Skip to main content

Inter-Source Interferometry of Seismic Body Waves: Required Conditions and Examples

Abstract

Seismic interferometry is widely applied to retrieve wavefields propagating between receivers. Another version of seismic interferometry, called inter-source interferometry, uses the principles of seismic reciprocity and expands interferometric applications to retrieve waves that propagate between two seismic sources. Previous studies of inter-source interferometry usually involve surface-wave and coda-wave estimations. We use inter-source interferometry to estimate the P-waves propagating between two sources rather than the estimation of surface waves and coda waves. We show that the recovered arrival times are dependent on the accuracy of the earthquake catalog of the two sources. Using inter-source interferometry, one can recover the waveform of the direct body waves and potentially reconstruct the waveform of coda waves, depending on the source-receiver geometry. The retrieval of these waveforms is accurate only when the wavefield is sampled with approximately 4 receivers per wavelength in the stationary phase zone. We show that using only receivers inside the stationary phase region for inter-source interferometry introduces the phase error of approximately 0.3 radians. In our study, we show an example of the P-wavefield reconstruction between two earthquakes using the seismic records from an array along San Andreas Fault. The retrieved P waves give a qualitative estimation of the thickness of the low-velocity zone of San Andreas Fault of approximately 4 km.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

References

  • Aki, K., & Richards, P. (2002). Quantitative seismology (2nd ed.). Univ Science Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asano, K., Iwata, T., Sekiguchi, H., Somei, K., Miyakoshi, K., Aoi, S., & Kunugi, T. (2017). Surface wave group velocity in the Osaka sedimentary basin, Japan, estimated using ambient noise cross-correlation functions. Earth, Planets and Space, 69(108), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakulin, A., & Calvert, R. (2006). The virtual source method: Theory and case study. Geophysics, 71(4), SI139–SI150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdick, L. J., & Orcutt, J. A. (1979). A comparison of the generalized ray and reflectivity methods of waveform synthesis. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 58(2), 261–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, A., Gerstoft, P., Sato, H., Snieder, R., & Wapenaar, K. (2006). Seismic interferometry—Turning noise into signal. The Leading Edge, 25(9), 1082–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, A., & Halliday, D. (2010). Source-receiver wave field interferometry. Physical Review E, 81(4), 046601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, A., Nicolson, H., Halliday, D., Trampert, J., & Baptie, B. (2009). Virtual seismometers in the subsurface of the Earth from seismic interferometry. Nature Geoscience, 2(10), 700–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delong, S. B., Hilley, G. E., Rymer, M. J., & Prentice, C. (2010). Fault zone structure from topography: Signatures of en echelon fault slip at Mustang Ridge on the San Andreas Fault, Monterey County, California. Tectonics, 29(5), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draganov, D., Wapenaar, K., Mulder, W., Singer, J., & Verdel, A. (2007). Retrieval of reflections from seismic background-noise measurements. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(4), L04305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, E., Curtis, A., Galetti, E., Baptie, B., & Meles, G. (2015). Constructing new seismograms from old earthquakes: Retrospective seismology at multiple length scales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 120(4), 2466–2490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eulenfeld, T. (2020). Towards source region tomography with inter-source interferometry: Shear wave velocity from 2018 West Bohemia swarm earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth [manuscript submitted for publication], pages 1–24.

  • Fan, Y., & Snieder, R. (2009). Required source distribution for interferometry of waves and diffusive fields. Geophysical Journal International, 179(2), 1232–1244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forghani, F., & Snieder, R. (2010). Underestimation of body waves and feasibility of surface-wave reconstruction by seismic interferometry. The Leading Edge, 29(7), 790–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, R. D., Reitman, N. G., Briggs, R. W., Barnhart, W. D., Hayes, G. P., & Wilson, E. (2015). On- and off-fault deformation associated with the September 2013 Mw 7.7 Balochistan earthquake: Implications for geologic slip rate measurements. Tectonophysics, 660, 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guy, M. R., Patton, J. M., Fee, J., Hearne, M., Martinez, E., Ketchum, D., et al. (2015). National Earthquake Information Center systems overview and integration 2015–1120 (p. 25). U.S: Geological Survey Open-File Report.

