Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:53:19.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seismological constraints on ice properties at Dome C, Antarctica, from horizontal to vertical spectral ratios

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2010

Jean-Jacques Lévêque ,
Alessia Maggi  and
Annie Souriau
Jean-Jacques Lévêque
Affiliation:
CNRS, Université de Strasbourg, 5 rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France
Alessia Maggi
Affiliation:
CNRS, Université de Strasbourg, 5 rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France
Annie Souriau*
Affiliation:
CNRS, Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées, 14 avenue Edouard Belin, 31400 Toulouse, France
*
*[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The French-Italian Concordia (CCD) seismological station at Dome C is one of two observatories setup on the ice cap in the interior of the Antarctic continent. We analysed the seismic signal due to ambient noise at this station and at three temporary stations 5 km away from Concordia, in order to specify the ice properties beneath them. A method based on the horizontal to vertical (H/V) spectral ratio, commonly used to analyse soil response in seismic regions, was applied to the Antarctic stations. The main peak in the spectral ratios is observed at frequencies 6.7–8 Hz at the Dome C stations, but it is not observed at another station on the ice cap, QSPA, where the sensor is buried at 275 m depth. This peak can be explained by a 23 m thick unconsolidated snow or firn layer with a low S-wave velocity of 0.7 km s-1, overlying a consolidated layer with S-wave velocity 1.8 km s-1. Despite the non-uniqueness of the solutions obtained by fitting the H/V spectra, this model is preferred because the depth of the velocity contrast coincides with the density at which ice particles arrange themselves in a continuous, dense lattice. A small variability of this structure is observed around Dome C.

Keywords

Antarctic seismological stationsConcordiafirnseismic ambient noise
Type
Physical Sciences
Information
Antarctic Science , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , October 2010 , pp. 572 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © Antarctic Science Ltd 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bard, P.-Y. 1999. Microtremor measurements: a tool for site effect estimation? In Irikura, K., Kudo, K., Okada, H. & Sasatani, T., eds. The effects of surface geology on seismic motion. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1251–1279.Google Scholar
Bonnefoy-Claudet, S., Cotton, F.Bard, P.-Y. 2006. The nature of noise wavefield and its applications for site effects studies: a literature review. Earth Science Reviews, 79, 205–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borcherdt, R.D. 1970. Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 60, 29–81.Google Scholar
Durand, G., Gillet-Chaulet, F., Svensson, A., Galiardini, O., Kipfstuhl, S., Meyssonnier, J., Parrenin, F., Duval, P.Dahl-Jensen, D. 2007. Change in ice rheology during climate variations: implications for ice flow modeling and dating of the EPICA Dome C core. Climate Past, 3, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EPICA community members. 2004. Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core. Nature, 429, 623–628.Google Scholar
Field, E.H.Jacob, K.H. 1995. A comparison and test of various site-response estimation techniques, including three that are not reference-site dependent. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 85, 1127–1143.Google Scholar
Friedrich, A., Krüger, F.Klinge, K. 1998. Ocean generated microseismic noise located with the Gräfenberg array. Journal of Seismology, 2, 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagnon, R.E., Kiefte, H., Clouter, J.Whalley, E. 1988. Pressure dependence of the elastic constants of ice Ih to 2.8 kbar by Brillouin spectroscopy. Journal of Chemical Physics, 89, 4522–4528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, E.P.King, E.C. 1995. Seismic investigation of the Larsen Ice Shelf, Antarctica: in search of the Larsen Basin. Antarctic Science, 7, 181–190.Google Scholar
Lachet, C.Bard, P.-Y. 1994. Numerical and theoretical investigations on the possibilities and limitations of Nakamura’s technique. Journal of Physics of the Earth, 42, 377–397.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J., Wiens, D.A., Nyblade, A.A., Anandakrishnan, S., Shore, P.J.Voigt, D. 2006. Crust and upper mantle structure of the Transantarctic Mountains and surrounding regions from receiver functions, surface waves, and gravity: implications for uplift models. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 7, 10.1029/2006GC001282.Google Scholar
Lebrun, D., Hatzfeld, D.Bard, P.Y. 2001. Site effect study in urban area: experimental results in Grenoble, France. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 158, 2543–2557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lermo, J.Chavez-Garcia, F.J. 1993. Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 83, 1574–1594.Google Scholar
Maggi, A.Lévêque, J.J. In press. Des stations sismologiques en Antarctique: enjeux globaux et locaux. In Rapport d’activité 2008 de l’Institut polaire français Paul-Emile Victor. Plouzané: IPEV, 22–23.Google Scholar
Malischewsky, P.G.Scherbaum, F. 2004. Love’s formula and H/V-ratio (ellipticity) of Rayleigh waves. Wave Motion, 40, 57–67.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 1985. The reflectivity method: a tutorial. Journal of Geophysics, 58, 153–174.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Y. 1989. A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. Quarterly Report of Railway Technical Research Institute (RTRI), Japan, 30, 25–33.Google Scholar
Paterson, W.S.B. 1994. The physics of glaciers. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 480 pp.Google Scholar
Press, F. 1966. Seismic velocities. In Clark, S.P., ed. Handbook of physical constants. New York: Geological Society of America Publications, Memoir, No. 97, 195–218.Google Scholar
Siegert, M.J., Eyers, R.D.Tabaco, I.E. 2001. Three-dimensional ice sheet structure at Dome C, central East Antarctica: implications for the interpretation of the EPICA ice core. Antarctic Science, 13, 182–187.Google Scholar
Siegert, M.J., Carter, S., Tabacco, I., Popov, S.Blankenship, D.D. 2005. A revised inventory of Antarctic subglacial lakes. Antarctic Science, 17, 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souriau, A. 1998. New seismological constraints on differential rotation of the inner core from Novaya Zemlya events recorded at DRV, Antarctica. Geophysical Journal International, 134, F1–F5.Google Scholar
Souriau, A. 2007. Deep earth structure - the earth’s cores. In Schubert, G., ed. Treatise on geophysics. Oxford: Elsevier, 655–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souriau, A., Roullé, A.Ponsolles, C. 2007. Site effects in the city of Lourdes, France, from H/V measurements: implications for seismic risk evaluation. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97, 2118–2136.Google Scholar
Stephenson, W.J., Hartzell, S., Frankel, A.D., Asten, M., Carver, D.L.Kim, W.Y. 2009. Site characterization for urban seismic hazard in lower Manhattan, New York City, from microtremor array analysis. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, 10.1029/2008GL036444.Google Scholar
Tabacco, I.E., Passerini, A., Corbelli, F.Gorman, M. 1998. Determination of the surface and bed topography at Dome C, East Antarctica. Journal of Glaciology, 44, 185–190.Google Scholar