Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70257818

Reference 1D seismic velocity models for volcano monitoring and imaging: Methods, models, and applications

Abstract

Seismic velocity models of the crust are an integral part of earthquake monitoring systems at volcanoes. 1D models that vary only in depth are typically used for real‐time hypocenter determination and serve as critical reference models for detailed 3D imaging studies and geomechanical modeling. Such models are usually computed using seismic tomographic methods that rely on P ‐ and S ‐wave arrival‐time picks from numerous earthquakes recorded at receivers around the volcano. Traditional linearized tomographic methods that jointly invert for source locations, velocity structure, and station corrections depend critically on having reasonable starting values for the unknown parameters, are susceptible to local misfit minima and divergence, and often do not provide adequate uncertainty information. These issues are often exacerbated by sparse seismic networks, inadequate distributions of seismicity, and/or poor data quality common at volcanoes. In contrast, modern probabilistic global search methods avoid these issues only at the cost of increased computation time. In this article, we review both approaches and present example applications and comparisons at several volcanoes in the United States, including Mount Hood (Oregon), Mount St. Helens (Washington), the Island of Hawai’i, and Mount Cleveland (Alaska). We provide guidance on the proper usage of these methods as relevant to challenges specific to volcano monitoring and imaging. Finally, we survey‐published 1D P ‐wave velocity models from around the world and use them to derive a generic stratovolcano velocity model, which serves as a useful reference model for comparison and when local velocity information is sparse.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeremy D. Pesicek, Trond Ryberg. 2024-08-27. Reference 1D seismic velocity models for volcano monitoring and imaging: Methods, models, and applications. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220240070

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

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Amploc: A complete Python workflow for amplitude-based locations

Amplitude‐based locations are well suited for characterizing long‐duration seismic sources that may migrate with time, such as debris flows, avalanches, rockfall, and volcanic tremor. Although amplitude‐based location methods have existed for decades, their adoption in real‐time monitoring systems remains limited. We present a complete Python‐based workflow that includes station corrections, amplitude‐based location algorithms, and interactive review tools that are appropriate for real‐time use. The algorithms themselves are not new; however, Amploc integrates several previously published methods into a unified operational framework. The workflow also introduces a browser‐based graphical interface that allows users to review real‐time location results using formats familiar to many observatories. By integrating calibration, location algorithms, and visualization tools, Amploc lowers the barrier to operational use of amplitude‐based locations and improves characterization of phenomena that inform hazard assessments such as long‐period earthquakes, volcanic tremor, and debris flows.

British Columbia, Oregon, Washington↗

Global seasonal microseism intensity and hemispheric asymmetry

Earth’s microseism wavefield dominates seismic background levels at periods between approximately 4 and 20 s, and reflects periodic and secular variations in ocean swell energy. Ocean wave energy couples to the seismic wavefield via distinct primary microseism and secondary microseism (PM and SM) source mechanisms, which are excited by basal swell tractions and seafloor pressure variations due to crossing seas, respectively. This study examines annual amplitude variations for the globally dominant PM (14–20 s) and SM (4–10 s) period bands. Annual harmonic variations are represented by four‐term Fourier series fits to vertical‐component seasonally smoothed acceleration time series from 73 stations in the Global Seismographic and GEOSCOPE networks with over 20 yr of recording and at least 75% data completeness. These annual periodic functions fit between 14%–95% (PM) and 22%–97% (SM) of signal variance. Station annual peak‐to‐peak variations range between 1.2–14.3 dB (PM) and 1.5–20.6 dB (SM). An asymmetry in microseism features exists between the Northern (NH) and Southern (SH) Hemispheres. High‐latitude NH stations show highly correlated PM and SM annual amplitude variations. This character dominates the wider extratropical NH but diminishes at tropical latitudes, and widespread relative PM–SM decorrelation is observed in the SH. These hemispheric characteristics reflect systematic differences in both extratropical storm activity and ocean wave state. Greater annual variation and seasonal predictability in the NH reflect the influence of the large continental landmasses that enhance both storm intensity seasonality and SM‐generating coastal wave reflection. Notable clusters of low PM–SM correlation stations are also observed in continental Antarctica due to seasonal sea ice influences, and in East Asia, reflecting unusual PM and SM source responses to South Asian monsoonal and tropical cyclone ocean wave influences.

Seismological Research Letters↗

Digitizer Suite: The Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory Digitizer Testing Suite

Laboratory testing of digitizers and seismometers helps ensure that prior to deployment the instrumentation can produce high quality data and is operating within specifications. In this work we detail the software package called: the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) Digitizer Test Suite. This Java software package provides several algorithms to verify various performance parameters of digitizers commonly used for recording analog seismic instruments. The goal of these tests is not to be exhaustive, but to identify common failures that could compromise the integrity of seismic data being recorded on the digitizer. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (e.g., Slad and Merchant, 2018) routinely do comprehensive testing of digitizers for various monitoring missions. While these tests reports are valuable for comprehensively characterizing a recording system, it would be resource intensive to conduct such tests on every seismic recorder used in a network. We focus on tests that include ways to estimate the sensitivity, timing, self-noise, and clip-level of the digitizer, as well as the fidelity of the signal being recorded. The software is publicly available and provides a way for the community to verify the integrity of a digitizer using a minimum amount of outside equipment.

Seismological Research Letters↗