Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; April 2004; v. 94; no. 2; p. 453-463; DOI: 10.1785/0120030123
© 2004 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (19)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Teanby, N. A.
Right arrow Articles by van der Baan, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Automation of Shear-Wave Splitting Measurements using Cluster Analysis

N. A. Teanby*, J.-M. Kendall and M. van der Baan

School of Earth Sciences
University of Leeds
Leeds, LS2 9JT
United Kingdom

Manuscript received 17 June 2003.

The propagation of two orthogonally polarized shear waves, or shear-wave splitting, is arguably the most robust indication of seismic anisotropy in the Earth. This splitting can be parameterized in terms of the polarization of the fast shear-wave {phi} and the lag time between fast and slow components {delta}t. These two parameters provide constraints on the mechanism causing the anisotropy. All methods of calculating splitting require a shear-wave analysis window to be selected. Then the {phi} and {delta}t that best account for the splitting in that window are calculated. Conventionally the shear-wave analysis window is picked manually. However, manual window selection is laborious and also very subjective; in many cases different windows give very different results. We present a method for automating the selection of the window. First, the splitting analysis is performed for a range of window lengths. Then a cluster analysis is applied in order to find those measurements that are stable over many different windows. Once clusters of stable results have been found, the final choice of shear-wave analysis window corresponds to the measurement with the lowest error in the cluster with the lowest variance. Resulting estimates of {phi} and {delta}t are objective, and very large datasets can be analyzed easily. The success of the technique is illustrated with application to a microseismic dataset of 324 events, which confirms previously published results using manually selected analysis windows.






JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Seismological Society of America