Quantitative analysis of seismic wave propagation anomalies in azimuth and apparent slowness at Deception Island volcano (Antarctica) using seismic arrays
We analyse shot data recorded by eight seismic arrays during an active-source seismic experiment carried out at Deception Island (Antarctica) in 2005 January. For each source we estimate the apparent slowness and propagation azimuth of the first wave arrival. Since both source and receiver positions...
| Published in: | Geophysical Journal International |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2011
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/184/2/801 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04864.x |
| Summary: | We analyse shot data recorded by eight seismic arrays during an active-source seismic experiment carried out at Deception Island (Antarctica) in 2005 January. For each source we estimate the apparent slowness and propagation azimuth of the first wave arrival. Since both source and receiver positions are accurately known, we are able to interpret the results in terms of the effect of the heterogeneities of the medium on wave propagation. The results show the presence of significant propagation anomalies. Nearby shots produce large apparent slowness values above 0.6 s km−1, while distant shots produce small values, down to about 0.15–0.20 s km−1. These values are different for each array, which shows the importance of the local structure under the receiver. The spatial distributions of apparent slowness are not radial as we would expect in a flat-layered medium. And again, these distributions are different for each array. The azimuth anomalies defined as the difference between the empirical estimates and the values expected in a 1-D model (i.e. the source-array directions) suggest ubiquitous wave front distortions. We have detected both positive and negative anomalies. For some shot-array geometries, azimuth anomalies are quite large with values up to 60°. The distribution of the anomalies depends on the position of the array. Some of these features can be interpreted in terms of a shallow magma chamber and shallow rigid bodies imaged by high-resolution seismic tomography. However several details remain unexplained. Further work is required, including modelling of synthetic wavefields on realistic models of Deception Island and/or apparent slowness vector tomography. |
|---|