid, integer, computational method for PGV used in the TREMOR instrument (the Oakland instrument, the commercial prototype, and the commercial instrument); siting methods and strategies used for Class B TREMOR instruments and those that can be used for Class C instruments to preserve the cost advantages of such systems; and some general discussion of MEMS accelerometers, including a comparative Table with representative examples of Class A, B and C MEMS devices. (“MEMS” means “Micro-ElectroMechanical” Systems—“micromachined” sensors, generally of silicon. Classes A, B, and C are defined in Table 1.) application/pdf 10.3133/ofr03159 en U.S. Geological Survey Additional information for “TREMOR: A Wireless, MEMS Accelerograph for Dense Arrays” (Evans et al., 2003) reports