4.6 Article

Comparison of Multiple Lapse Time Window Analysis and Qopen to determine intrinsic and scattering attenuation

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL
Volume 228, Issue 2, Pages 913-926

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggab390

Keywords

Europe; Inverse theory; Coda waves; Seismic attenuation

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [SPP-1066]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the results of Multiple Lapse Time Windows Analysis (MIJFWA) and full envelope inversion (Qopen) to determine intrinsic and scattering attenuation of the crust, finding similar results for both methods within their error bars.
This study compares the results of Multiple Lapse Time Windows Analysis (MIJFWA) and full envelope inversion (Qopen) to determine intrinsic and scattering attenuation of the crust using the region around the central part of the Leipzig-Regensburg fault zone in Germany as an example. We use 18 of the region's strongest earthquakes from 2008 to 2019 with a magnitude between 1.4 and 3.0 in the frequency band range between 3 and 34Hz. The determined attenuation values of both methods are similar within their error bars. The inverse quality factors of the shear wave are relatively low compared to other regions, with values of 3.2 x 10(-4) to 8.7 x 10(-4) for QT(i)(-1) and 1.4 x 10(-4) to 2.8 x 10(-4) for Q(sc)(-1), respectively. As a by-product of Qopen, we also obtain the energy site amplification of the stations used in the inversion as well as source displacement spectra and moment magnitudes of the inverted earthquakes. Several combinations of inversion parameters were tested for MLTWA, with Q(i)(-1) and Q(sc)(-1) providing the lowest trade-off. Likewise, we investigated the influence of window length on the results of Qopen. We found a dependency of the results on the length, if the windows are shorter than 30 s. For longer time windows, the dependence disappears, and the result becomes independent of window length..

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available