Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/2922
AuthorsFord, S.* 
Dreger, D.* 
Mayeda, K.* 
Malagnini, L.* 
Phillips, S.* 
TitleRegional analysis of Lg attenuation: comparison of 1-D methods in northern California and application to the Yellow Sea/Korean peninsula
Issue Date2007
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/2122/2922
KeywordsQ attenuation Yellow Sea
Subject Classification04. Solid Earth::04.06. Seismology::04.06.06. Surveys, measurements, and monitoring 
AbstractThe measurement of regional attenuation Q-1 can produce method dependent results. The discrepancies among methods are due to differing parameterizations (e.g., geometrical spreading rates), employed datasets (e.g., choice of path lengths and sources), and methodologies themselves (e.g., measurement in the frequency or time domain). We apply the coda normalization (CN), two-station (TS), reverse two-station (RTS), source-pair/receiver-pair (SPRP), and the new coda-source normalization (CS) methods to measure Q of the regional phase, Lg (QLg), and its power-law dependence on frequency of the form Q0f^η with controlled parameterization in the well-studied region of northern California using a high-quality dataset from the Berkeley Digital Seismic Network. We test the sensitivity of each method to changes in geometrical spreading, Lg frequency bandwidth, the distance range of data, and the Lg measurement window. For a given method, there are significant differences in the power-law parameters, Q0 and η, due to perturbations in the parameterization when evaluated using a conservative pairwise comparison. The CN method is affected most by changes in the distance range, which is most probably due to its fixed coda measurement window. Since, the CS method is best used to calculate the total path attenuation, it is very sensitive to the geometrical spreading assumption. The TS method is most sensitive to the frequency bandwidth, which may be due to its incomplete extraction of the site term. The RTS method is insensitive to parameterization choice, whereas the SPRP method as implemented here in the time-domain for a single path has great error in the power-law model parameters and η is greatly affected by changes in the method parameterization. When presenting results for a given method it is best to calculate Q0fη for multiple parameterizations using some a priori distribution. We also investigate the difference in power-law Q calculated among the methods by considering only an approximately homogeneous subset of our data. All methods return similar power-law parameters, though the 95% confidence region is large. We adapt the CS method to calculate QLg tomography in northern California. Preliminary results show that by correcting for the source, tomography with the CS method may produce better resolved attenuation structure.
Appears in Collections:Reports

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
MRR07_pathQpaper_vsf4.doc1.21 MBMicrosoft WordView/Open
Show full item record

Page view(s)

69
Last Week
0
Last month
checked on Jun 27, 2017

Download(s)

6
checked on Jun 27, 2017

Google ScholarTM

Check