Azimuth and slowness anomalies of seismic waves measured on the central California seismographic array. Part I. Observations

Abstract

Arrays of seismographs are usually considered to be detectors which give enhanced signals from distant earthquakes. They also provide, however, a new way of learning more about the structure of the crust and upper mantle. The deviation of the seismic-wave surface from its expected configuration may be regarded as a consequence of non-homogeneous and anisotropic conditions in the earth. The operations of the University of California network of telemetry stations in the Coast Ranges of California provides an opportunity to discover the practicality of this approach. The situation of this network near the continental margin gives the study particular interest. The differences in arrival-times between array elements of coherent peaks or troughs of P and pP phases from 28 teleseisms in the period of 1963-1964 were read from the telemetry records of the central California seismographic array. The direction of approach and velocities of the wave fronts were then determined and compared with the great circle azimuths and with the apparent velocities calculated from the Jeffreys-Bullen tables. The observed anomalies in direction of approach and apparent velocites are found to be cyclic functions of the direction of the source. The amplitudes of these functions are almost 10 degrees in azimuth anomaly and 1.0 sec/deg in slowness anomaly. Error analyses show that the anomaly functions cannot be attributed to the measurement errors. The derived anomaly functions provide a powerful means of examining crustal and upper mantle structure under the array and perhaps at the source. Variations between subsets of the array indicate significant differences in structure between portions of the Coast Ranges to the north and to the south of Hollister.

Finding SEIS North on Mars: Comparisons Between SEIS Sundial, Inertial and Imaging Measurements and Consequences for Seismic Analysis

“…In addition, lateral variation are expected to generate off-path perturbation of body waves as illustrated by several Earth studies (e.g. Otsuka, 1966), as well as off-great circle deviation of surface waves (Laske, 1995). From a seismological perspective, the ±2.5° error in the True North direction is therefore comparable to the differences found between different azimuth determination techniques and is also likely less than the expected effects of lateral variation on both body and surface waves ray azimuth.…”