Rupture Heterogeneity and Directivity Effects in Back‐Projection Analysis

The back projection method is a tremendously powerful technique for investigating the time dependent earthquake source, but its physical interpretation is elusive. We investigate how earthquake rupture heterogeneity and directivity can affect back‐projection results (imaged location and beam power)...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth 2022-03, Vol.127 (3), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Li, Bo, Wu, Baoning, Bao, Han, Oglesby, David D., Ghosh, Abhijit, Gabriel, Alice‐Agnes, Meng, Lingsen, Chu, Risheng
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 3
container_start_page
container_title Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth
container_volume 127
creator Li, Bo
Wu, Baoning
Bao, Han
Oglesby, David D.
Ghosh, Abhijit
Gabriel, Alice‐Agnes
Meng, Lingsen
Chu, Risheng
description The back projection method is a tremendously powerful technique for investigating the time dependent earthquake source, but its physical interpretation is elusive. We investigate how earthquake rupture heterogeneity and directivity can affect back‐projection results (imaged location and beam power) using synthetic earthquake models. Rather than attempting to model the dynamics of any specific real earthquake, we use idealized kinematic rupture models, with constant or varying rupture velocity, peak slip rate, and fault‐local strike orientation along unilateral or bilateral rupturing faults, and perform back‐projection with the resultant synthetic seismograms. Our experiments show back‐projection can track only heterogeneous rupture processes; homogeneous rupture is not resolved in our synthetic experiments. The amplitude of beam power does not necessarily correlate with the amplitude of any specific rupture parameter (e.g., slip rate or rupture velocity) at the back‐projected location. Rather, it depends on the spatial heterogeneity around the back‐projected rupture front, and is affected by the rupture directivity. A shorter characteristic wavelength of the source heterogeneity or rupture directivity toward the array results in strong beam power in higher frequency. We derive an equation based on Doppler theory to relate the wavelength of heterogeneity with synthetic seismogram frequency. This theoretical relation can explain the frequency‐ and array‐dependent back‐projection results not only in our synthetic experiments but also to analyze the 2019 M7.6 bilaterally rupturing New Ireland earthquake. Our study provides a novel perspective to physically interpret back‐projection results and to retrieve information about earthquake rupture characteristics. Plain Language Summary With the deployment of continental scale seismic arrays, seismologists can quickly locate the high‐frequency seismic radiation sources and track the earthquake rupture propagation using a technique called back‐projection. It is a signal beamforming technique application in seismology, and similar applications can be found in fields such as radar, wireless communication, and radio astronomy. Recent studies have proposed multiple advancements in improving the back‐projection location. However, the physical interpretation of the amplitude of stacked high‐frequency source radiations, which is commonly referred to as beam power, is still challenging since the analysis is not based on a fo
doi_str_mv 10.1029/2021JB022663
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2643983777</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2643983777</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4341-da26df4dbd8e0a029f2f4257ed1167de1995637422a76ca7440d5055305567d23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1KAzEQx4MoWGpvPsCCV1fzne6xrbW1CkrRc4ibiaTW3ZrsKnvzEXxGn8SUinhyYJiP_49h-CN0TPAZwbQ4p5iSxRhTKiXbQz1KZJEXTMj9356wQzSIcYVTDNOK8B66Xrabpg2QzaGBUD9BBb7pMlPZ7MIHKBv_tp2nzqU-Zr7KxqZ8_vr4vAv1aivXVTaqzLqLPh6hA2fWEQY_tY8eLqf3k3l-czu7moxucsMZJ7k1VFrH7aMdAjbpdUcdp0KBJUQqC6QohGSKU2qULI3iHFuBhWApk05ZH53s7m5C_dpCbPSqbkN6ImoqOSuGTCmVqNMdVYY6xgBOb4J_MaHTBOutY_qvYwlnO_zdr6H7l9WL2XIshMCEfQNv62vO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2643983777</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rupture Heterogeneity and Directivity Effects in Back‐Projection Analysis</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley Online Library Free Content</source><creator>Li, Bo ; Wu, Baoning ; Bao, Han ; Oglesby, David D. ; Ghosh, Abhijit ; Gabriel, Alice‐Agnes ; Meng, Lingsen ; Chu, Risheng</creator><creatorcontrib>Li, Bo ; Wu, Baoning ; Bao, Han ; Oglesby, David D. ; Ghosh, Abhijit ; Gabriel, Alice‐Agnes ; Meng, Lingsen ; Chu, Risheng</creatorcontrib><description>The back projection method is a tremendously powerful technique for investigating the time dependent earthquake source, but its physical interpretation is elusive. We investigate how earthquake rupture heterogeneity and directivity can affect back‐projection results (imaged location and beam power) using synthetic earthquake models. Rather