Imaging crustal structures through a passive seismic imaging approach in a mining area in Saxony, Germany

Hassani, Hossein; Hloušek, Felix; Buske, Stefan; Wallner, Olaf

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-2703-2021

Articles | Volume 12, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-2703-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-2703-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 12

Research article

|

30 Nov 2021

Research article |

| 30 Nov 2021

Imaging crustal structures through a passive seismic imaging approach in a mining area in Saxony, Germany

Hossein Hassani, Felix Hloušek, Stefan Buske, and Olaf Wallner

Download

Final revised paper (published on 30 Nov 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 19 Apr 2021)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on se-2021-32', Mehdi Zare , 01 May 2021

The manuscript is representing and interesting study. There are some point to be modified in the text before publication:

line 171: - " we selected only those records with clear and strong (in comparison to maximum amplitude on the trace)

direct P phases. " / There is much more effective if the authors specified the uncertainty level in P phase picking.

lines-191-192;: "As can be seen, the wavefield for the same event appears with

different frequency content at different stations.". / It is better that the event specification (time, magnitude, place) will be included.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-32-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hossein Hassani, 14 Jul 2021
  
  We are very thankful to Mehdi Zare for his affirmative review. Regarding the comments, we would like to clarify few points:
  The microseismic events used in this study are located through a migration-based event location approach. The localization procedure including the uncertainty level of P-phase picking (3 ms) has been discussed in a previous publication (Hassani et al. 2018) which is referenced in line 164.
  The hypocenter location of the events are illustrated in figures 1, 2 and specifically in figure 6. However since the global coordinate of the located hypocenters is not directly relevant to the theme of this study, we avoided to go through those details. This applies also to the specific time of the events. The magnitude range of all events is mentioned in line 159 (−1.30<Mw<0.90).
  Yours sincerely,
  Hossein Hassani on behalf of co-authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-32-AC1
RC1:
'Comment on se-2021-32', Mehdi Zare , 02 May 2021

I am comvinced that the article is representing an interesting study.

However I suggest that the author add the uncertainty level of P-phase picking, as well as the used seismic events will be presented in the manuscript, memtioning their time, magnitude and locations (if possible).

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-32-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hossein Hassani, 14 Jul 2021
  
  We are very thankful to Mehdi Zare for his affirmative review. Regarding the comments, we would like to clarify few points:
  The microseismic events used in this study are located through a migration-based event location approach. The localization procedure including the uncertainty level of P-phase picking (3 ms) has been discussed in a previous publication (Hassani et al. 2018) which is referenced in line 164.
  The hypocenter location of the events are illustrated in figures 1, 2 and specifically in figure 6. However since the global coordinate of the located hypocenters is not directly relevant to the theme of this study, we avoided to go through those details. This applies also to the specific time of the events. The magnitude range of all events is mentioned in line 159 (−1.30<Mw<0.90).
  Yours sincerely,
  Hossein Hassani on behalf of co-authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-32-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on se-2021-32', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 May 2021

Dear Author/s,

In my opinion, the presented article showcases a novel approch in depth imgaing using passive data. I was fascinated by the fact that seismic network primarily desinged only for detecting earthquakes when combined with advanced depth imaging techniques can delineate geological structures at crustal scale. The approach provides a new insight on how the passive data from such networks can be used to image large scale feature and can complement other methods/results.

Although the article consisted of a strong technical approach towards the problem, I found it difficult to convince based on the results being presented. Due to lack of comparison with other standard imaging approach and existing results present for the area, I put my opinion as for "major revision". More specific details can be found on the attached PDF file.

I hope you will process my comments in a constructive and it will help you in rectifying your article.

Yours' sincerely,

Referee-2

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-32-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hossein Hassani, 14 Jul 2021
  
  We are grateful for the positive opinion and careful review of referee #2 on our article. Of course we will consider your constructive and helpful comments in a revision and try to enhance the manuscript to improve the statement and declarations.
  Referring to your comment about the lack of comparison with the other standard imaging approach, we would like to mention the limited coverage of the available dataset on the study area. On the other hand, in order to avoid repetitions and to demonstrate the reliability of the imaging results, we performed a one-to-one comparison to show the differences and similarities between our results and the results of the conventional active seismic imaging survey. However, we will try to enhance the comparison part (as much as possible) to provide a better understanding of the results of this study.
  Sincerely yours,
  Hossein Hassani on behalf of co-authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2021-32-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Hossein Hassani on behalf of the Authors (11 Sep 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Sep 2021) by Michal Malinowski

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (06 Oct 2021)

ED: Publish as is (06 Oct 2021) by Michal Malinowski

ED: Publish as is (07 Oct 2021) by CharLotte Krawczyk (Executive editor)

AR by Hossein Hassani on behalf of the Authors (20 Oct 2021)

Short summary

Passive seismic imaging methods use natural earthquakes as seismic sources, while in active seismic imaging methods, artificial sources (e.g. explosives) are used to generate seismic waves. We imaged some structures related to a major fault plane through a passive seismic imaging approach using microearthquakes with magnitudes smaller than 0.9 (M_w). These structures have not been illuminated by a previously conducted 3D active seismic survey due to their large dip angles.