1991
DOI: 10.1029/gm065p0151
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Near-source scattering of Rayleigh to P in teleseismic arrivals from Pahute Mesa (NTS) shots

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The use of near-surface crustal scatterers simplifies our computations, and it is also justified by the increased heterogeneity of the shallow crust and supported by several array observations (e.g., Greenfield, 1971;Dainty, 1985 andBannister et al, 1990;Gupta et al, 1991) and previous coda modeling (Dainty and Schultz, 1995). The choice of the P-wave coda is due to several reasons (Morozov and Smithson, 2000): 1) S-and L g phases are less pronounced in the PNE records; 2) their codas lie on top of the Pwave coda, complicating the observation and requiring their decomposition; and 3) L g phase is significantly more difficult to model accurately.…”
Section: Modeling P-wave Coda Of Pne Arrivalsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The use of near-surface crustal scatterers simplifies our computations, and it is also justified by the increased heterogeneity of the shallow crust and supported by several array observations (e.g., Greenfield, 1971;Dainty, 1985 andBannister et al, 1990;Gupta et al, 1991) and previous coda modeling (Dainty and Schultz, 1995). The choice of the P-wave coda is due to several reasons (Morozov and Smithson, 2000): 1) S-and L g phases are less pronounced in the PNE records; 2) their codas lie on top of the Pwave coda, complicating the observation and requiring their decomposition; and 3) L g phase is significantly more difficult to model accurately.…”
Section: Modeling P-wave Coda Of Pne Arrivalsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In regard to the geometrical attenuation parameter  in equation (4), it could be either negative (corresponding, for example, to strong reflected and diving waves returning additional energy to the surface) or positive, as observed in our modeling. Values of  > 0 correspond to the scattered energy decaying with distance faster than surface waves, which should be a common case due to: 1) high attenuation of surface waves in the weathered zone (note the Complex Crust model, Figure 8), and 2) multiple reflections and scattered seismic waves leaking into the mantle as suggested, for example, by Gupta et al (1991). Interestingly, in the "realistic" crust/mantle models considered, (Q S ) is not constant and decreases from ~3-4 at Q S = 100 to about ~1 -1.4 at Q S = 1000 (Figure 8).…”
Section: (Q S ) and Modal Content Of Coda Wavefieldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relatively slow velocity of R g provides a mechanism for generating significant P energy far after the first arrival with only a single scattering event. Evidence exists for such a mechanism based on nuclear explosion data from Nevada Test Site (Stead & Helmberger, 1988;Gupta et al, 1991). However, for this mechanism to be viable the earthquakes in this area would have to be especially shallow, as R g excitation drops off significantly with increasing source depth.…”
Section: Properties Of Later-arriving Coda Wavesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may also explain the difference between the shapes of the observed ( Figure 7) and the theoretical ( Figure 9) spectral nulls (the observed nulls for source depths of 250-150 m are much broader than the theoretical). It seems, however, that for frequencies below 2 Hz, the homogeneous half-space model is a fairly good approximation to the layered NTS model (Gupta et al, 1991b), so that a rough estimate of depth of the CLVD source for an explosion will be Y/(16 f) where V is its overburden velocity and f is its observed spectral null frequency. These estimates, included in Table 1, suggest that depth of the CLVD source for each explosion is on the average about 0.31, or one-third of its shot depth.…”
Section: Dependence Of Spectral Nulls On Shot Depthmentioning
confidence: 99%