Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/30488
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBeskardes, G. D.-
dc.contributor.authorHole, J. A.-
dc.contributor.authorWang, K.-
dc.contributor.authorMichaelides, Michael-
dc.contributor.authorWu, Q.-
dc.contributor.authorChapman, M. C.-
dc.contributor.authorDavenport, K. K.-
dc.contributor.authorBrown, L. D.-
dc.contributor.authorQuiros, D. A.-
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-22T11:56:29Z-
dc.date.available2023-09-22T11:56:29Z-
dc.date.issued2018-03-
dc.identifier.citationGeophysical Journal International, vol. 212, iss. 3, pp. 1986–2002, 2018en_US
dc.identifier.issn0956540X-
dc.identifier.issn1365246X-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/30488-
dc.description.abstractBackprojection imaging has recently become a practical method for local earthquake detection and location due to the deployment of densely sampled, continuously recorded, local seismograph arrays. While backprojection sometimes utilizes the full seismic waveform, the waveforms are often pre-processed and simplified to overcome imaging challenges. Real data issues include aliased station spacing, inadequate array aperture, inaccurate velocity model, low signal-to-noise ratio, large noise bursts and varying waveform polarity. We compare the performance of backprojection with four previously used data pre-processing methods: raw waveform, envelope, short-termaveraging/long-termaveraging and kurtosis. Our primary goal is to detect and locate events smaller than noise by stacking prior to detection to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. The objective is to identify an optimized strategy for automated imaging that is robust in the presence of real-data issues, has the lowest signal-to-noise thresholds for detection and for location, has the best spatial resolution of the source images, preserves magnitude, and considers computational cost. Imaging method performance is assessed using a real aftershock data set recorded by the dense AIDA array following the 2011 Virginia earthquake. Our comparisons show that raw-waveform backprojection provides the best spatial resolution, preserves magnitude and boosts signal to detect events smaller than noise, but is most sensitive to velocity error, polarity error and noise bursts. On the other hand, the other methods avoid polarity error and reduce sensitivity to velocity error, but sacrifice spatial resolution and cannot effectively reduce noise by stacking. Of these, only kurtosis is insensitive to large noise bursts while being as efficient as the raw-waveformmethod to lower the detection threshold; however, it does not preserve the magnitude information. For automatic detection and location of events in a large data set, we therefore recommend backprojecting kurtosis waveforms, followed by a second pass on the detected events using noise-filtered raw waveforms to achieve the best of all criteria.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofGeophysical Journal Internationalen_US
dc.rights© Oxford University Pressen_US
dc.subjectBody wavesen_US
dc.subjectEarthquake source observationsen_US
dc.subjectSeismicity and tectonicsen_US
dc.subjectDynamics and mechanics of faultingen_US
dc.titleA comparison of earthquake backprojection imaging methods for dense local arraysen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationVirginia Techen_US
dc.collaborationSandia National Laboratoriesen_US
dc.collaborationCornell Universityen_US
dc.subject.categoryEarth and Related Environmental Sciencesen_US
dc.journalsSubscriptionen_US
dc.countryUnited Statesen_US
dc.subject.fieldNatural Sciencesen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/gji/ggx520en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85046096730-
dc.identifier.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx520-
dc.relation.issue3en_US
dc.relation.volume212en_US
cut.common.academicyear2017-2018en_US
dc.identifier.external142551277-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Finance, Accounting and Management Science-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Management and Economics-
crisitem.author.orcid0009-0009-6727-5563-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Management and Economics-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

22
checked on Mar 14, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

21
checked on Nov 1, 2023

Page view(s)

144
Last Week
10
Last month
11
checked on Feb 3, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in KTISIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.