  • Halliday, D., & Curtis, A. (2008). Seismic interferometry, surface waves and source distribution. Geophysical Journal International, 175(3), 1067–1087.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holdsworth, R. E., van Diggelen, E. W., Spiers, C. J., de Bresser, J. H., Walker, R. J., & Bowen, L. (2011). Fault rocks from the SAFOD core samples: Implications for weakening at shallow depths along the San Andreas Fault, California. Journal of Structural Geology, 33(2), 132–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeppson, T. N., & Tobin, H. J. (2015). San Andreas fault zone velocity structure at SAFOD at core, log, and seismic scales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 120, 4983–4997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korneev, V., Nadeau, R., & Berkeley, L. (2004). Vibroseis Monitoring of San Andreas Fault in California. University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2t35c4x6).

  • Larose, E., Margerin, L., Derode, A., van Tiggelen, B., Campillo, M., Shapiro, N., et al. (2006). Correlation of random wavefields: An interdisciplinary review. Geophysics, 71(4), SI11–SI21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. G., Leary, P., Aki, K., & Malin, P. (1990). Seismic trapped modes in the Oroville and San Andreas fault zones. Science, 249(4970), 763–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. G., Vidale, J. E., & Cochran, E. S. (2004). Low-velocity damaged structure of the San Andreas Fault at Parkfield from fault zone trapped waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(12), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Draganov, D., Wapenaar, K., & Arntsen, B. (2016). Retrieving virtual reflection responses at drill-bit positions using seismic interferometry with drill-bit noise. Geophysical Prospecting, 64(2), 348–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matzel, E., Morency, C., Rhode, A., Templeton, D., Pyle, M., & Ave, E. (2016). Virtual seismometers in geothermal systems: looking inside the microseismic cloud. Proceedings, 41st Stanford Geothermal Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, pages 1–4.

  • Miyazawa, M., Snieder, R., & Venkataraman, A. (2008). Application of seismic interferometry to extract P- and S-wave propagation and observation of shear-wave splitting from noise data at Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada. Geophysics, 73(4), D35–D40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mordret, A., Jolly, A., Duputel, Z., & Fournier, N. (2010). Monitoring of phreatic eruptions using interferometry on retrieved cross-correlation function from ambient seismic noise: Results from Mt. Ruapehu, New Zealand. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 191(1–2), 46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morency, C. & Matzel, E. (2017). SGP-TR-212: Virtual seismometers for induced seismicity monitoring and full moment tensor inversion. Proceedings of 42nd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, 5:1–5.

