On the P and S Receiver Functions Used for Inverting the One-Dimensional Upper Mantle Shear-Wave Velocities

Abstract

The teleseismic P receiver functions are customarily inverted to attain the seismic velocities beneath a seismic station. Surface wave dispersion data are often added to reduce the effect of the non-uniqueness. The combination of P receiver function and surface wave works well in resolving the structures in the crust and uppermost mantle, but is less effective in characterizing greater (lithosphere and asthenosphere) depths due to the interference from crustal multiples. A solution to this problem is jointly to model teleseismic S receiver functions with surface wave and P receiver functions. This study adopts a fast, one-dimensional (1-D) inversion scheme. To avoid the effect of multidimensional structures away from the seismic station, we eliminate multiples that reverberate between the surface and interfaces below a restriction depth (RD), as well as S-to-P conversions below an inversion depth (ID). P-to-S conversions off the interfaces above the half-space and S-to-P conversions above the ID and multiples above the RD are properly modelled. This approach favours ray paths travelling close to stations and is, therefore, more suitable for 1-D inversions. We perform numerical experiments with and without noise and highlight the advantages of a joint receiver function and surface wave analysis.

Investigating Moho depth, Curie Point, and heat flow variations of the Yozgat Batholith and its surrounding area, north central Anatolia,Turkey, using gravity and magnetic anomalies

“…The earthquake data set was taken from the catalogue of the General Directorate Saunders et al (1998) 38 P and S-wave receiver function Çakır and Erduran (2011) 31-38 Receiver functions Tezel et al (2013) 25-40 S-receiver function Kind et al (2015) 37…”

“…Tezel et al (2013) determined the crustal thickness in the central Anatolia to be 31-38 km determined by receiver function. Although Saunders et al (1998) and Çakır and Erduran (2011) found it to be about 38 km beneath central Anatolia, Kind et al (2015) determined the Moho depths to vary between 25 and 40 km by receiver function. Ateş et al (1999) analyzed the gravity and aeromagnetic anomalies of Turkey and showed that central Anatolia reflected relatively high-amplitude magnetic anomalies and intense negative gravity anomalies.…”

Neogene Uplift and Magmatism of Anatolia: Insights From Drainage Analysis and Basaltic Geochemistry

“…Reid et al () estimate lithospheric thicknesses of ∼60 km beneath Central Anatolia based on analysis of basaltic geochemistry. Estimates based upon receiver function analyses range between 60 and 90 km (Angus et al, ; Çakir & Erduran, ; Kind et al, ). A reasonable upper bound for present‐day lithospheric thickness is ∼120 km since a greater thickness would manifest itself as a substantial lithospheric root that should be visible in surface wave tomographic models (Priestley & McKenzie, ).…”

“…A significant consideration is the relationship between present-day elevation and crustal thickness. Here, we have assembled a database of crustal thickness estimates derived from published receiver function analyses (Figure 2; supporting information Data Set S1; C¸akir & Erduran, 2004& Erduran, , 2011Erduran, 2009;G€ ok et al, 2008;Saunders et al, 1998;Taghizadeh-Farahmand et al, 2010;Tezel et al, 2010Tezel et al, , 2013Vanacore et al, 2013;van der Meijde et al, 2009;Zhu et al, 2006;Zor et al, 2003;2006). These analyses use the recorded travel times and amplitudes of direct and converted phases from teleseismic earthquakes to constrain the shear wave velocity structure of the crust and upper mantle.…”

3-D crustal structure along the North Anatolian Fault Zone in north-central Anatolia revealed by local earthquake tomography

“…They also found that P n velocities in the Eastern and Western Pontides are slower than in the Central Pontides. In addition, there are a number of crustal models from receiver function studies by Saunders et al (1998), Tok et al (2008) and Çakır & Erduran (2011) for the Anatolian region to name a few among others.…”