Open AccessReceiver function summation without deconvolution
Author(s) -
Kumar Prakash,
Kind Rainer,
Yuan Xiaohui
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
geophysical journal international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.302
H-Index - 168
eISSN - 1365-246X
pISSN - 0956-540X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2009.04469.x
Subject(s) - deconvolution , seismogram , source function , receiver function , function (biology) , blind deconvolution , algorithm , mathematics , geology , physics , lithosphere , seismology , evolutionary biology , biology , tectonics , astrophysics
SUMMARY The separation of the structural effects below a seismic station from other effects like structures far away or from source–time functions is the fundamental problem of the receiver function technique. Two solutions of this problem have been suggested in the early days of the receiver function analysis. One is to model the complete wavefield with synthetic seismograms for a given source–time function with the knowledge of complete source and receiver structures. The other is the deconvolution of the SV component by the P component which removes effects of the source and near source structure. The latter does not require knowledge of the structure at the source or the source–time function. Its disadvantage is that the complete P component, including the P response of the receiver structure, is assumed to be the source signal. For improving the signal‐to‐noise ratio many traces are summed after deconvolution. The deconvolution technique is almost exclusively used nowadays. Here, we suggest a simple technique to estimate the three component response at the receiver site without deconvolution or similar methods. Our technique preserves the P component unlike receiver functions. It consists of the summation of many records from different source regions at one station only after amplitude normalization but no source equalization. The agreement with deconvolved receiver functions is astonishing. P scattered waves are preserved on the P component (in contrast to the deconvolution technique). We found P ‐to ‐P reflected phases from the crust–mantle boundary and from the lithosphere–asthenosphere boundary (LAB) in the data of the station HYB (Hyderabad) in India. Another advantage of the new technique is that it avoids systematic amplitude distortions of some phases (like PpPs crustal multiples) on the Q (or SV) component which are caused by deconvolution. A remaining advantage of the deconvolution technique is the better signal‐to‐noise ratio after summing the same records.