EGU General Assembly 2020
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Similarities and differences of microseism and microbarom source regions reconstructed from the seismo-acoustic Kazakhstani network

Alexandr Smirnov1,2 and Alexis Le Pichon3
Alexandr Smirnov and Alexis Le Pichon
  • 1Institute of Geophysical Researches, Almaty, Kazakhstan (
  • 2IPGP, Paris, France (
  • 3CEA, DAM, DIF, Arpajon, France (Alexis.LE-PICHON@CEA.FR)

The monitoring network of the Kazakhstani Institute of Geophysical Researches includes seismic and infrasound arrays. The PMCC method helps identifying microseisms in seismic records and microbaroms in infrasound records effectively. Simulation of the microbarom strength, propagation path and signal attenuation are well developed for the moment, and for microseisms as well. However, the bathymetry effect on the source intensity shall be taken into account to model microseisms.

Results of the source parameter simulations and microbaroms and microseisms detections are compared at 7 Kazakhstani seismic and infrasound arrays. These comparisons are also carried out between collocated seismic and infrasound arrays. Similarities and differences between the reconstructed source regions of microseisms and microbaroms are discussed. Beside this study, the advantages of integrating the infrasound and seismic methods have been shown for studying seismoacoustic signals from severe storms.

How to cite: Smirnov, A. and Le Pichon, A.: Similarities and differences of microseism and microbarom source regions reconstructed from the seismo-acoustic Kazakhstani network, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-2965,, 2020


Display file

Comments on the display

AC: Author Comment | CC: Community Comment | Report abuse

displays version 2 – uploaded on 07 May 2020
CEA and EGU logo appearance were changed
  • CC1: Comment on EGU2020-2965, Karl Koch, 08 May 2020

    Very nice presentation/poster.

    I would have one question on the mismatch between microseism and microbarom locations you observe. As you mention the source-specific station corrections for the seismic side, I wonder whether you have made some wind corrections for the infra side. (Well, if I have overlooked this on your poster I apologize). If not, could this reduce or eliminate the mismatch observed?

    • AC1: Reply to CC1, Alexandr Smirnov, 08 May 2020

      Dear Karl, Thanks for your interest! We did correction for the attenuation but not for the azimuth. For the moment we work intensively under evaluation of the SSSCs for our arrays and North--Atlantic region. These SSSCs are the order of 40 - 60 degrees at some areas. And azimuthal corrections for the infrasound are much smaller no more than 10 degrees roughly. So the answer is no, I don't think that wind correction could reduce the mismatch. The influence of wind is rather smaller, at least at first approximation.

displays version 1 – uploaded on 01 Apr 2020
  • AC1: Comment on EGU2020-2965, Alexandr Smirnov, 01 Apr 2020

    A preprint is available and open for a discussion at,  it covers most of the presentation.