Tomography of the Alpine region from observations of seismic ambient noise

Stehly, Laurent; Fry, Bill; Campillo, Míchel; Shapiro, N. M.; Guilbert, J.; Boschi, Lapo; Giardini, Domenico

doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2009.04132.x

Cited by 178 publications

(176 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

162

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall structures of Fig. 13 are in good agreement with phase-velocity maps from Stehly et al (2009);Verbeke et al (2012); Molinari et al (2012).…”

Section: Phase-velocity Mapssupporting

confidence: 71%

Two-receiver measurements of phase velocity: cross-validation of ambient-noise and earthquake-based observations

Kästle¹,

Soomro

Weemstra

et al. 2016

Geophys. J. Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S U M M A R YPhase velocities derived from ambient-noise cross-correlation are compared with phase velocities calculated from cross-correlations of waveform recordings of teleseismic earthquakes whose epicentres are approximately on the station-station great circle. The comparison is conducted both for Rayleigh and Love waves using over 1000 station pairs in central Europe. We describe in detail our signal-processing method which allows for automated processing of large amounts of data. Ambient-noise data are collected in the 5-80 s period range, whereas teleseismic data are available between about 8 and 250 s, resulting in a broad common period range between 8 and 80 s. At intermediate periods around 30 s and for shorter interstation distances, phase velocities measured from ambient noise are on average between 0.5 per cent and 1.5 per cent lower than those observed via the earthquake-based method. This discrepancy is small compared to typical phase-velocity heterogeneities (10 per cent peak-to-peak or more) observed in this period range.We nevertheless conduct a suite of synthetic tests to evaluate whether known biases in ambient-noise cross-correlation measurements could account for this discrepancy; we specifically evaluate the effects of heterogeneities in source distribution, of azimuthal anisotropy in surface-wave velocity and of the presence of near-field, rather than far-field only, sources of seismic noise. We find that these effects can be quite important comparing individual station pairs. The systematic discrepancy is presumably due to a combination of factors, related to differences in sensitivity of earthquake versus noise data to lateral heterogeneity. The data sets from both methods are used to create some preliminary tomographic maps that are characterized by velocity heterogeneities of similar amplitude and pattern, confirming the overall agreement between the two measurement methods.

show abstract

“…The overall structures of Fig. 13 are in good agreement with phase-velocity maps from Stehly et al (2009);Verbeke et al (2012); Molinari et al (2012).…”

Section: Phase-velocity Mapssupporting

confidence: 71%

Two-receiver measurements of phase velocity: cross-validation of ambient-noise and earthquake-based observations

Kästle¹,

Soomro

Weemstra

et al. 2016

Geophys. J. Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under the assumption that the measurement technique of Ekström et al (1997), applied here, is accurate, this suggests that in the future we should partly replace our global Crust-2.0-based reference model with a higher-resolution, regional one, derived either from the compilation of local studies (Tesauro et al 2008), or from the inversion of ambient-noise data (Stehly et al 2009). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Planned collaborative work leading to a consensus model of the European and Mediterranean upper mantle involves, most importantly, the compilation and tomographic inversion of a richer database, including surface-wave overteone (Lebedev and van der Hilst 2008), body-wave (Amaru et al 2008) and ambient-noise observations (Stehly et al 2009). In this endeavour, finite-frequency effects in wave propagation, neglected here, will ultimately have to be taken into account (Dahlen et al 2000;Zhou et al 2006;Fry et al 2008;Peter et al 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The European Upper Mantle as Seen by Surface Waves

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We derive a global, three-dimensional tomographic model of horizontally and vertically polarized shear velocities in the upper mantle. The model is based on a recently updated global database of Love-and Rayleigh-wave fundamental-mode phase-anomaly observations, with a good global coverage and a particularly dense coverage over Europe and the Mediterranean basin (broadband stations from the Swiss and German seismic networks). The model parameterization is accordingly finer within this region than over the rest of the globe. The large-scale, global structure of our model is very well correlated with that of earlier shear-velocity tomography models, based both on body-and surface-wave observations. At the regional scale, within the region of interest, correlation is complicated by the different resolution limits associated to different databases (surface waves, compressional waves, shear waves), and, accordingly, to different models; while a certain agreement appears to exist for what concerns the grand tectonic features in the area, heterogeneities of smaller scale are less robustly determined. Our new model is only one step towards the identification of a consensus model of European/Mediterranean uppermantle structure: on the basis of the findings discussed here, we expect that important improvements will soon result from the combination, in new tomographic inversions, of fundamental-mode phase-anomaly data like ours with observations of surface-wave overtones, of body-wave travel times, of ambient ''noise'', and by accounting for an a-priori model of crustal structure more highly resolved than the one employed here.

show abstract

“…Practically the coda of earthquake records and ambient seismic noise can be used as source wavefield for SI (Campillo 2006;Larose et al 2006) as was first demonstrated by Campillo & Paul (2003) and Shapiro et al (2005). By extracting surface waves (Brenguier et al 2007;Lin et al 2009;Stehly et al 2009) or body waves (Roux 2005;Tonegawa et al 2009;Zhan et al 2010;Poli et al 2012;Lin et al 2013;Nishida 2013) local, regional and global tomographic investigations of the subsurface velocity are among the most widely used applications of SI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring of environmental influences on seismic velocity at the geological storage site for CO2 in Ketzin (Germany) with ambient seismic noise

Gassenmeier¹,

Sens‐Schönfelder²,

Delatre³

et al. 2014

Geophysical Journal International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Originally published as:Gassenmeier, M., Sens-Schönfelder, C., Delatre, M., Korn, M. (2015): Monitoring of environmental influences on seismic velocity at the geological storage site for CO2 in Ketzin (Germany) with ambient seismic noise. S U M M A R YRegarding the exploitation of natural resources, storage of waste or subsurface construction, there is an increasing need to obtain comprehensive knowledge about the subsurface and its temporal changes. We investigate the possibility of a passive monitoring using ambient seismic noise, which is cheap and continuous compared to active seismics. We work with data acquired with a seismic network in Ketzin (Germany) where 67 271 tons of CO 2 were injected from 2008 June until 2013 August into a saline aquifer at a depth of about 650 m. Monitoring the expansion of the CO 2 plume is essential for the characterization of the reservoir as well as the detection of potential leakage. By cross-correlating about 4 yr of passive seismic data in a frequency range of 0.05-4.5 Hz we found periodic velocity variations with a period of approximately 1 yr that cannot be caused by the CO 2 injection. The prominent direction of the noise wavefield indicates a wind farm as the dominant source providing the temporally stable noise field. This spacial stability excludes variations of the noise source distribution as a cause of spurious velocity variations. Based on an amplitude decrease associated with time windows towards later parts of the coda, we show that the variations must be generated in the shallow subsurface. A comparison to groundwater level data reveals a direct correlation between depth of the groundwater level and the seismic velocity. The influence of ground frost on the seismic velocities is documented by a sharp increase of velocity when the maximum daily temperature stays below 0 • C. Although the observed periodic changes and the changes due to ground frost affect only the shallow subsurface, they mask potential signals of material changes from the reservoir depths.

show abstract

Tomography of the Alpine region from observations of seismic ambient noise

Cited by 178 publications

References 38 publications

Two-receiver measurements of phase velocity: cross-validation of ambient-noise and earthquake-based observations

Two-receiver measurements of phase velocity: cross-validation of ambient-noise and earthquake-based observations

The European Upper Mantle as Seen by Surface Waves

Monitoring of environmental influences on seismic velocity at the geological storage site for CO2 in Ketzin (Germany) with ambient seismic noise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About