  • Nakata, N., Snieder, R., Kuroda, S., Ito, S., Aizawa, T., & Kunimi, T. (2013). Monitoring a building using deconvolution Interferometry. I: Earthquake-data analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(3), 1662–1678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakata, N., Snieder, R., Tsuji, T., Larner, K., & Matsuoka, T. (2011). Shear wave imaging from traffic noise using seismic interferometry by cross-coherence. Geophysics, 76(6), SA97–SA106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pianese, G., Petrovic, B., Parolai, S., & Paolucci, R. (2018). Identification of the nonlinear seismic response of buildings by a combined Stockwell Transform and deconvolution interferometry approach. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(7), 3103–3126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poliannikov, O. V., Rondenay, S., & Chen, L. (2012). Interferometric imaging of the underside of a subducting crust. Geophysical Journal International, 189(1), 681–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto, G. A., Lawrence, J. F., & Beroza, G. C. (2009). Anelastic Earth structure from the coherency of the ambient seismic field. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 114(7), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval-Hernandez, M., Vazquez-Leal, H., Hernandez-Martinez, L., Filobello-Nino, U. A., Jimenez-Fernandez, V. M., Herrera-May, A. L., et al. (2018). Approximation of Fresnel integrals with applications to diffraction problems. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2018, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, G. T. (2009). Seismic Interferometry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, N. M., Campillo, M., Stehly, L., & Ritzwoller, M. H. (2005). High-resolution surface-wave tomography from ambient seismic noise. Science, 307(5715), 1615–1618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, Z., & Zhan, Z. (2020). Metastable olivine wedge beneath the Japan sea imaged by seismic interferometry. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(6), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirzad, T., Riahi, M. A., & Assumpção, M. S. (2019). Crustal structure of the collision-subduction zone in South of Iran using virtual seismometers. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snieder, R. (2004). Extracting the Green’s function from the correlation of coda waves: A derivation based on stationary phase. Physical Review E, 69(4), 046610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snieder, R., & Larose, E. (2013). Extracting Earth’s elastic wave response from noise measurements. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 41(1), 183–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snieder, R., Miyazawa, M., Slob, E., Vasconcelos, I., & Wapenaar, K. (2009). A comparison of strategies for seismic interferometry. Surveys in Geophysics, 30(4–5), 503–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snieder, R., & van Wijk, K. (2015). A Guided Tour of Mathematical Methods for the Physical Sciences (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snieder, R., Van Wijk, K., Haney, M., & Calvert, R. (2008). Cancellation of spurious arrivals in Green’s function extraction and the generalized optical theorem. Physical Review E Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 78(3), 036606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snieder, R., Wapenaar, K., & Wegler, U. (2007). Unified Green’s function retrieval by cross-correlation; Connection with energy principles. Physical Review E Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 75(3), 036103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tromp, J., Komatitsch, D., & Liu, Q. (2008). Spectral-element and adjoint methods in seismology. Communications in Computational Physics, 3(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuck, E. O. (1967). A simple “Filon-Trapezoidal’’ rule. Mathematics of Computation, 21(98), 239–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, M. J., Malin, P. E., Egbert, G. D., & Booker, J. R. (1997). Internal structure of the San Andreas Fault at Parkfield, California. Geology, 25(4), 359–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallage, A., Klinger, Y., Grandin, R., Bhat, H. S., & Pierrot-Deseilligny, M. (2015). Inelastic surface deformation during the 2013 Mw 7.7 Balochistan, Pakistan, earthquake. Geology, 43(12), 1079–1082.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dalen, K. N., Mikesell, T. D., Ruigrok, E. N., & Wapenaar, K. (2015). Retrieving surface waves from ambient seismic noise using seismic interferometry by multidimensional deconvolution. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 120(2), 944–961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos, I., & Snieder, R. (2008a). Interferometry by deconvolution, Part 1—Theory for acoustic waves and numerical examples. Geophysics, 73(3), S115–S128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos, I., & Snieder, R. (2008b). Interferometry by deconvolution: Part 2—Theory for elastic waves and application to drill-bit seismic imaging. Geophysics, 73(3), S129–S141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wapenaar, K., Draganov, D., Snieder, R., Campman, X., & Verdel, A. (2010). Tutorial on seismic interferometry: Part 1—Basic principles and applications. Geophysics, 75(5), 195–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wapenaar, K., & Fokkema, J. (2006). Green’s function representations for seismic interferometry. Geophysics, 71(4), SI33–SI46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinke, R., Hollingsworth, J., & Dolan, J. F. (2014). Surface slip and off-fault deformation patterns in the 2013 MW 7.7 Balochistan, Pakistan earthquake: Implications for controls on the distribution of near-surface coseismic slip. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 15(12), 5034–5050.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoback, M., Hickman, S., & Ellsworth, W. (2011). Scientific drilling into the San Andreas fault zone—An overview of SAFOD’s first five years. Scientific Drilling, 1, 14–28.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank colleagues from Center for Wave Phenomena (CWP) for useful discussions, Robert Clayton (Caltech) for the seismic records used in this study, and Ridvan Orsvuran for helping with the 2D spectral element method modelling. The authors thank the editors from the journal of Pure and Applied Geophysics for handling this manuscript and thank Andrew Curtis for constructive and critical comments that helped to improve this work. P Saengduean is financially supported by DPST, the Development and Promotion of Science and Technology Talents Project (Royal Government of Thailand scholarship). The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patipan Saengduean.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: Phase Shift and Fresnel Integral

