2021
DOI: 10.1029/2021gl092626
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shallow Crustal Shear Velocity and Vp/Vs Across Southern California: Joint Inversion of Short‐Period Rayleigh Wave Ellipticity, Phase Velocity, and Teleseismic Receiver Functions

Abstract: A primary motivation for these works is the significant seismic hazard posed by the San Andreas fault system, and the related need for physics-based hazard assessment of the region (Graves et al., 2011;Vidale & Helmberger, 1988). For the past 25 years, the Southern California Earthquake Center has developed and maintained multiple Community Velocity Models (CVM) with seismic hazard assessment as one of the explicit goals (

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 77 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on microseismicity and anisotropy studies, this outer region exhibits significant tectonic earthquakes, tectonic fractures, and fissure swarms (Bacon et al., 2022; Greenfield et al., 2020; Winder, 2021). Anomaly III is mainly concentrated in the highly fractured zones, between Askja and Herðubreið in this case, which is similar to observations in the San Andreas fault and Eastern California Shear Zone (Berg et al., 2021; Fang et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2007). In particular, Vs is found to be sensitive to highly fractured rocks (Catchings et al., 2020), but this diminishes with depth as cracks begin to close, which is also supported by studies of seismic anisotropy (Bacon et al., 2022).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Based on microseismicity and anisotropy studies, this outer region exhibits significant tectonic earthquakes, tectonic fractures, and fissure swarms (Bacon et al., 2022; Greenfield et al., 2020; Winder, 2021). Anomaly III is mainly concentrated in the highly fractured zones, between Askja and Herðubreið in this case, which is similar to observations in the San Andreas fault and Eastern California Shear Zone (Berg et al., 2021; Fang et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2007). In particular, Vs is found to be sensitive to highly fractured rocks (Catchings et al., 2020), but this diminishes with depth as cracks begin to close, which is also supported by studies of seismic anisotropy (Bacon et al., 2022).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Given separate Vp and Vs model structures, one possible approach is to calculate the Vp/Vs from independently generated Vp and Vs models, but this suffers from potential bias from the different resolutions between independently created Vp and Vs models (Berg et al., 2021). Direct measurements of Vp/Vs for the Southern California crust are possible, and generally fall into three categories: (a) receiver functions H‐κ stacking (Lowry & Pérez‐Gussinyé, 2011; Purevsuren, 2014; Zhu & Kanamori, 2000); (b) Compressional (P) and shear (S) wave arrival time difference analysis (Allam & Ben‐Zion, 2012; Hauksson, 2000; Hauksson & Haase, 1997); (c) inversion of 3‐D seismic velocities (Fang et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ratio between the compressional and shear wave speed (Vp/Vs) provides constraints on the crustal physical and chemical properties (Christensen, 1996). For southern California, seismic models have constrained the elastic properties (e.g., compressional wave speed [Vp], shear wave speed [Vs]) and these separate measurements have been used to inform crustal composition and viscosity (Berg et al, 2018(Berg et al, , 2021Shaw et al, 2015;Shinevar et al, 2018;Wu et al, 2022). However, directly-measured Vp/Vs ratio, a more direct indicator of crustal composition (Lowry & Pérez-Gussinyé, 2011;Sui et al, 2022) has not been used to infer the crustal strength.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9d) by dividing the Vp by Vs models. To mitigate for potentially extreme inaccuracies and numerical artefacts due to simply dividing the Vp by Vs models obtained from data with differing resolutions (Berg et al 2021), we resampled the Vp model based on the Vs model's grid setting before dividing the Vp by Vs models. In addition, we calculated the S-wave velocity perturbation model (Fig.…”
Section: Vp/vs Model Construction and Correlation With Geological Obs...mentioning
confidence: 99%