|FDSN code||ZJ (2017-2017)||Operated by||University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP)|
|Network name||UTEP Source Test 2017 (UTEP Source Test)||Deployment region||United States of America|
|Start year||2017||End year||2017|
Selecting the appropriate seismic source is important to reach geologicalproject objectives. We compare seismic sources between explosive sources (pentolite and shotgun) and mechanical sources (accelerated weight drop and hammer on plate), focusing on amplitude and frequency. All sources were tested in same geologic environment.. Although this is not an ideal geologic formation for source coupling, it does allow an “apples to apples” comparison. Twenty20 Reftek RT125A seismic recorders withing instruments (4.5 Hz geophones) were laid out in a line with 3-meter station separation. Mechanical sources were tested first to minimize changes in the subsurface related to explosive sources Explosive sources, while yielding higher amplitudes, havebut lower frequency content. The explosions exhibit a higher signal-to-noise ratio, allowing us to recognize seismic energy deeper and farther from the source. Mechanical sources yield higher frequencies allowing better resolution at shallower depths, but have a lower signal-to-noise ratio and lower amplitudes, even with source stacking. We analyze the details of the shot spectra from the different types of sources. A combination of source types can improve data resolution and amplitude, thereby improving imaging potential. However, cost, logistics, and complexities also have a large influence on source selection.
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI)||https://doi.org/10.7914/SN/ZJ_2017|
Steven Harder, Galen Kaip (2017): UTEP Source Test 2017. International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks. Dataset/Seismic Network. 10.7914/SN/ZJ_2017
Loading data availability information...
FDSN Web Services provide a common data access API for seismic data.