4.4 Article

Array Observations of Microseismic Noise and the Nature of H/V in the Mississippi Embayment

Journal

BULLETIN OF THE SEISMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Volume 99, Issue 5, Pages 2893-2911

Publisher

SEISMOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1785/0120080189

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [06HQGR0040]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ambient ground-motion data were collected using phased seismic arrays in fall 2002 and spring 2007 within the Mississippi embayment and at a single station external to the embayment. These data allowed us to determine the wave-field composition of ambient noise for understanding wave-propagation mechanisms giving rise to spectral peaks using Nakamura's H/V technique. Ambient ground motions in the frequency band of 0.1-0.33 Hz (10-3 sec period) were dominated by spatially localized Rayleigh-and Love-wave microseisms generated by high-ocean waves along the North American seaboard in the time periods of analysis. Seismic waves important in forming the H/V peak near 4 sec period are composed of relatively high-phase velocity Rayleigh and Love waves that convert to propagating homogeneous shear waves in the thick unconsolidated sediments of the embayment. The H/V resonant period is controlled by both constructive and destructive interference of these shear waves. A simple relationship for the H/V peak is given using a propagator matrix formulation that predicts the resonance frequency of a layered medium for surface wave motion at the base of the system. The amplitude of the observed H/V peak, however, does not give an accurate estimate of shear-wave amplification because it depends on the slowness of the incident wave. The inconsistency in estimated average shear-wave velocities using the H/V method and differential travel times of local earthquake Sp phases in the Mississippi embayment may be explained by misidentification of Sp-wave conversion points from deeper interfaces.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available