共查询到18条相似文献，搜索用时 125 毫秒
1.
利用布设在长白山地区临时地震台站接收到的朝鲜核爆的波形资料,对2009年5月25日和2013年2月12日两次朝鲜核试验的地震学特征进行比较.震中距范围从145km到420km.采用P/S型谱比值方法识别朝鲜核爆,通过与2009年3月20日长春地震和2013年1月23日沈阳地震事件的比较,表明在频率大于3 Hz时P/S型谱比值能够有效识别发生在中朝边境地区的地下核试验.选定参考台站,利用区域震相Pg波的振幅谱比值计算朝鲜核爆至各台站路径上的相对衰减.结合介质速度模型,在一定程度上反映了长白山地区衰减情况,为进一步研究长白山地区衰减层析成像提供初始模型. 相似文献
2.
双差定位法(Double-difference Earthquake Location,简称DD)和多事件联合定位法(Joint Hypocenter Determination,简称JHD)是精确多事件定位中常用的两种方法.对震源机制相近的相邻事件,DD方法利用事件之间的相对到时精准地反演它们之间的相对位置,到时差数据能够利用波形互相关等方法直接测量,但是却无法准确地确定绝对位置;相比之下,JHD方法能够同时反演事件的绝对位置和台站走时校正值.结合两种方法的优点,本文提出一种混合定位方法,同时利用绝对到时数据和到时差数据准确地反演事件绝对位置和台站走时校正.本文利用模拟数据对该方法进行了验证并将其应用于朝鲜核试验定位,结果表明该方法能够有效减小走时计算误差所导致的定位误差.对于朝鲜核试验,相比单次事件+DD定位方法和JHD方法,相对Myers的定位结果定位偏差分别减小45.67%和40.00%. 相似文献
3.
朝鲜自2006年10月9日第一次开展地下核试验以来,分别于2009年5月25日、2013年2月12日、2016年1月6日、2016年9月9日和2017年9月3日相继进行了5次规模较大的核试验.由于核爆炸和天然地震的震源机制不同,可以通过核爆炸产生的地震波来进行核试验的监测,核试验相关地震学研究一直是国内外专家关注的焦点.本文分别从事件定位、性质识别、当量和埋藏深度等几个方面总结了近些年来朝鲜核试验相关地震学的研究进展,并基于文献计量学方法对朝鲜核试验相关地震学研究现状进行分析,综合结果表明,近些年基于朝鲜核试验的相关地震学研究的主要研究方向为核试验定位、当量估算以及震源深度等. 相似文献
4.
核爆当量和埋藏深度是地下核试验的两个重要参数.根据中国东北地区区域范围内地震台站观测记录,利用Pn,Pg,Sn和Lg波波形,计算水平分量的尾波振幅包络,调查2006年10月9日,2009年5月25日,2013年2月13日和2016年1月6日四次朝鲜地下核试验的爆炸当量和埋藏深度.以牡丹江(MDJ)台站记录为例,对两个水平分量波形进行带通滤波,计算平均波形的振幅包络.最终得到区域地震台站水平分量振幅包络,振幅稳定,包络振幅的变化清晰地显示区域震相的位置.区域震相的时间域振幅包络由震源谱函数、传播效应、台基响应和传递函数及尾波形状函数构成.通过网格搜索的方法,拟合水平分量记录的波形包络,可以获得核爆当量和埋藏深度的估计.结果表明,朝鲜四次地下核试验爆炸当量以时间为序从0.6±0.2kt到3.0±1.5kt,增加至10.0±2.0kt,再降到8.0±2.0kt.2006年核爆的埋藏深度较浅,为150±100m,2009年朝鲜核试验的埋藏深度为350±100m,2013年和2016年朝鲜核试验的深度非常一致,均为500±200m.这些结果与前人的调查结果一致性较高,说明使用单一地震台站时间域水平分量尾波振幅包络是可能同时约束地下核试验爆炸当量和埋藏深度的. 相似文献
5.