Appendix A: Phase Shift and Fresnel Integral

In Sect. 3, we show that one can reconstruct direct and scattered body waves using receivers in the stationary phase zones. Using an array with a limited aperture in the stationary phase region, the phase of the recovered waveforms differs slightly from the forward-modelled waveforms (Figs. 56, and 7).

When we use the source-receiver geometry in Fig. 2, we can determine the time differences between the direct arrivals of the two sources at each receiver. We define the size of the stationary phase zone (SPZ) using a faction of the dominant period \(T_{dominant}\) of our synthetic signals, where \(T_{dominant} = 0.25\) s. In Sect. 3, our SPZ covers the receivers within \(T_{dominant}/4\) from the maximum time difference (Fig. 19).

Fig. 19
figure 19

Time differences between the direct arrivals of the two sources at each surface receiver in Fig. 2. The graph on the bottom left corner is the enlarged version of the area inside the black box

Figure 20 shows the direct wave that propagates between the two sources in Fig. 2, and the waves extracted from inter-source interferometry take only receivers into account with a delay time \(T_{dominant}/4\) relative to the delay time at the stationary phase zone. One should note the slight phase change between the two waveforms. We show in this appendix that this phase error is associated with limiting the used receivers to the stationary phase region.

Fig. 20
figure 20

The forward-modeled and the interferometric waveforms of the direct body waves

Fig. 21
figure 21

Source and receiver positions in interferometry. x is the half-width of the stationary phase zone

Consider the source-receiver geometry in Fig. 21. Seismic interferometry for waves in a 2D homogeneous medium gives

$$\begin{aligned}&G(r_A,r_B,\omega ) - G^*(r_A,r_B,\omega ) \nonumber \\&\quad \approx \frac{i}{4\pi \rho } \oint _{S^\prime } \sqrt{\frac{1}{r_{SA}r_{SB}}}e^{ik(r_{SA}-r_{SB})} dS^\prime , \end{aligned}$$
(9)

where \(G(r_A,r_B,\omega ) - G^*(r_A,r_B,\omega )\) is the difference between the causal and acausal parts of the Green’s function accounting for the wave propagation between the points A and B, \(\omega\) is the angular frequency, \(\rho\) is the mass density, k is the wave number, and S is the source position on a surface \(S^\prime\) (Fan and Snieder 2009). We can approximate the term \(r_{SA}-r_{SB}\) in Eq. (9) using a second-order Taylor series:

$$\begin{aligned} { r_{SA}-r_{SB} \approx (L_A - L_B) + \frac{1}{2}\bigg ( \frac{1}{2L_A} - \frac{1}{2L_B} \bigg )x^2. } \end{aligned}$$
(10)

Using this second order Tayor expansion for the phase and replacing the geometrical spreading in Eq. (9) by \(1/\sqrt{L_A L_B}\), the integral in expression (9) is in the stationary phase approximation (Snieder and van Wijk 2015) given by

$$\begin{aligned}&G(r_A,r_B,\omega ) - G^*(r_A,r_B,\omega ) \nonumber \\&\quad \approx \frac{i}{4\pi \rho } \frac{e^{ik(L_A - L_B ) }}{\sqrt{L_A L_B}} \int _{-\infty }^{+\infty } \exp \left( \frac{ik}{2} \left( \frac{1}{L_A} - \frac{1}{L_B}\ \right) x^2 \right) dx \;, \end{aligned}$$
(11)

where we replaced the integration over a closed surface by an integration over the transverse x-coordinate. The integral in the right-hand side is of the same form as the Fresnel integral (Sandoval-Hernandez et al. 2018), which is defined as

$$\begin{aligned} { F(X) = \int _0^X \exp \left( {i \frac{\pi }{2}x^{\prime ^2}} \right) dx^\prime \;. } \end{aligned}$$
(12)