than attempting to model the dynamics of any specific real earthquake, we use idealized kinematic rupture models, with constant or varying rupture velocity, peak slip rate, and fault‐local strike orientation along unilateral or bilateral rupturing faults, and perform back‐projection with the resultant synthetic seismograms. Our experiments show back‐projection can track only heterogeneous rupture processes; homogeneous rupture is not resolved in our synthetic experiments. The amplitude of beam power does not necessarily correlate with the amplitude of any specific rupture parameter (e.g., slip rate or rupture velocity) at the back‐projected location. Rather, it depends on the spatial heterogeneity around the back‐projected rupture front, and is affected by the rupture directivity. A shorter characteristic wavelength of the source heterogeneity or rupture directivity toward the array results in strong beam power in higher frequency. We derive an equation based on Doppler theory to relate the wavelength of heterogeneity with synthetic seismogram frequency. This theoretical relation can explain the frequency‐ and array‐dependent back‐projection results not only in our synthetic experiments but also to analyze the 2019 M7.6 bilaterally rupturing New Ireland earthquake. Our study provides a novel perspective to physically interpret back‐projection results and to retrieve information about earthquake rupture characteristics. Plain Language Summary With the deployment of continental scale seismic arrays, seismologists can quickly locate the high‐frequency seismic radiation sources and track the earthquake rupture propagation using a technique called back‐projection. It is a signal beamforming technique application in seismology, and similar applications can be found in fields such as radar, wireless communication, and radio astronomy. Recent studies have proposed multiple advancements in improving the back‐projection location. However, the physical interpretation of the amplitude of stacked high‐frequency source radiations, which is commonly referred to as beam power, is still challenging since the analysis is not based on a forward model. In this article, we conduct a set of synthetic experiments to investigate the physical significance of back‐projection beam power. We find that beam power is mainly controlled by the spatial heterogeneity wavelength near the rupture front, rupture directivity, and the seismogram frequency. It is in contrast with some previous studies that link the beam power to the maximum slip rate (acceleration) amplitude near the rupture front. Based on the results, we develop a novel theoretical framework that can quantitatively interpret the frequency‐ and array‐dependent back‐projection results not only in our synthetic experiments, but also the 2019 bilateral rupture M7.6 New Ireland earthquake. Key Points We use kinematic forward models to investigate the relation between back‐projection beam location, power and earthquake source properties Frequency‐dependent back‐projection peak beam power depends on the spatial heterogeneity near the rupture front, and rupture directivity We develop a novel framework to analyze frequency‐ and array‐dependent back‐projection results, including the 2019 M7.6 New Ireland Event</description><identifier>ISSN: 2169-9313</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-9356</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2021JB022663</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Acceleration ; Amplitude ; Amplitudes ; Astronomy ; Back propagation ; back‐projection ; Beamforming ; Communication ; Directivity ; Doppler sonar ; Earthquakes ; Experiments ; frequency‐ and array‐dependent ; Geophysics ; Heterogeneity ; Information retrieval ; kinematic forward models ; Modelling ; Patchiness ; Power ; Projection ; Radar ; Radiation ; Radiation sources ; Radio astronomy ; Rupture ; rupture directivity ; rupture heterogeneity ; Rupturing ; Seismic activity ; Seismic arrays ; Seismograms ; Seismology ; Slip ; Spatial heterogeneity ; Velocity ; Wavelength ; Wireless communications</subject><ispartof>Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth, 2022-03, Vol.127 (3), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors.</rights><rights>2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4341-da26df4dbd8e0a029f2f4257ed1167de1995637422a76ca7440d5055305567d23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4341-da26df4dbd8e0a029f2f4257ed1167de1995637422a76ca7440d5055305567d23</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7779-8741 ; 0000-0003-0112-8412 ; 0000-0002-0557-2839 ; 0000-0002-3548-5496 ; 0000-0002-1062-5982 ; 0000-0002-9609-4325 ; 0000-0003-2428-0548</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2021JB022663$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2021JB022663$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,1414,1430,27907,27908,45557,45558,46392,46816</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Li, Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Baoning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bao, Han</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oglesby, David