Could the IMS Infrasound Stations Support a Global Network of Small Aperture Seismic Arrays?

The IMS infrasound arrays have up to 15 sites with apertures up to 3 km. They are distributed remarkably uniformly over the globe, providing excellent coverage of South America, Africa, and Antarctica. Therefore, many infrasound arrays are in regions thousands of kilometers from the closest seismic...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gibbons, Steven, Kværna, Tormod, Mykkeltveit, Svein
Format: Other/Unknown Material
Language:unknown
Published: California Digital Library (CDL) 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.31223/osf.io/g9k5s
id crescholarship:10.31223/osf.io/g9k5s
record_format openpolar
spelling crescholarship:10.31223/osf.io/g9k5s 2024-04-07T07:47:40+00:00 Could the IMS Infrasound Stations Support a Global Network of Small Aperture Seismic Arrays? Gibbons, Steven Kværna, Tormod Mykkeltveit, Svein 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.31223/osf.io/g9k5s unknown California Digital Library (CDL) http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0 posted-content 2017 crescholarship https://doi.org/10.31223/osf.io/g9k5s 2024-03-08T03:58:03Z The IMS infrasound arrays have up to 15 sites with apertures up to 3 km. They are distributed remarkably uniformly over the globe, providing excellent coverage of South America, Africa, and Antarctica. Therefore, many infrasound arrays are in regions thousands of kilometers from the closest seismic array. Existing 3-component seismic stations, co-located with infrasound arrays, show how typical seismic signals look at these locations. We estimate a theoretical array response assuming a seismometer at each infrasound sensor, although the true performance would depend upon both SNR and coherence. These properties can however only be determined experimentally and borehole deployments may be needed to record seismic data of sufficient quality. We demonstrate, from a purely geometrical perspective, that essentially all IMS infrasound array configurations would provide seismic arrays with acceptable slowness resolution. Such arrays in many regions would likely enhance significantly the seismic monitoring capability in parts of the world where only 3-component stations are currently available. Co-locating seismic and infrasound sensors would mitigate the development and operational costs due to shared infrastructure, and hosting countries might find such added capabilities valuable from a national perspective. The seismic data may allow far more information to be gleaned from the infrasound data.(Note that SRL papers at the time did not have abstracts. The above abstract was for a presentation with the same name held at the CTBTO Science and Technology Conference 2015.) Other/Unknown Material Antarc* Antarctica eScholarship Repository (University of California)
institution Open Polar
collection eScholarship Repository (University of California)
op_collection_id crescholarship
language unknown
description The IMS infrasound arrays have up to 15 sites with apertures up to 3 km. They are distributed remarkably uniformly over the globe, providing excellent coverage of South America, Africa, and Antarctica. Therefore, many infrasound arrays are in regions thousands of kilometers from the closest seismic array. Existing 3-component seismic stations, co-located with infrasound arrays, show how typical seismic signals look at these locations. We estimate a theoretical array response assuming a seismometer at each infrasound sensor, although the true performance would depend upon both SNR and coherence. These properties can however only be determined experimentally and borehole deployments may be needed to record seismic data of sufficient quality. We demonstrate, from a purely geometrical perspective, that essentially all IMS infrasound array configurations would provide seismic arrays with acceptable slowness resolution. Such arrays in many regions would likely enhance significantly the seismic monitoring capability in parts of the world where only 3-component stations are currently available. Co-locating seismic and infrasound sensors would mitigate the development and operational costs due to shared infrastructure, and hosting countries might find such added capabilities valuable from a national perspective. The seismic data may allow far more information to be gleaned from the infrasound data.(Note that SRL papers at the time did not have abstracts. The above abstract was for a presentation with the same name held at the CTBTO Science and Technology Conference 2015.)
format Other/Unknown Material
author Gibbons, Steven
Kværna, Tormod
Mykkeltveit, Svein
spellingShingle Gibbons, Steven
Kværna, Tormod
Mykkeltveit, Svein
Could the IMS Infrasound Stations Support a Global Network of Small Aperture Seismic Arrays?
author_facet Gibbons, Steven
Kværna, Tormod
Mykkeltveit, Svein
author_sort Gibbons, Steven
title Could the IMS Infrasound Stations Support a Global Network of Small Aperture Seismic Arrays?
title_short Could the IMS Infrasound Stations Support a Global Network of Small Aperture Seismic Arrays?
title_full Could the IMS Infrasound Stations Support a Global Network of Small Aperture Seismic Arrays?
title_fullStr Could the IMS Infrasound Stations Support a Global Network of Small Aperture Seismic Arrays?
title_full_unstemmed Could the IMS Infrasound Stations Support a Global Network of Small Aperture Seismic Arrays?
title_sort could the ims infrasound stations support a global network of small aperture seismic arrays?
publisher California Digital Library (CDL)
publishDate 2017
url http://dx.doi.org/10.31223/osf.io/g9k5s
genre Antarc*
Antarctica
genre_facet Antarc*
Antarctica
op_rights http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0
op_doi https://doi.org/10.31223/osf.io/g9k5s
_version_ 1795674801068572672