2019
DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.122.138501
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Probing thein situElastic Nonlinearity of Rocks with Earth Tides and Seismic Noise

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
50
1
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
5
50
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The strategy is to use many measurements from shorter noise correlation stacks rather than measuring a single dispersion curve on the stack of all correlation traces. This idea has been applied successfully in Sens‐Schönfelder and Eulenfeld () for relative velocity measurements. For many monthly stacked correlation traces (Figure b), we calculate the discrete velocity‐frequency estimates from the zero crossings.…”
Section: Noise Cross Correlations and Rayleigh Wave Traveltime Measurmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The strategy is to use many measurements from shorter noise correlation stacks rather than measuring a single dispersion curve on the stack of all correlation traces. This idea has been applied successfully in Sens‐Schönfelder and Eulenfeld () for relative velocity measurements. For many monthly stacked correlation traces (Figure b), we calculate the discrete velocity‐frequency estimates from the zero crossings.…”
Section: Noise Cross Correlations and Rayleigh Wave Traveltime Measurmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the reduction of the effect of precipitation with the tentative hyperparameters, the resultant temporal change shows sudden drops of seismic wave velocity associated with the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake (Figure 6). Since the drop related to the Kumamoto earthquake reaches 0.1%, we modeled it by an exponential decay (Gassenmeier et al, 2016; Hobiger et al, 2016; Sens‐Schönfelder & Eulenfeld, 2019) as et=Atett0τe, where A t is amplitude of the drop, t 0 is the origin time of the Kumamoto earthquake, and τ e is the decay time. We omitted a term of non‐recovering coseismic velocity drops (Hobiger et al, 2016) as the term could not be detected, as shown later (see Figure 10).…”
Section: Maximum Likelihood Methods For Determining the Hyperparametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the reduction of the effect of precipitation with the tentative hyperparameters, the resultant temporal change shows sudden drops of seismic wave velocity associated with the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake ( Figure 6). Since the drop related to the Kumamoto earthquake reaches 0.1%, we modeled it by an exponential decay (Gassenmeier et al, 2016;Hobiger et al, 2016;Sens-Schönfelder & Eulenfeld, 2019) as…”
Section: A Model For the Drops Associated With 2016 Kumamoto Earthquakementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the limit of a sufficiently random wave field, the cross‐correlation function converges toward the Green's function between the two receivers (Shapiro & Campillo, 2004; Snieder, 2004; Weaver & Lobkis, 2002). In this interreceiver setting, the Green's function or the cross‐correlation function for arbitrary time‐invariant noise sources can be used to monitor the wave velocity between and near the receivers (e.g., Brenguier et al., 2008; Hillers et al., 2015; Hobiger et al., 2016; Richter et al., 2014; Sens‐Schönfelder & Eulenfeld, 2019; Sens‐Schönfelder & Wegler, 2006; Wegler & Sens‐Schönfelder, 2007). In the reverse, seismic interferometry can be applied to use earthquakes as virtual receivers at depth.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%