D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghosh, Abhijit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabriel, Alice‐Agnes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meng, Lingsen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chu, Risheng</creatorcontrib><title>Rupture Heterogeneity and Directivity Effects in Back‐Projection Analysis</title><title>Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth</title><description>The back projection method is a tremendously powerful technique for investigating the time dependent earthquake source, but its physical interpretation is elusive. We investigate how earthquake rupture heterogeneity and directivity can affect back‐projection results (imaged location and beam power) using synthetic earthquake models. Rather than attempting to model the dynamics of any specific real earthquake, we use idealized kinematic rupture models, with constant or varying rupture velocity, peak slip rate, and fault‐local strike orientation along unilateral or bilateral rupturing faults, and perform back‐projection with the resultant synthetic seismograms. Our experiments show back‐projection can track only heterogeneous rupture processes; homogeneous rupture is not resolved in our synthetic experiments. The amplitude of beam power does not necessarily correlate with the amplitude of any specific rupture parameter (e.g., slip rate or rupture velocity) at the back‐projected location. Rather, it depends on the spatial heterogeneity around the back‐projected rupture front, and is affected by the rupture directivity. A shorter characteristic wavelength of the source heterogeneity or rupture directivity toward the array results in strong beam power in higher frequency. We derive an equation based on Doppler theory to relate the wavelength of heterogeneity with synthetic seismogram frequency. This theoretical relation can explain the frequency‐ and array‐dependent back‐projection results not only in our synthetic experiments but also to analyze the 2019 M7.6 bilaterally rupturing New Ireland earthquake. Our study provides a novel perspective to physically interpret back‐projection results and to retrieve information about earthquake rupture characteristics. Plain Language Summary With the deployment of continental scale seismic arrays, seismologists can quickly locate the high‐frequency seismic radiation sources and track the earthquake rupture propagation using a technique called back‐projection. It is a signal beamforming technique application in seismology, and similar applications can be found in fields such as radar, wireless communication, and radio astronomy. Recent studies have proposed multiple advancements in improving the back‐projection location. However, the physical interpretation of the amplitude of stacked high‐frequency source radiations, which is commonly referred to as beam power, is still challenging since the analysis is not based on a forward model. In this article, we conduct a set of synthetic experiments to investigate the physical significance of back‐projection beam power. We find that beam power is mainly controlled by the spatial heterogeneity wavelength near the rupture front, rupture directivity, and the seismogram frequency. It is in contrast with some previous studies that link the beam power to the maximum slip rate (acceleration) amplitude near the rupture front. Based on the results, we develop a novel theoretical framework that can quantitatively interpret the frequency‐ and array‐dependent back‐projection results not only in our synthetic experiments, but also the 2019 bilateral rupture M7.6 New Ireland earthquake. Key Points We use kinematic forward models to investigate the relation between back‐projection beam location, power and earthquake source properties Frequency‐dependent back‐projection peak beam power depends on the spatial heterogeneity near the rupture front, and rupture directivity We develop a novel framework to analyze frequency‐ and array‐dependent back‐projection results, including the 2019 M7.6 New Ireland Event</description><subject>Acceleration</subject><subject>Amplitude</subject><subject>Amplitudes</subject><subject>Astronomy</subject><subject>Back propagation</subject><subject>back‐projection</subject><subject>Beamforming</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Directivity</subject><subject>Doppler sonar</subject><subject>Earthquakes</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>frequency‐ and array‐dependent</subject><subject>Geophysics</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Information retrieval</subject><subject>kinematic forward models</subject><subject>Modelling</subject><subject>Patchiness</subject><subject>Power</subject><subject>Projection</subject><subject>Radar</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><subject>Radiation sources</subject><subject>Radio