Proceedings of the VIII Simpósio Brasileiro E Geofísica 2018
DOI: 10.22564/8simbgf2018.087
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Regularization of P-P and P-S converted waves data through the FO-CRS traveltime approximation

Abstract: We present a new method of regularization of seismic data using the finite offset common reflection source (FO-CRS) traveltime approximation. This method fits curves of common reflection source to the reflection events and stacks all the amplitudes in a given aperture. The stacked amplitude, afterwards, is allocated to the time coordinate in the trace to be interpolated. We applied this method to three synthetic velocity models and the results showed the capability for regularizing converted seismic waves in s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
26
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the lower panels of Figure 2 we show how the bimodality disappears at z > 0.2, while the cool-core clusters become dominant in the range z > 0.35. Given the coarse redshift binning, this is not in contradiction with previous claims on the dearth of cool-core clusters at z > 0.7 (see Santos et al 2008), considering that we have only 7 clusters at z > 0.7. In addition, we note that the requirement on the S/N slightly favors CC clusters as the redshift increases.…”
Section: Imaging and Spectral Analysissupporting
confidence: 68%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…In the lower panels of Figure 2 we show how the bimodality disappears at z > 0.2, while the cool-core clusters become dominant in the range z > 0.35. Given the coarse redshift binning, this is not in contradiction with previous claims on the dearth of cool-core clusters at z > 0.7 (see Santos et al 2008), considering that we have only 7 clusters at z > 0.7. In addition, we note that the requirement on the S/N slightly favors CC clusters as the redshift increases.…”
Section: Imaging and Spectral Analysissupporting
confidence: 68%
“…However, since this is not the main focus of this paper, we will not make further analysis on the cool-core properties of the clusters, but merely investigate the global fraction of cool cores in our sample. Using c SB < 0.075 and c SB > 0.155 as the thresholds between non-cool-core/weak cool-core, and weak/strong cool-core clusters, respectively (see Santos et al 2008), we find that 72 clusters in our sample are non-cool-core clusters, while 46 and 68 are weak-and strongcool-core clusters. These numbers correspond to a percentage of 38.7%, 24.7% and 36.6% of non-cool-core, weak-cool-core and strong-cool-core clusters, respectively.…”
Section: Imaging and Spectral Analysismentioning
confidence: 84%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Even in the low-signal regime, there are subtle observable signals that can offer key insights for improving cluster mass estimates. Measures of cluster morphology, including surface brightness concentration (e.g., Santos et al 2008), centroid shift (e.g., Mohr et al 1993), and morphological composite parameters (e.g., , provide additional information about a cluster's dynamical state (Mantz et al 2015a), which has been shown to influence the scatter in the mass-T X relationship of simulated clusters (Ventimiglia et al 2008), the correlated scatter in the relationship between weak lensing mass and integrated SZ Compton parameter Y sph (e.g., Angulo et al 2012;Marrone et al 2012;Shirasaki et al 2016), and the probability that a cluster is observed (Eckert et al 2011;Planck Collaboration et al 2011;Lovisari et al 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%