2020
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggaa145
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Imaging Alpine crust using ambient noise wave-equation tomography

Abstract: SUMMARY We present an improved crustal Vs model and Moho depth map using ambient noise wave-equation tomography. The so-called ‘ambient noise wave-equation tomography’ is a method to invert seismic ambient noise phase dispersion data based on elastic waveform simulation, which accounts for 3-D and finite-frequency effects. We use cross-correlations of up to 4 yr of continuous vertical-component ambient seismic noise recordings from 304 high-quality broad-band stations in the Alpine region. We us… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
39
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 98 publications
14
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To the east of the exhumed mantle wedge, in the light of the deep tectonic structure revealed by recent tomography models that document steeply dipping NNW‐SSE faults in correspondence with observed earthquake alignments (e.g., Lu et al, 2020; Solarino et al, 2018), focal mechanisms are supportive of a kinematic framework that is relatively constant with depth, and invariably dominated by left‐lateral motion and local shortening (Figure 6). To the west and on top of the exhumed mantle wedge, the seismic style is dominated by reverse mechanisms in the 12–30 km depth range, and by normal to oblique‐normal mechanisms in the 0–12 km depth range (Figure 6).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…To the east of the exhumed mantle wedge, in the light of the deep tectonic structure revealed by recent tomography models that document steeply dipping NNW‐SSE faults in correspondence with observed earthquake alignments (e.g., Lu et al, 2020; Solarino et al, 2018), focal mechanisms are supportive of a kinematic framework that is relatively constant with depth, and invariably dominated by left‐lateral motion and local shortening (Figure 6). To the west and on top of the exhumed mantle wedge, the seismic style is dominated by reverse mechanisms in the 12–30 km depth range, and by normal to oblique‐normal mechanisms in the 0–12 km depth range (Figure 6).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Taking the average crustal Poisson ratio of 0.256 (Christensen, 1996) into account, the S-wave threshold velocity is 4.3 km (An et al, 2015). In some part of the study region (i.e., beneath the Southeastern Alps) the Moho is deeper than 55 km which is close to the maximum depth of SEA-Crust (Molinari and Morelli, 2011;Spada et al, 2013;Bianchi et al, 2015;Hetényi et al, 2018b;Kästle et al, 2018;Lu et al, 2018Lu et al, , 2020Stipčević et al, 2020). Therefore, in these regions, SEA-Crust is not able to sample the shallow uppermost mantle beneath such a deep Moho and the 1D velocity models vary smoothly with depth, especially toward the deepest parts.…”
Section: Crystalline Basement and Moho Depthmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…A recent joint inversion of surface wave phase velocities from ambient noise and earthquakes confirmed the heterogeneity of the crustal structure between the Central and Eastern Alps (Kästle et al, 2018). New crustal models from ambient noise tomography have also been recently proposed by Lu et al (2020), Molinari et al (2020), Qorbani et al (2020) improving the resolution of the existing reference models like EPcrust (Molinari and Morelli, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…In order to avoid interference of upper mantle tomography by crustal anomalies, Zhao et al (2016b) used the EPcrust reference model to correct for traveltime residuals within the crust (Molinari & Morelli, 2011). Although the EPcrust model does not include all the details of the most recent Moho maps (e.g., Lu et al, 2020;Spada et al, 2013), and the approach chosen by Zhao et al (2016b) does not include the effects of 3-D propagation of nonvertical rays from different azimuths in the heterogeneous crust (e.g., Waldhauser et al, 2002), synthetic tests performed by Zhao et al (2016b) indicate that their tomography model of V p perturbations is not significantly affected by smearing of crustal anomalies to mantle depth.…”
Section: Slab Structure From Teleseismic P-wave Tomographymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2016b) used the EPcrust reference model to correct for traveltime residuals within the crust (Molinari & Morelli, 2011). Although the EPcrust model does not include all the details of the most recent Moho maps (e.g., Lu et al., 2020; Spada et al., 2013), and the approach chosen by Zhao et al. (2016b) does not include the effects of 3‐D propagation of nonvertical rays from different azimuths in the heterogeneous crust (e.g., Waldhauser et al., 2002), synthetic tests performed by Zhao et al.…”
Section: Velocity Structure In the Upper Mantle Along The Cifalps Promentioning
confidence: 99%