4.6 Article

On the measurement of seismic traveltime changes in the time-frequency domain with wavelet cross-spectrum analysis

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL
卷 221, 期 1, 页码 550-568

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggz495

关键词

Time-series analysis; Wavelet transform; Coda waves; Seismic interferometry; Seismic noise; Wave scattering and diffraction

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program [742335]
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) [PLR-1643761]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spatial distribution of temporal variations in seismic wavespeed is key to understanding the sources and physical mechanisms of various geophysical processes. The imaging of wavespeed changes requires accurate measurements of traveltime delays with both high lapse-time and frequency resolutions. However, traditional methods for time-shift estimation suffer from their limited resolutions. In this paper we propose a new approach, the wavelet method, to measure the traveltime changes in the time-frequency domain. This method is based on wavelet cross-spectrum analysis, and can provide optimal time frequency joint resolution while being computationally efficient. It can deal not only with coda but also dispersive surface waves even in the presence of cycle skipping. Using synthetic coda, we show that the wavelet method can retrieve traveltime shifts more stably and accurately than traditional methods. An application at Salton Sea Geothermal Field indicates that the wavelet method is less affected by spectral smearing and better discriminates dv/v variations at different frequencies. Furthermore, upon investigations on synthetic coda, we illustrate that the bias on dv/v measurements due to changes in source frequency content is likely to be negligible, either with traditional methods or with the new wavelet method. The wavelet method sheds lights on applications of seismic interferometry that aim to locate changes in space.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据