1887
Volume 20 Number 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

A

Ideally, geophones would be placed in a noiseless environment, in which case there would be no reason to resort to arrays of geophones. If the noise is such that an array is required, the objective of the array is to enhance the signal‐to‐noise ratio and thus to maximize the intelligence that can be derived from a given signal. The design of the array will be a function of the signal characteristics, of the direction and velocity of the noise in the bandpass of the signal, and of the site geology.

It has been demonstrated previously that in a practical sense the optimum array processing is represented by precise beam forming, by which we mean simple time‐delay and summation. Increasing the number of sensors within a given area decreases the inter‐element spacing and may increase the coherency between noise samples at adjacent sensors, thus yielding poorer results compared to √N improvement one expects to get if the noise is uncorrelated. Increasing the number of sensors by proportionately increasing the area is liable to result in signal deterioration, also yielding an unfavorable comparison to √N improvement in signal‐to‐noise. These two effects, together with economical factors, combine to limit the number of sensors that can be used.

Although the data on which our conclusions are reached were drawn from earthquake seismology, the principles involved are equally applicable to exploration seismology and to other geophysical measurements in which arrays of sensors are required.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1972.tb00665.x
2006-04-27
2020-08-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, T. W., 1958, An. introduction to multivariate statistical analysis: New York , John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Capon, J., Greenfield, R. J., and Lacoss, R. T., Design of seismic arrays for efficient on‐line beamforming: Technical Note 1967‐26, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, Massachusetts.
  3. Carpenter, E. W., 1965, An historical review of seismometer array development: Procceedings of the IEEE53, No. 12.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chiburis, E. F., and Hartenberger, R. A., 1966, Signal‐to‐noise ratio improvement by time‐shifting and summing LASA seismograms: Seismic Data Laboratory Report No. 164, Teledyne Geotech. *.
  5. Dean, W. C., 1965, Teleseismic signal and noise correlations at the Tonto Forest Extended Array: Seismic Data Laboratory Report No. 148, Teledyne Geotech.
  6. Denham, D., 1963, The use of geophone groups to improve the signal‐to‐noise ratio of the first arrival in refraction shooting: Geophysical Prospecting11, 389–408.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Green, P. E., Jr., Frosch, R. A., and Romney, C. F., 1965, Principles of an experimental large aperture seismic array, Proceedings of the IEEE53, No. 12.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hartenberger, R. A., and Shumway, R. H., 1967, A beamforming study using outputs from the extended E3 subarray at the Montana LASA: Seismic Data Laboratory Report No. 198, Teledyne Geotech. *.
  9. Hartenberger, R. A., 1967, The effect of the number and spacing of elements on the efficiency of LASA beams: Seismic Data Laboratory Report No. 203, Teledyne Geotech. *.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1972.tb00665.x
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error