astronomy</subject><subject>Rupture</subject><subject>rupture directivity</subject><subject>rupture heterogeneity</subject><subject>Rupturing</subject><subject>Seismic activity</subject><subject>Seismic arrays</subject><subject>Seismograms</subject><subject>Seismology</subject><subject>Slip</subject><subject>Spatial heterogeneity</subject><subject>Velocity</subject><subject>Wavelength</subject><subject>Wireless communications</subject><issn>2169-9313</issn><issn>2169-9356</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1KAzEQx4MoWGpvPsCCV1fzne6xrbW1CkrRc4ibiaTW3ZrsKnvzEXxGn8SUinhyYJiP_49h-CN0TPAZwbQ4p5iSxRhTKiXbQz1KZJEXTMj9356wQzSIcYVTDNOK8B66Xrabpg2QzaGBUD9BBb7pMlPZ7MIHKBv_tp2nzqU-Zr7KxqZ8_vr4vAv1aivXVTaqzLqLPh6hA2fWEQY_tY8eLqf3k3l-czu7moxucsMZJ7k1VFrH7aMdAjbpdUcdp0KBJUQqC6QohGSKU2qULI3iHFuBhWApk05ZH53s7m5C_dpCbPSqbkN6ImoqOSuGTCmVqNMdVYY6xgBOb4J_MaHTBOutY_qvYwlnO_zdr6H7l9WL2XIshMCEfQNv62vO</recordid><startdate>202203</startdate><enddate>202203</enddate><creator>Li, Bo</creator><creator>Wu, Baoning</creator><creator>Bao, Han</creator><creator>Oglesby, David D.</creator><creator>Ghosh, Abhijit</creator><creator>Gabriel, Alice‐Agnes</creator><creator>Meng, Lingsen</creator><creator>Chu, Risheng</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7779-8741</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0112-8412</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0557-2839</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3548-5496</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1062-5982</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9609-4325</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2428-0548</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202203</creationdate><title>Rupture Heterogeneity and Directivity Effects in Back‐Projection Analysis</title><author>Li, Bo ; Wu, Baoning ; Bao, Han ; Oglesby, David D. ; Ghosh, Abhijit ; Gabriel, Alice‐Agnes ; Meng, Lingsen ; Chu, Risheng</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4341-da26df4dbd8e0a029f2f4257ed1167de1995637422a76ca7440d5055305567d23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Acceleration</topic><topic>Amplitude</topic><topic>Amplitudes</topic><topic>Astronomy</topic><topic>Back propagation</topic><topic>back‐projection</topic><topic>Beamforming</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Directivity</topic><topic>Doppler sonar</topic><topic>Earthquakes</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>frequency‐ and array‐dependent</topic><topic>Geophysics</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Information retrieval</topic><topic>kinematic forward models</topic><topic>Modelling</topic><topic>Patchiness</topic><topic>Power</topic><topic>Projection</topic><topic>Radar</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><topic>Radiation sources</topic><topic>Radio astronomy</topic><topic>Rupture</topic><topic>rupture directivity</topic><topic>rupture heterogeneity</topic><topic>Rupturing</topic><topic>Seismic activity</topic><topic>Seismic arrays</topic><topic>Seismograms</topic><topic>Seismology</topic><topic>Slip</topic><topic>Spatial heterogeneity</topic><topic>Velocity</topic><topic>Wavelength</topic><topic>Wireless communications</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Li, Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Baoning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bao, Han</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oglesby, David D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghosh, Abhijit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabriel, Alice‐Agnes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meng, Lingsen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chu, Risheng</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Li, Bo</au><au>Wu, Baoning</au><au>Bao, Han</au><au>Oglesby, David D.</au><au>Ghosh, Abhijit</au><au>Gabriel, Alice‐Agnes</au><au>Meng, Lingsen</au><au>Chu, Risheng</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rupture Heterogeneity and Directivity Effects in Back‐Projection Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth</jtitle><date>2022-03</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>127</volume><issue>3</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>2169-9313</issn><eissn>2169-9356</eissn><abstract>The back projection method is a tremendously powerful technique for investigating the time dependent earthquake source, but its physical interpretation is elusive. We investigate how earthquake rupture heterogeneity and directivity can affect back‐projection results (imaged location and beam power) using synthetic earthquake models. Rather than attempting to model the dynamics of any specific real earthquake, we use idealized kinematic rupture models, with constant or varying rupture velocity, peak slip rate, and fault‐local strike orientation along unilateral or bilateral rupturing faults, and perform back‐projection with the resultant synthetic seismograms. Our experiments show back‐projection can track only heterogeneous