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; December 1990; v. 80; no. 6B; p. 2214-2226
© 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 Ødegaard, E.
Right arrow Articles by Kværna, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Surface topographic effects at arrays and three-component stations

E. Ødegaard, D. J. Doornbos and T. Kværna

Institute of Geophysics University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1022, Blindern 0315 Oslo 3, Norway
NTNF/NORSAR, P.O. Box 51, N-2007 Kjeller, Norway

Abstract

A unified method of slowness analysis has been applied to the NORESS and ARCESS arrays and to the three-component stations within these arrays, with the following results: (1) there is a relatively large scatter in the three-component solutions for events from the same source region, and (2) there are significant differences between the solutions at the different three-component stations. Evidence is presented that a uniform half-space model is inadequate to derive slowness solutions from three-component data: layering of the crust and upper mantle affect the surface response at long periods, and surface topography and near-surface structure perturb the surface particle motion and slowness solutions especially at short periods. Topographic effects are evaluated by means of numerical simulations based on a newly developed multiple scattering method. The theoretical results explain up to about half of the observed anomalies in the three-component solutions. On the other hand, the array solutions based on vertical-component phase delays are relatively stable, since the nongeometrical phase perturbations are negligible.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
K. Koch and U. Kradolfer
Investigation of azimuth residuals observed at stations of the GSETT-3 Alpha network
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1997; 87(6): 1576 - 1597.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
W. SCOTT PHILLIPS, S. KINOSHITA, and H. FUJIWARA
Basin-induced love waves observed using the strong-motion array at Fuchu, Japan
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1993; 83(1): 64 - 84.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
S. MYKKELTVEIT, F. RINGDAL, T. Kvaerna, and R. W. ALEWINE
Application of regional arrays in seismic verification research
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1990; 80(6B): 1777 - 1800.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
D. B. HARRIS
Comparison of the direction estimation performance of high-frequency seismic arrays and three-component stations
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1990; 80(6B): 1951 - 1968.
[Abstract] [PDF]


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