scholarly journals Laser ultrasonic surface wave dispersion technique for non-destructive evaluation of human dental enamel

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (18) ◽  
pp. 15592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsiao-Chuan Wang ◽  
Simon Fleming ◽  
Yung-Chun Lee ◽  
Sue Law ◽  
Michael Swain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Wave ◽  
Dental Enamel ◽  
Wave Dispersion ◽  
Surface Wave Dispersion ◽  
Laser Ultrasonic ◽  
Non Destructive Evaluation ◽  
Dispersion Technique ◽  
Non Destructive

Noncontact, nondestructive elasticity evaluation of sound and demineralized human dental enamel using a laser ultrasonic surface wave dispersion technique

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 054046 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsiao-Chuan Wang ◽  
Simon Fleming ◽  
Yung-Chun Lee ◽  
Susan Law ◽  
Michael Swain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Wave ◽  
Dental Enamel ◽  
Wave Dispersion ◽  
Surface Wave Dispersion ◽  
Laser Ultrasonic ◽  
Dispersion Technique

Improved Surface Wave Dispersion Models, Amplitude Measurements and Azimuth Estimates

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffry L. Stevens ◽  
David A. Adams ◽  
G. E. Baker ◽  
Mariana G. Eneva ◽  
Heming Xu
Keyword(s):  
Surface Wave ◽  
Wave Dispersion ◽  
Dispersion Models ◽  
Surface Wave Dispersion

scholarly journals Imaging the subsurface using induced seismicity and ambient noise: 3-D tomographic Monte Carlo joint inversion of earthquake body wave traveltimes and surface wave dispersion

2020 ◽  
Vol 222 (3) ◽  
pp. 1639-1655
Author(s):  
Xin Zhang ◽  
Corinna Roy ◽  
Andrew Curtis ◽  
Andy Nowacki ◽  
Brian Baptie
Keyword(s):  
Surface Wave ◽  
Ambient Noise ◽  
Velocity Structure ◽  
Joint Inversion ◽  
Body Wave ◽  
Source Parameters ◽  
Wave Dispersion ◽  
Inversion Method ◽  
Surface Wave Dispersion ◽  
Wave Data

SUMMARY Seismic body wave traveltime tomography and surface wave dispersion tomography have been used widely to characterize earthquakes and to study the subsurface structure of the Earth. Since these types of problem are often significantly non-linear and have non-unique solutions, Markov chain Monte Carlo methods have been used to find probabilistic solutions. Body and surface wave data are usually inverted separately to produce independent velocity models. However, body wave tomography is generally sensitive to structure around the subvolume in which earthquakes occur and produces limited resolution in the shallower Earth, whereas surface wave tomography is often sensitive to shallower structure. To better estimate subsurface properties, we therefore jointly invert for the seismic velocity structure and earthquake locations using body and surface wave data simultaneously. We apply the new joint inversion method to a mining site in the United Kingdom at which induced seismicity occurred and was recorded on a small local network of stations, and where ambient noise recordings are available from the same stations. The ambient noise is processed to obtain inter-receiver surface wave dispersion measurements which are inverted jointly with body wave arrival times from local earthquakes. The results show that by using both types of data, the earthquake source parameters and the velocity structure can be better constrained than in independent inversions. To further understand and interpret the results, we conduct synthetic tests to compare the results from body wave inversion and joint inversion. The results show that trade-offs between source parameters and velocities appear to bias results if only body wave data are used, but this issue is largely resolved by using the joint inversion method. Thus the use of ambient seismic noise and our fully non-linear inversion provides a valuable, improved method to image the subsurface velocity and seismicity.

scholarly journals Reliable workflow for inversion of seismic receiver function and surface wave dispersion data: a “13 BB Star” case study

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-120
Author(s):  
Kajetan Chrapkiewicz ◽  
Monika Wilde-Piórko ◽  
Marcin Polkowski ◽  
Marek Grad
Keyword(s):  
Surface Wave ◽  
Inverse Problems ◽  
Receiver Function ◽  
Joint Inversion ◽  
Wave Dispersion ◽  
Receiver Functions ◽  
P Wave ◽  
Surface Wave Dispersion ◽  
Phase Velocity Dispersion ◽  
Wide Range

AbstractNon-linear inverse problems arising in seismology are usually addressed either by linearization or by Monte Carlo methods. Neither approach is flawless. The former needs an accurate starting model; the latter is computationally intensive. Both require careful tuning of inversion parameters. An additional challenge is posed by joint inversion of data of different sensitivities and noise levels such as receiver functions and surface wave dispersion curves. We propose a generic workflow that combines advantages of both methods by endowing the linearized approach with an ensemble of homogeneous starting models. It successfully addresses several fundamental issues inherent in a wide range of inverse problems, such as trapping by local minima, exploitation of a priori knowledge, choice of a model depth, proper weighting of data sets characterized by different uncertainties, and credibility of final models. Some of them are tackled with the aid of novel 1D checkerboard tests—an intuitive and feasible addition to the resolution matrix. We applied our workflow to study the south-western margin of the East European Craton. Rayleigh wave phase velocity dispersion and P-wave receiver function data were gathered in the passive seismic experiment “13 BB Star” (2013–2016) in the area of the crust recognized by previous borehole and refraction surveys. Final models of S-wave velocity down to 300 km depth beneath the array are characterized by proximity in the parameter space and very good data fit. The maximum value in the mantle is higher by 0.1–0.2 km/s than reported for other cratons.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document