本文分析了电离层对2009年、2013年和2016年朝鲜核试验中地下核爆(Underground Nuclear Explosion,UNE)的响应.利用南北半球IGS站的GNSS-TEC观测数据,发现了在3次核试验期间的磁共轭电离层扰动现象.观测结果表明,3次UNE所产生的电离层扰动分别以228m·s-1、173m·s-1和147m·s-1的速度从核试验爆心地区径向传播.本文研究提出,UNE所产生的电离层TEC扰动是岩石圈-大气层-电离层耦合(Lithosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere Coupling,LAIC)电场渗透到电离层高度引发电动力学过程的结果.此外,LAIC电场可以沿磁力线映射到共轭半球,从而在共轭地区造成电离层TEC扰动.因此,在核试验地区附近以及其对应的磁共轭地区,UNE所产生的LAIC电场在电离层TEC扰动的形成中起着关键性的作用. 相似文献
6.
7.
自2006年至2017年,朝鲜民主主义人民共和国在中朝边界地区的试验场进行了6次地下核试验.本文综合报道根据东北亚地区的宽频带数字地震资料利用地震学方法对这六次地下核爆炸的研究.结果表明,朝鲜地下核试验在区域台网产生的地震记录具有典型浅源爆炸的特征.针对上述资料发展了处理核爆数据的方法并据此得出各次朝鲜核爆的地震学参数,包括事件识别、当量测定、以及震中相对定位等.对6次核爆和4次天然地震P/S类型谱振幅比的统计分析表明,2 Hz以上台网平均谱振幅比可以正确地将朝鲜核爆从天然地震中识别出来,从而有效监测在朝鲜半岛进行的当量大于0.5 kt的地下核试验.同时也发现,建立在体波-面波震级比之上的识别方法不适用于朝鲜核试验场.通过建立中朝边界地区基于Lg波的体波震级系统,计算了各次朝鲜核试验的体波震级mb（Lg）,并由此估计了它们的地震学当量,其值介于0.5 kt至60 kt之间.由于缺少爆炸埋藏深度的数据,上述当量有可能被低估,因而有必要对深度影响做进一步研究.以第一次爆炸的位置为参考震中,利用Pn波相对走时数据和高精度相对定位方法获得了各次核爆在试验场中的精确定位. 相似文献
8.
利用1995年至2009年中国东北及邻近地区11个宽频带台站记录到的77个地震事件、3个化学爆炸和2次朝鲜核爆的区域地震资料,标定该区域台网的Rayleigh波震级.通过对8~25 s 周期的垂直分量Rayleigh波形进行分析,获取基于最大振幅的面波震级.计算82个区域事件不同周期的台基响应,经过台基校正后取最大振幅的面波震级为事件震级.2006年和2009年两次朝鲜核爆的面波震级分别为2.93±0.19和3.62±0.21.将地震和核爆事件的面波震级Ms与体波震级mb(Lg)进行比较,发现根据该区域台网的数据利用Ms-mb识别方法无法鉴别朝鲜地区的核爆与地震.朝鲜核爆的面波震级相对较大,使Ms-mb识别方法失效,其原因可能是源区介质的不均匀性、由核爆炸冲击引发的深部的拉伸破坏被抑制,或者是近爆源区存在张性的构造预应力.假定核爆可能的埋藏深度范围是0.01~1.0 km,用Rayleigh波震级估计朝鲜核爆的当量,对2006年和2009年核爆当量的估值范围分别为0.42~3.17 kt和2.06~15.53 kt. 相似文献
9.
10.
在地震早期预警系统中具破坏性地震震中的确定速度十分重要.本文提出了地震发生后根据1个、2个、3个台站P波到时记录进行动态、近实时确定地震发生区域、线区间和震中位置的方法.方法充分考虑了地震触发台站和非触发台站分布与地震波传播规律的一致性和差异性特征,提高了震中定位结果的精度.对由79个台站组成的山东虚拟测震台网2009-2010年期间记录的425次网内地震进行了快速定位,结果表明对发生在网内的地震可在要求时间内给出比较准确的震中位置,可满足预警地震速报时效性和精度的双重要求. 相似文献
11.