This integral is complex and is shown in the complex plane in Fig. 22 where the the origin corresponds to the integral for \(X=0\), and the asymptotic point \(0.5 + 0.5i\) is reached for \(X \rightarrow \infty\). This graphical representation is called the Cornu spiral. The many windings of this spiral around the asymptotic point reflect that the Fresnel integral converges slowly.

Fig. 22
figure 22

Fresnel integral from \(t=0\) to \(t \rightarrow \infty\) in the complex domain (blue). Black and red asterisks represent the integral over a large part of surface receivers and surface receivers located in the stationary phase zone, respectively

The real part of the integrand of the Fresnel integral (12) is shown in Fig. 23. The oscillatory nature of this integrand explains the shape of the Cornu spiral and the slow convergence of the Fresnel integral: the alternating positive and negative values of the integrand lead to the slow spiraling of the Fresnel integral in the complex plane, and one needs to integrate over a large interval for the integral to be close to its asymptotic value for \(X \rightarrow \infty\).

In the waveforms of Fig. 20 the summation over receivers was limited to receivers that have a delay time of less than a 1/4 of the dominant period. That corresponds to a phase delay of less than \(\pi /2\). In the Fresnel integral (12), this integration interval corresponds to the upper limit \(X=1\). As shown by the black dot in Fig. 23, this upper limit is at the point where the real part of the Fresnel integral has its first zero crossing. (This is actually the rationale for restricting the integration to delay times less than 1/4 of the dominant period.) Since the real part of the integrand of the Fresnel integral changes sign, the real part of the Fresnel integral has a maximum at this point, and hence this upper limit corresponds to the rightmost point of the Cornu spiral that is indicated by the red star in Fig. 22.

The important point to note is that the phase of the Fresnel integral for \(X=1\) differs from the phase of the integral computed for its asymptotic value for \(X \rightarrow \infty\); the phase angle for the red star in Fig. 22 differs by about 0.273 rad from the phase angle for the black star. This phase difference leads to the phase difference in the waveforms shown in Fig. 20. The phase difference in the waveforms corresponds to about 0.201 rad. This is slightly less than the phase difference of 0.273 rad predicted above. This discrepancy is caused by the fact that the argument in this appendix ignores the decay of the interferometric integral that is due to variations of the geometrical spreading in the integration. Furthermore, the analysis in this appendix is applicable in the frequency domain, whereas the time-domain waveforms in Fig. 20 contain contributions from a range of frequencies. However, the main points from this appendix are that (1) the interferometric integral converges slowly and (2) truncating this integral can leads to phase errors of about 0.3 rad. Tapering of the interferometric integral will lead to a faster convergence of the integral. Since the phase error does not depend on the distance between the sources at locations A and B, the impact of the phase error on estimated velocities decreases with increasing distance between the sources.

Fig. 23
figure 23

Real part of the integrand of the Fresnel integral (12) for \(-5< x^\prime < 5\). Black dot denotes the first position where the real part changes from positive to negative values

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saengduean, P., Moschetti, M.P. & Snieder, R. Inter-Source Interferometry of Seismic Body Waves: Required Conditions and Examples. Pure Appl. Geophys. 178, 3441–3460 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-021-02814-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-021-02814-y

Keywords

  • Seismic interferometry
  • inter-source interferometry
  • Fresnel integral
  • body waves
  • fault zone
  • San Andreas Fault