Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70249307

Active‐source interferometry in marine and terrestrial environments: Importance of directionality and stationary phase

Abstract

We utilize active‐source seismic interferometry with dense seismic arrays both offshore and onland to explore the utility of this method to create virtual sources and reveal body‐wave reflections in these two different environments. We first utilize data from an ocean‐bottom cable (OBC) array in the Gulf of Mexico with equal numbers of sources (160 airgun shots) and receivers (160 ocean‐bottom four‐component sensors). We next use data from a geophone array across the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming with many receivers (1300 vertical‐component geophones) but a small number of sources (14 borehole active‐source shots). We find that the OBC virtual source results, which produce strong reflections from sub‐seafloor structures, are far superior to the onland results which lack usable reflections, and we explore reasons for these differences through a set of selective stacking approaches. We present techniques to account for the direction the seismic waves travel (directionality) and stationary phase and show that improvements can be made when incorporating these corrections. Although interferometric methods are based on assumptions of large numbers of widely distributed actual sources, we find that selective exclusion of potentially problematic source–receiver pairs can yield improved results. These geometric adjustments to active‐source interferometry methods have utility for dense‐nodal‐array surveys that are now common in academic studies, but that often suffer from sparse source geometry.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Steven Plescia, Anne Sheehan, Seth S. Haines. 2022-01-04. Active‐source interferometry in marine and terrestrial environments: Importance of directionality and stationary phase. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210160

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