English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this study, five non-invasive swept sources, three non-invasive impulsive sources and one invasive impulsive source were compared. Previous shallow seismic source tests (Miller and others, 1986, 1992, 1994) have established that site characteristics should be considered in determining the optimal source. These studies evaluated a number of invasive sources along with a few non-invasive impulsive sources. Several sources (particularly the high frequency vibrators) that were included in the ORR test were not available or not practical during previous tests, cited above. This study differs from previous source comparisons in that it (1) includes many swept sources, (2) is designed for a greater target depth, (3) was conducted in a very different geologic environment, and (4) generated a larger and more diverse data set (including high fold CMP sections and walkaway vertical seismic profiles) for each source. The test site is centered around test injection well HF-2, between the southern end of Waste Area Grouping 5 (WAG 5) and the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR)

Comparison of seismic sources for imaging geologic structures on the Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee