Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; August 1990; v. 80; no. 4; p. 951-970
© 1990 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GURROLA, H.
Right arrow Articles by ASTER, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Analysis of high-frequency seismic noise in the western United States and eastern Kazakhstan

H. GURROLA, J. B. MINSTER, H. GIVEN, F. VERNON, J. BERGER and R. ASTER

INSTITUTE OF GEOPHYSICS AND PLANETARY PHYSICS SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY A-025 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO, LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093

Abstract

Seismographic stations were operated for several months during 1987 at three sites within 250 km of the Kazakh Test Site in the U.S.S.R. and through most of 1988 and early 1989 at three sites within 250 km of the Nevada test site in the United States. We have analyzed surface and borehole noise levels at these sites as a function of wind speed, using nearly 2000 recordings of ambient ground noise collected at the U.S. stations and several hundred noise measurements from the U.S.S.R. sites. At the surface, wind did not become a noticeable source of noise until a minimum speed of 4 to 5 m/sec. In the boreholes, noise levels were affected by wind conditions to a much smaller degree than at the surface. Between 3 and 10 Hz, surface and borehole noise levels were typically comparable, and western U.S. sites were generally quieter than Kazakh sites. In the 10 to 80 Hz band, surface noise in the western United States was much higher than in Kazakhstan, but downhole noise levels in both regions were similar, and greatly reduced compared to surface noise. We suspect that this is due to differences in surface vault quality between the two sets of stations.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
Linearity of the Earthquake Recurrence Curve to M < -1 from Little Skull Mountain Aftershocks in Southern Nevada
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2003; 93(6): 2493 - 2501.


Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
Broadband Seismic Background Noise at Temporary Seismic Stations Observed on a Regional Scale in the Southwestern United States
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2002; 92(8): 3335 - 3342.


Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
M. M. Withers, R. C. Aster, C. J. Young, and E. P. Chael
High-frequency analysis of seismic background noise as a function of wind speed and shallow depth
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1996; 86(5): 1507 - 1515.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
C. J. Young, E. P. Chael, M. M. Withers, and R. C. Aster
A comparison of the high-frequency (>1 Hz) surface and subsurface noise environment at three sites in the United States
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1996; 86(5): 1516 - 1528.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
C. J. Young, E. P. Chael, D. A. Zagar, and J. A. Carter
Variations in noise and signal levels in a pair of deep boreholes near Amarillo, Texas
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1994; 84(5): 1593 - 1607.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
C. A. POWELL
Seismic noise in northcentral North Carolina
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1992; 82(4): 1889 - 1909.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
P. W. RODGERS
Frequency limits for seismometers as determined from signal-to-noise ratios. Part 1. The electromagnetic seismometer
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1992; 82(2): 1071 - 1098.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
P. W. RODGERS
Frequency limits for seismometers as determined from signal-to-noise ratios. Part 2. The feedback seismometer
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1992; 82(2): 1099 - 1123.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
R. C. ASTER and P. M. SHEARER
High-frequency borehole seismograms recorded in the San Jcinto Fault zone, Southern California Part 2. Attenuation and site effects
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1991; 81(4): 1081 - 1100.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
J. A. CARTER, N. BARSTOW, P. W. POMEROY, E. P. CHAEL, and P. J. LEAHY
High-frequency seismic noise as a function of depth
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1991; 81(4): 1101 - 1114.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
H. K. GIVEN
Variations in broadband seismic noise at IRIS/IDA stations in the USSR with implications for event detection
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1990; 80(6B): 2072 - 2088.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by the Seismological Society of America.