Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/1890
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorallHarjes, H. P.; Institute Of Geophysics, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germanyen
dc.contributor.authorallMassinon, B.; Laboratoire de Détection et de Géophysique, Bruyeres-le-Chatel, Franceen
dc.contributor.authorallMénéchal, Y.; Laboratoire de Détection et de Géophysique, Bruyeres-le-Chatel, Franceen
dc.contributor.authorallSchulte-Theis, H.; Institute Of Geophysics, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germanyen
dc.date.accessioned2006-12-06T11:21:19Zen
dc.date.available2006-12-06T11:21:19Zen
dc.date.issued1994-06en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2122/1890en
dc.description.abstractThe design of a global seismic system to monitor compliance with a ban on underground nuclear testing considerably deviates from previous concepts of international seismic data exchange. The new concept relies on centralized processing of continuous data from a fixed station network (“alpha” stations) which provides the primary detection and location capability. This alpha station network is augmented by additional stations (“beta” stations) which send data on request to refine the hypocentres of events which were detected by the alpha network. To test this concept we have used the GERESS array in Germany as a prototype alpha station and investigated its regional detection and location capability for events in France and surrounding areas. For this region, data from the national French network operated by LDG provide an excellent reference data base. Within a 5 degree distance, GERESS showed an excellent performance in terms of detection and location down to magnitude M(LDG) = 3. Between a 5 degree and 10 degree distance, the detection capability is still high but very often it is not sufficient to locate events below M(LDG) = 4. Generalizing these results, we can conclude that either the maximum distance between alpha stations should be 10 degrees or the contribution of beta stations has to play a significant role in a future monitoring system.en
dc.format.extent2296389 bytesen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoEnglishen
dc.relation.ispartofseries3/37 (1994)en
dc.subjectlocationsen
dc.subjectarrayen
dc.subjectseismic monitoringen
dc.subjectalpha stationsen
dc.titleComparison between LDG-network and GERESS-array with respect to regional detection and location resultsen
dc.typearticleen
dc.type.QualityControlPeer-revieweden
dc.subject.INGV04. Solid Earth::04.06. Seismology::04.06.10. Instruments and techniquesen
dc.description.journalTypeJCR Journalen
dc.description.fulltextopenen
dc.contributor.authorHarjes, H. P.en
dc.contributor.authorMassinon, B.en
dc.contributor.authorMénéchal, Y.en
dc.contributor.authorSchulte-Theis, H.en
dc.contributor.departmentInstitute Of Geophysics, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germanyen
dc.contributor.departmentLaboratoire de Détection et de Géophysique, Bruyeres-le-Chatel, Franceen
dc.contributor.departmentLaboratoire de Détection et de Géophysique, Bruyeres-le-Chatel, Franceen
dc.contributor.departmentInstitute Of Geophysics, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germanyen
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptInstitute Of Geophysics, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany-
crisitem.author.deptLaboratoire de Détection et de Géophysique, Bruyeres-le-Chatel, France-
crisitem.author.deptLaboratoire de Détection et de Géophysique, Bruyeres-le-Chatel, France-
crisitem.author.deptInstitute Of Geophysics, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany-
crisitem.classification.parent04. Solid Earth-
Appears in Collections:Annals of Geophysics
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
13 harjes.pdf2.24 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

139
checked on Mar 27, 2024

Download(s) 50

120
checked on Mar 27, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check