Amplitude decrease with geometrical spreading

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the amplitude decrease of a seismic pulse due to geometrical spreading, specifically examining the relationship between amplitude and distance. The formula I = E / (4 * pi * r^2) indicates that energy decreases as 1/r², leading to amplitude decreasing as 1/r. A discrepancy arises when comparing the expected amplitude reduction by a factor of 2 when distance is doubled, against a claim from Louisiana State University that it decreases by a factor of √2. This indicates a misunderstanding of the relationship between amplitude and energy density in wave propagation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of seismic wave propagation principles
  • Familiarity with the concepts of energy density and amplitude
  • Knowledge of mathematical relationships involving energy and distance
  • Basic grasp of physics related to wave mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical derivation of amplitude reduction in wave propagation
  • Study the principles of geometrical spreading in seismic waves
  • Explore the relationship between energy density and amplitude in wave mechanics
  • Examine case studies on amplitude variations in seismic events
USEFUL FOR

Seismologists, geophysicists, and students studying wave mechanics who are interested in understanding the effects of geometrical spreading on seismic pulse amplitude.

AlecYates
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Hey,

I'm looking at amplitude decrease of a seismic pulse as a result of geometrical spreading.

Starting with I = E / (4 * pi * r2) where E = original energy from source, we know that energy falls off as 1/r2, thus amplitude falls off as 1/r.

From wikipedia: "The energy or intensity decreases (divided by 4) as the distance r is doubled;"

This makes sense to me, as when r is doubled we have the energy divided by (2r)2 = 4r2 (which is 4x r2).

From this same principle, I would expect that the amplitude is divided by 2 when the distance is doubled as we have 1/2r instead of 1/r.

However from a Louisiana State University website:

"Geomteric spreading makes the amplitude of a signal falls off in proportion to the distance traveled by the ray. So that if the path of flight is doubled the amplitude will decrease by a factor of: square root of 2."

I can't see how they got their factor of √2 instead of 2.

Is one a mistake or am I missing something?

Cheers
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AlecYates said:
Hey,

I'm looking at amplitude decrease of a seismic pulse as a result of geometrical spreading.

Starting with I = E / (4 * pi * r2) where E = original energy from source, we know that energy falls off as 1/r2, thus amplitude falls off as 1/r.

From wikipedia: "The energy or intensity decreases (divided by 4) as the distance r is doubled;"

This makes sense to me, as when r is doubled we have the energy divided by (2r)2 = 4r2 (which is 4x r2).

From this same principle, I would expect that the amplitude is divided by 2 when the distance is doubled as we have 1/2r instead of 1/r.

However from a Louisiana State University website:

"Geomteric spreading makes the amplitude of a signal falls off in proportion to the distance traveled by the ray. So that if the path of flight is doubled the amplitude will decrease by a factor of: square root of 2."

I can't see how they got their factor of √2 instead of 2.

Is one a mistake or am I missing something?

Cheers
Think of a compression/sound wave spreading out from a source equally in all directions as concentric spherical shells of energy. The energy in a given shell is constant. So the energy density is inversely proportional to the area of that sphere: i.e. energy per unit area varies as 1/r^2 where r is the radius of the shell.

The question you are asking has to do with the relationship between amplitude and energy density of a wave front. Think of the vibration of a spring: the energy contained in the spring is proportional to the square of the maximum amplitude. PE = kx^2/2 .

Since the energy contained in the wave front is proportional to the square of the amplitude and the energy density is inversely proportional to r^2, how would amplitude vary with r?

AM
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
988
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K