A. Douglas 《Journal of Seismology》2007,11(2):171-176
Most estimates of the epicentre of the Long Shot explosion (29 October 1965, Aleutian Islands) are biased to the north of the true epicentre, this bias being much larger than formal uncertainty estimates. The bias is interpreted by some as evidence that the P-wave speeds in the upper mantle in the source region are higher to the north than to the south; that is, the difference between estimated and true epicentre is a source bias. Others argue that much of the bias can be explained by station anomalies, i.e. differences in the wave speeds in the upper mantle at stations to the north relative to those to the south. Bias may also be introduced by measurement error if signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is lower on average at stations to the south compared to those to the north and times are read late at the low SNR stations. Here I locate Long Shot and the other two Aleutian Island explosions (Milrow and Cannikin) using P times from small networks of stations all on continents. The results support the view that a large component of the bias in the epicentres of the three explosions is due to station anomalies and not source bias, but that for the Long Shot explosion (the lowest magnitude of the three explosions), measurement error due to systematic variations in the SNR between stations to the north and south also contributes to the bias. 相似文献
12.
R. Carluccio A. Giuntini V. Materni S. Chiappini C. Bignami F. D’Ajello Caracciolo A. Pignatelli S. Stramondo R. Console M. Chiappini 《Pure and Applied Geophysics》2014,171(3-5):341-359
The Democratic People Republic of Korea announced two underground nuclear tests carried out in their territory respectively on October 9th, 2006 and May 25th, 2009. The scarce information on the precise location and the size of those explosions has stimulated various kinds of studies, mostly based on seismological observations, by several national agencies concerned with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty verification. We analysed the available seismological data collected through a global high-quality network for the two tests. After picking up the arrival times at the various stations, a standard location program has been applied to the observed data. If we use all the available data for each single event, due to the different magnitude and different number of available stations, the locations appear quite different. On the contrary, if we use only the common stations, they happen to be only few km apart from each other and within their respective error ellipses. A more accurate relative location has been carried out by the application of algorithms such as double difference joint hypocenter determination (DDJHD) and waveform alignment. The epicentral distance between the two events obtained by these methods is 2 km, with the 2006 event shifted to the ESE with respect to that of 2009. We then used a dataset of VHR TerraSAR-X satellite images to detect possible surface effects of the underground tests. This is the first ever case where these highly performing SAR data have been used to such aim. We applied InSAR processing technique to fully exploit the capabilities of SAR data to measure very short displacements over large areas. Two interferograms have been computed, one co-event and one post-event, to remove possible residual topographic signals. A clear displacement pattern has been highlighted over a mountainous area within the investigated region, measuring a maximum displacement of about 45 mm overall the relief. Hypothesizing that the 2009 nuclear test had been carried out close to the area where the displacement has been observed through the DInSAR technique, its relation with the epicenter location obtained through seismological processing has been discussed as a possible alternative hypothesis with respect to the preferred solutions reported by the nuclear explosion database (NEDB). The distance of about 10 km between the two places can be considered acceptable in light of the possible systematic location shifts commonly observed in the seismological practice over a global scale. The difference between the m b magnitudes of the two tests could reflect differences in geological conditions of the two test sites, even if the yield of the two explosions had been the same. 相似文献
13.
芦山MS7.0地震前的电磁异常信号 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
对南北地震带18个地电场及电磁扰动观测台站进行了跟踪与研究, 2013年4月20日四川芦山MS7.0地震前只有其中5个台站观测到了异常电磁信号. 研究表明, 地震前的这些异常信号时空分布非常不均匀. 在时间上表现出震前电磁异常信号在出现的台站上不是同步的, 且随着时间的推移有向震中方向迁移的趋势; 在空间上体现在成都以北的台站都没有记录到震前电磁异常信号, 主要出现在成都及其以南的一些台站. 芦山MS7.0地震前地震电磁信号出现的最早时间是震前21天, 其次是震前16天; 临震时间则为震前5天、 4天和1天. 通过接地极注入地下的大电流以及以往的震例分析, 认为仙女山台是又一个比较突出的电磁信号观测的敏感点. 相似文献
14.
