06.08.2013 Views

Lawrence et al., 2012: DRAFT: JGR: Ambient Noise Numerical ...

Lawrence et al., 2012: DRAFT: JGR: Ambient Noise Numerical ...

Lawrence et al., 2012: DRAFT: JGR: Ambient Noise Numerical ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Lawrence</strong> <strong>et</strong> <strong>al</strong>., <strong>2012</strong>: <strong>DRAFT</strong>: <strong>JGR</strong>: <strong>Ambient</strong> <strong>Noise</strong> Numeric<strong>al</strong> Ev<strong>al</strong>uation<br />

Figure 6:<br />

Figure 6: The RMS misfits for (a-d) phase velocity and (e-h) attenuation coefficients<br />

vary as a function of the length sc<strong>al</strong>es, source length Ls, receiver length Lx, and source-<br />

receiver separation Δsx. As expected, when source length and source-receiver separation<br />

are sm<strong>al</strong>l (i.e. the sources are within the array – dashed box), the phase velocity and<br />

attenuation are not well recovered. When the sources are <strong>al</strong>l over an order of magnitude<br />

more distant from the receivers than the receivers are from each other, the phase velocity<br />

and attenuation coefficients are not recovered well. The param<strong>et</strong>er-space of well-<br />

recovered phase velocity and attenuation estimates lie within the bold polygons. The<br />

NCF stacks were c<strong>al</strong>culated for coherencies of 1800s time windows over 90 days with<br />

128 sources per time window. Note: panels (a-d) and (e-f) correspond to the geom<strong>et</strong>ries<br />

illustrated in panels (a-d) in Figure 1.<br />

27

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!