Phase velocity estimation using horizontal partial differential components of microtremor array measurements

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michihiro Ohori ◽  
Hirotoshi Uebayashi ◽  
Kunikazu Yoshida
2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (7S1) ◽  
pp. 07JF06 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shigeaki Okumura ◽  
Vu-Hieu Nguyen ◽  
Hirofumi Taki ◽  
Guillaume Haïat ◽  
Salah Naili ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 035019
Author(s):  
Guilherme C Parcero ◽  
José F S Costa-Júnior ◽  
João C Machado

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Shintaro Hisatake ◽  
Akira Kaino ◽  
Tomoaki Yasuda ◽  
Tadao Nagatsuma

We estimate the phase velocity of a modulation microwave in a quasi-velocity-matched (QVM) electro-optic (EO) phase modulator (QVM-EOM) using EO sampling which is accurate and the most reliable technique for measuring voltage waveforms at an electrode. The substrate of the measured QVM-EOM is a stoichiometric periodically domain-inverted LiTaO3 crystal. The electric field of a standing wave in a resonant microstrip line (width: 0.5 mm, height: 0.5 mm) is measured by employing a CdTe crystal as an EO sensor. The wavelength of the traveling microwave at 16.0801 GHz is determined as 3.33 mm by fitting the theoretical curve to the measured electric field distribution. The phase velocity is estimated as vm=5.35×107 m/s, though there exists about 5% systematic error due to the perturbation by the EO sensor. Relative dielectric constant of εr=41.5 is led as the maximum likelihood value that derives the estimated phase velocity.


Author(s):  
Kunikazu Yoshida ◽  
Hirotoshi Uebayashi

ABSTRACT The most popular array-based microtremor survey methods estimate velocity structures from the phase velocities of Rayleigh waves. Using the phase velocity of Love waves improves the resolution of inverted velocity models. In this study, we present a method to estimate the phase velocity of Love waves using rotational array data derived from the horizontal component of microtremors observed using an ordinal nested triangular array. We obtained discretized spatial derivatives from a first-order Taylor series expansion to calculate rotational motions from observed array seismograms. Rotational motions were obtained from a triangular subarray consisting of three receivers using discretized spatial derivatives. Four rotational-motion time histories were calculated from different triangular subarrays in the nested triangular arrays. Phase velocities were estimated from the array of the four rotational motions. We applied the proposed Love-wave phase-velocity estimation technique to observed array microtremor data obtained using a nested triangular array with radii of 25 and 50 m located at the Institute for Integrated Radiation and Nuclear Science, Kyoto University. The phase velocities of rotational and vertical motions were estimated from the observed data, and results showed that the former were smaller than those of the latter. The observed phase velocities obtained from vertical and rotational components agreed well with the theoretical Rayleigh- and Love-wave phase velocities calculated from the velocity structure model derived from nearby PS logs. To show the ability of the rotation to obtain Love wave, we estimated apparent phase velocities from north–south or east–west components. The apparent velocities resulted in between the theoretical velocities of Rayleigh and Love waves. This result indicates that the calculated rotation effectively derived the Love waves from a combination of Love and Rayleigh waves.


2020 ◽  
Vol 224 (3) ◽  
pp. 1477-1504
Author(s):  
Petr Kolínský ◽  
Götz Bokelmann ◽  

SUMMARY To calculate phase-velocity dispersion curves, we introduce a method which reflects both structural and dynamic effects of wave propagation and interference. Rayleigh-wave fundamental-mode surface waves from the South Atlantic Ocean earthquake of 19 August 2016, M = 7.4, observed at the AlpArray network in Europe are strongly influenced by the upper-mantle low-velocity zone under the Cameroon Volcanic Line in Central Africa. Predicting phase-delay times affected by diffraction from this heterogeneity for each station gives phase velocities as they would be determined using the classical two-station method as well as the advanced array-beamforming method. Synthetics from these two methods are thus compared with measurements. We show how the dynamic phase velocity differs from the structural phase velocity, how these differences evolve in space and how two-station and array measurements are affected. In principle, arrays are affected with the same uncertainty as the two-station measurements. The dynamic effects can be several times larger than the error caused by the unknown arrival angle in case of the two-station method. The non-planarity of the waves and its relation to the arrival angle and dynamic phase-velocity deviations is discussed. Our study is complemented by extensive review of literature related to the surface wave phase-velocity measurement of the last 120 years.


1989 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 1231-1250
Author(s):  
Anton M. Dainty ◽  
David B. Harris

Abstract Two methods are investigated for estimating the phase velocity of diffusely scattered seismic waves simultaneously arriving from different azimuths and recorded by a two-dimensional array of seismometers. The Hankel spectrum is the average of the frequency-wavenumber (FK) spectrum over all azimuths, while the wavenumber spectrum is derived by integrating the FK spectrum around a contour of constant phase velocity, i.e., a circle centered on the origin in the wavenumber plane. If the conventional estimate of the FK spectrum using the covariance matrix of the seismometer signals is integrated, a closed form for both the Hankel spectrum and the wavenumber spectrum may be found; the two spectra are very similar, the wavenumber spectrum being equal to the Hankel spectrum times the wavenumber. In spite of this similarity, however, we find that the two formulations have significantly different behavior for small wavenumbers, i.e., high phase velocities. In both cases there is a highest (true) velocity that can be estimated from the spectral maximum for a given array aperture (“velocity cut-off”). The Hankel spectrum estimates too high a velocity; for true wavenumbers below a certain limit, infinite velocity is estimated. The wavenumber spectrum, on the other hand, estimates too low a velocity, and there is an upper limit on the estimated velocity. An example illustrating these difficulties for the two methods is given for teleseismic P coda of an event recorded at the NORESS array in southern Norway: in spite of the problems, the analysis is able to demonstrate that the coda consists of two components; a coherent P-wave component with a high phase velocity and a diffuse S-wave component of low phase velocity. The cut-off and bias problem are investigated by numerical simulation for the NORESS array using azimuthal averaging and synthetic signals. The results confirm and quantify the cut-off problem at low wavenumbers and indicate that wavenumbers estimated from the Hankel and wavenumber spectra maxima bracket the true wavenumber, with the Hankel spectrum estimate being low (phase velocity too high) and the wavenumber spectrum estimate high. The bias of both methods decreases with increasing wavenumber (decreasing phase velocity) and they are both asymptotically unbiased. The wavenumber spectrum has a superior performance at low wavenumbers (high phase velocity), but the Hankel spectrum gives superior results at high wavenumbers (low phase velocity). The product of the linear wavenumber (= 1/wavelength) and the array aperture define “high” and “low” wavenumbers; for low wavenumbers, the product is 1 or less. In an Appendix, we find absolute lower bounds on the cut-offs analytically. The problems could be mitigated by using high resolution methods.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document