利用中国中东部地震台网中430个宽频带台站2008和2009两年的垂直分量记录,我们计算了台站对之间的噪声互相关函数(Noise Cross-correlation Function,NCF).在相当多的NCF中,沿大圆路径传播的瑞利面波信号之前存在一个较强的前驱信号,该信号持续时间约50 s,频率范围为0.07~0.12 Hz.此信号在同一台站对的NCF中稳定存在、到时相同,而在不同台站对的NCF中到时不一致,这表明该信号可能源于一个固定的较小区域内持续存在的噪声源.基于格点搜索方法的定位结果显示该噪声源位于日本九州岛附近,其激发出的信号传播速度约2.7 km/s.假定该信号由一点产生,我们计算了合成地震图,合成地震图与观测到的前驱信号基本一致,验证了定位结果的可靠性.此噪声源会对特定路径上的面波信号产生干扰,在相关研究中需要采取一定措施避免.该噪声源的物理机制有待于进一步的研究. 相似文献
15.
—?Official Russian sources in 1996 and 1997 have stated that 340 underground nuclear tests (UNTs) were conducted during 1961–1989 at the Semipalatinsk Test Site (STS) in Eastern Kazakhstan. Only 271 of these nuclear tests appear to have been described with well-determined origin time, coordinates and magnitudes in the openly available technical literature. Thus, good open documentation has been lacking for 69 UNTs at STS.¶The main goal of our study was to provide detections, estimates of origin time and location, and magnitudes, for as many of these previously undocumented events as possible. We used data from temporary and permanent seismographic stations in the former USSR at distances from 500?km to about 1500?km from STS. As a result, we have been able to assign magnitude for eight previously located UNTs whose magnitude was not previously known. For 31 UNTs, we have estimated origin time an d assigned magnitude — and for 19 of these 31 we have obtained locations based on seismic signals. Of the remaining 30 poorly documented UNTs, 15 had announced yields that were less than one ton, and 13 occurred simultaneously with another test which was detected. There are only two UNTs, for which the announced yield exceeds one ton and we have been unable to find seismic signals.¶Most of the newly detected and located events were sub-kiloton. Their magnitudes range from 2.7 up to 5.1 (a multi-kiloton event on 1965 Feb. 4 that was often obscured at teleseismic stations by signals from an earthquake swarm in the Aleutians).¶For 17 small UNTs at STS, we compare the locations (with their uncertainties) that we had earlier determined in 1994 from analysis of regional seismic waves, with ground-truth information obtained in 1998. The average error of the seismically-determined locations is only about 5?km. The ground-truth location is almost alw ays within the predicted small uncertainty of the seismically-determined location.¶Seismically-determined yield estimates are in good agreement with the announced total annual yield of nuclear tests, for each year from 1964 to 1989 at Semipalatinsk.¶We also report the origin time, location, and seismic magnitude of 29 chemical explosions and a few earthquakes on or near STS during the years 1961–1989.¶Our new documentation of STS explosions is important for evaluating the detection, location, and identification capabilities of teleseismic and regional arrays and stations; and how these capabilities have changed with time. 相似文献
16.
Comparison of ground truth location of earthquake from InSAR and from ambient seismic noise:A case study of the 1998 Zhangbei earthquake 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 Because ambient seismic noise provides estimated Greenos function (EGF) between two sites with high accuracy, Rayleigh wave propagation along the path connecting the two sites is well resolved. Therefore, earthquakes which are close to one seismic station can be well located with calibration extracting from EGF. We test two algorithms in locating the 1998 Zhangbei earthquake, one algorithm is waveform-based, and the other is traveltime-based. We first compute EGF between station ZHB (a station about 40 km away from the epicenter) and five IC/IRIS stations. With the waveform-based approach, we calculate 1D synthetic single-force Greenos functions between ZHB and other four stations, and obtain traveltime corrections by correlating synthetic Greenos functions with EGFs in period band of 10-30 s. Then we locate the earthquake by minimizing the differential travel times between observed earthquake waveform and the 1D synthetic earthquake waveforms computed with focal mechanism provided by Global CMT after traveltime correction from EGFs. This waveform-based approach yields a location which error is about 13 km away from the location observed with InSAR. With the traveltime-based approach, we begin with measuring group velocity from EGFs as well as group arrival time on observed earthquake waveforms, and then locate the earthquake by minimizing the difference between observed group arrival time and arrival time measured on EGFs. This traveltime-based approach yields accuracy of 3 km, Therefore it is feasible to achieve GT5 (ground truth location with accuracy 5 km) with ambient seismic noises. The less accuracy of the waveform-based approach was mainly caused by uncertainty of focal mechanism. 相似文献
17.
