In this report, we assess the data recorded by a Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) cable deployed during the Source Physics Experiment, Phase II (DAG) in comparison with the data recorded by nearby 4.5-Hz geophones. DAS is a novel recording method with unprecedented spatial resolution, but there are significant concerns around the data fidelity as the technology is ramped up to more common usage. Here we run a series of tests to quantify the similarity between DAS data and more conventional data and investigate cases where the higher spatial resolution of the DAS can provide new insights into the wavefield. These tests include 1D modeling with seismic refraction and bootstrap uncertainties, assessing the amplitude spectra with distance from the source, measuring the frequency dependent inter-station coherency, estimating time-dependent phase velocity with beamforming and semblance, and measuring the cross-correlation between the geophone and the particle velocity inferred from the DAS. In most cases, we find high similarity between the two datasets, but the higher spatial resolution of the DAS provides increased details and methods of estimating uncertainty.
In this report, we assess the data recorded by a Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) cable deployed during the Source Physics Experiment, Phase II (DAG) in comparison with the data recorded by nearby 4.5-Hz geophones. DAS is a novel recording method with unprecedented spatial resolution, but there are significant concerns around the data fidelity as the technology is ramped up to more common usage. Here we run a series of tests to quantify the similarity between DAS data and more conventional data and investigate cases where the higher spatial resolution of the DAS can provide new insights into the wavefield. These tests include 1D modeling with seismic refraction and bootstrap uncertainties, assessing the amplitude spectra with distance from the source, measuring the frequency dependent inter-station coherency, estimating time-dependent phase velocity with beamforming and semblance, and measuring the cross-correlation between the geophone and the particle velocity inferred from the DAS. In most cases, we find high similarity between the two datasets, but the higher spatial resolution of the DAS provides increased details and methods of estimating uncertainty.
Waveform modeling is crucial to improving our understanding of observed seismograms. Forward simulation of wavefields provides quantitative methods of testing interactions between complicated source functions and the propagation medium. Here, we discuss three experiments designed to improve under standing of high frequency seismic wave propagation. First, we compare observed and predicted travel times of crustal phases for a set of real observed earthquakes with calculations and synthetic seismograms. Second, we estimate the frequency content of a series of nearly co-located earthquakes of varying magnitude for which we have a relatively well- known 1D velocity model. Third, we apply stochastic perturbations on top of a 3D tomographic model and qualitatively assess how those variations map to differences in the seismograms. While different in scope and aim, these three vignettes illustrate the current state of crustal scale waveform modeling and the potential for future studies to better constrain the structure of the crust.