rupture processes; homogeneous rupture is not resolved in our synthetic experiments. The amplitude of beam power does not necessarily correlate with the amplitude of any specific rupture parameter (e.g., slip rate or rupture velocity) at the back‐projected location. Rather, it depends on the spatial heterogeneity around the back‐projected rupture front, and is affected by the rupture directivity. A shorter characteristic wavelength of the source heterogeneity or rupture directivity toward the array results in strong beam power in higher frequency. We derive an equation based on Doppler theory to relate the wavelength of heterogeneity with synthetic seismogram frequency. This theoretical relation can explain the frequency‐ and array‐dependent back‐projection results not only in our synthetic experiments but also to analyze the 2019 M7.6 bilaterally rupturing New Ireland earthquake. Our study provides a novel perspective to physically interpret back‐projection results and to retrieve information about earthquake rupture characteristics. Plain Language Summary With the deployment of continental scale seismic arrays, seismologists can quickly locate the high‐frequency seismic radiation sources and track the earthquake rupture propagation using a technique called back‐projection. It is a signal beamforming technique application in seismology, and similar applications can be found in fields such as radar, wireless communication, and radio astronomy. Recent studies have proposed multiple advancements in improving the back‐projection location. However, the physical interpretation of the amplitude of stacked high‐frequency source radiations, which is commonly referred to as beam power, is still challenging since the analysis is not based on a forward model. In this article, we conduct a set of synthetic experiments to investigate the physical significance of back‐projection beam power. We find that beam power is mainly controlled by the spatial heterogeneity wavelength near the rupture front, rupture directivity, and the seismogram frequency. It is in contrast with some previous studies that link the beam power to the maximum slip rate (acceleration) amplitude near the rupture front. Based on the results, we develop a novel theoretical framework that can quantitatively interpret the frequency‐ and array‐dependent back‐projection results not only in our synthetic experiments, but also the 2019 bilateral rupture M7.6 New Ireland earthquake. Key Points We use kinematic forward models to investigate the relation between back‐projection beam location, power and earthquake source properties Frequency‐dependent back‐projection peak beam power depends on the spatial heterogeneity near the rupture front, and rupture directivity We develop a novel framework to analyze frequency‐ and array‐dependent back‐projection results, including the 2019 M7.6 New Ireland Event</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1029/2021JB022663</doi><tpages>29</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7779-8741</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0112-8412</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0557-2839</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3548-5496</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1062-5982</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9609-4325</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2428-0548</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2169-9313
ispartof Journal of geophysical research. Solid earth, 2022-03, Vol.127 (3), p.n/a
issn 2169-9313
2169-9356
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2643983777
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley Online Library Free Content
subjects Acceleration
Amplitude
Amplitudes
Astronomy
Back propagation
back‐projection
Beamforming
Communication
Directivity
Doppler sonar
Earthquakes
Experiments
frequency‐ and array‐dependent
Geophysics
Heterogeneity
Information retrieval
kinematic forward models
Modelling
Patchiness
Power
Projection
Radar
Radiation
Radiation sources
Radio astronomy
Rupture
rupture directivity
rupture heterogeneity
Rupturing
Seismic activity
Seismic arrays
Seismograms
Seismology
Slip
Spatial heterogeneity
Velocity
Wavelength
Wireless communications
title Rupture Heterogeneity and Directivity Effects in Back‐Projection Analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T07%3A34%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rupture%20Heterogeneity%20and%20Directivity%20Effects%20in%20Back%E2%80%90Projection%20Analysis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20geophysical%20research.%20Solid%20earth&rft.au=Li,%20Bo&rft.date=2022-03&rft.volume=127&rft.issue=3&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=2169-9313&rft.eissn=2169-9356&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2021JB022663&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2643983777%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2643983777&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true