P. L. Swanson L. H. Estey F. M. Boler S. Billington 《Pure and Applied Geophysics》1992,139(3-4):375-404
The accuracy and precision of microseismic event locations were measured, analyzed, and compared for two types of location systems: anolog and digital. In the first system, relative times of first arrival were estimated from analog signals using automated hardware circuitry; station positions were estimated from mine map coordinates; and event locations were determined using the BLD (Blake, Leighton, and Duvall) direct solution method. In the second system, arrival times were manually measured during interactive displays of digital waveforms; station coordinates were surveyed; and the SW-GBM (Salamon and Wiebols; Godson, Bridges, and McKavanagh) direct basis function was used to solve for locations. Both systems assume constant isotropic seismic velocity of slightly different signals data sets, calibration blast signals with known source site and origin time, and microseismic event signals, were recorded by each location system employing the same array of high-frequency (5 kHz) accelerometers with 150 m maximum dimension. The calibration blast tests indicated a location precision of ±2 m and accuracy of ±10 m for the analog system. Location precision and accuracy for the digital system measured ±1 m and ±8 m, respectively. Numerical experiments were used to assess the contributions of errors in velocity, arrival times, and station positions on the location accuracy and precision for each system. Measured and estimated errors appropriate to each system for microseismic events were simulated in computing source locations for comparison with exact synthetic event locations. Discrepancy vectors between exact locations and locations calculated with known data errors averaged 7.7 and 1.4 m for the analog and digital systems, respectively. These averages are probably more representative of the location precision of microseismic events, since the calibration blast tests produce impulsive seismic arrivals resulting in smaller arrival-time pick errors in the analog system. For both systems, location accuracy is limited by inadequate modeling of the velocity structure. Consequently, when isotropic velocity models are used in the travel-time inversions, the increased effort expended with the digital location system does not, for the particular systems studied, result in increased accuracy. 相似文献
18.
Günter Bock 《Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors》1981,25(4):360-371
P-wave travel-time residuals at the Warramunga Seismic Array (WRA) in the Northern Territory, Australia, have been studied from 49 earthquakes with epicenters south of 19°S in the Fiji-Tonga region. Focal depths are between 42 and 679 km as determined from pP-P. Using the Jeffreys-Bullen and the Herrin travel-time tables the epicentral parameters have been redetermined by considering only “normal” seismic stations in the location procedure. These are those stations where P-wave travel times are probably not affected by lateral heterogeneities caused by the lithosphere descending beneath the Tonga trench. Epicenters of deep earthquakes below 300 km have been relocated by using stations at Δ > 25° only. Epicenters from shallower-depth earthquakes have been recalculated without using stations between 35 < Δ < 75° epicentral distance. In both cases focal depths were determined from pP-P times. The resulting pattern of P-residuals at WRA does not show any significant change with depth below 350 km. The residuals become more negative for shallower earthquakes above about 250 km. P-waves to WRA are advanced by approximately 2 s compared with those from deep earthquakes. The results do not essentially differ for the two different travel-time tables used. The observations can be interpreted by P-wave velocities that are higher in the sinking slab down to 350–400 km by 5±2% than in both the Jeffreys-Bullen and Herrin models. Without considering possible elevations of phase boundaries this estimate yields a temperature contrast of 1000±450°C between slab and normal mantle material in this depth range. 相似文献