1949•Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaRequires access

Discussion of tripartite microseismic measurements*

L. Don Leet

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

Abstract There has been a tendency to overemphasize the accuracy of a tripartite station's determination of the bearing of a microseismic wave. Such a determination is based on the assumption that the time of passage of the crest of a specific advancing wave is uniquely observed at each instrument of the network. This is not the case, in general, where waves are approaching from more than one direction. There is compelling evidence that they are doing this in many, if not all, storms. Specific cases are discussed of waves of the same period and waves of different periods crossing a tripartite network. It is concluded that routine averaging of intervals from time marks to the nearest crest or trough can lead to serious errors if the pattern and character of groups at the three stations are not taken into account. Velocity determinations for microseisms are open to question when they are based on records from horizontal components only, which do not permit distinguishing between Rayleigh and Q waves.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract There has been a tendency to overemphasize the accuracy of a tripartite station's determination of the bearing of a microseismic wave. Such a determination is based on the assumption that the time of passage of the crest of a specific advancing wave is uniquely observed at each instrument of the network. This is not the case, in general, where waves are approaching from more than one direction. There is compelling evidence that they are doing this in many, if not all, storms. Specific cases are discussed of waves of the same period and waves of different periods crossing a tripartite network. It is concluded that routine averaging of intervals from time marks to the nearest crest or trough can lead to serious errors if the pattern and character of groups at the three stations are not taken into account. Velocity determinations for microseisms are open to question when they are based on records from horizontal components only, which do not permit distinguishing between Rayleigh and Q waves.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract There has been a tendency to overemphasize the accuracy of a tripartite station's determination of the bearing of a microseismic wave. Such a determination is based on the assumption that the time of passage of the crest of a specific advancing wave is uniquely observed at each instrument of the network. This is not the case, in general, where waves are approaching from more than one direction. There is compelling evidence that they are doing this in many, if not all, storms. Specific cases are discussed of waves of the same period and waves of different periods crossing a tripartite network. It is concluded that routine averaging of intervals from time marks to the nearest crest or trough can lead to serious errors if the pattern and character of groups at the three stations are not taken into account. Velocity determinations for microseisms are open to question when they are based on records from horizontal components only, which do not permit distinguishing between Rayleigh and Q waves.

Key concepts: Microseism, Crest, Trough (economics), Geology, Seismology, Rayleigh wave, Geodesy, Storm

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Discussion of tripartite microseismic measurements* — Research Paper | ScholarLens