1985
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246x.1985.tb05156.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shear-wave polarizations near the North Anatolian Fault -I. Evidence for anisotropy-induced shear-wave splitting

Abstract: The Turkish Dilatancy Projects (TDP1 in 1979 and TDP2 in 1980) recorded small earthquakes near the North Anatolian Fault with closely-spaced networks of three-component seismometers in order to investigate the possibility of diagnosing dilatancy from its effects on shear-wave propagation. This paper examines the polarizations of shear wavetrains recorded in the shear-wave window immediately above the earthquake foci. Abrupt changes in the orientation and/or ellipticity of the shear-wave polarizations are alm… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

1985
1985
2004
2004

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because cracks, faults, and fractures are confined to the brittle upper crust (0 -15 km), the dt associated with such aligned structures are probably within the noise of teleseismic shear wave splitting. This is consistent with the typically observed crustal dt of 0.1-0.3 s [Booth et al, 1985[Booth et al, , 1990Kaneshima et al, 1988;Kaneshima, 1990;Shih and Meyer, 1990;Crampin, 1994;McNamara et al, 1994]. However, partially molten tabular intrusions (dikes) are a possible cause of teleseismic splitting because the velocity contrast between magma and the surrounding rock is large, and parallel dikes could penetrate through the entire lithosphere, leading to considerable dt.…”
Section: Anisotropy Due To Parallel Dikes or Magma-filled Lensessupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Because cracks, faults, and fractures are confined to the brittle upper crust (0 -15 km), the dt associated with such aligned structures are probably within the noise of teleseismic shear wave splitting. This is consistent with the typically observed crustal dt of 0.1-0.3 s [Booth et al, 1985[Booth et al, , 1990Kaneshima et al, 1988;Kaneshima, 1990;Shih and Meyer, 1990;Crampin, 1994;McNamara et al, 1994]. However, partially molten tabular intrusions (dikes) are a possible cause of teleseismic splitting because the velocity contrast between magma and the surrounding rock is large, and parallel dikes could penetrate through the entire lithosphere, leading to considerable dt.…”
Section: Anisotropy Due To Parallel Dikes or Magma-filled Lensessupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Recently, many researchers have proposed the presence of seismic anisotropy in the upper crust [e.g., Crampin et al, 1984;Booth et al, 1985;Buchbinder, 1985;Kaneshima et al, 1987Kaneshima et al, , 1988aKaneshima et al, , 1989Peacock et al, 1988]. Most of them have analyzed three-component seismograms from crustal earthquakes with various azimuths and incident angles, finding out parallel or subparallel alignments of the particle motion upon the leading shear wave arrivals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The nest is located within the W-B zone, which is expected to be close to the interface of the subducting slab angle of $-to-P conversion (35 ø for Vs/Vp •-1.7) (Table 1), assuming that P and S waves traveled the same paths (constant Poisson's ratios); therefore the effect of S-to-P conversion at the surface on observed shear wave particle motion should be small [Nuttli, 1961;Booth and Crampin, 1985]. At LSL, the calculated incident angle is 36ø; its data are used but with caution.…”
Section: Shear Wave Splitting: Nest Eventsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Determination of time delay was difficult in some cases because several phase matchings, i.e., similar linearity, occurred in the process of shifting. The time delay was then confirmed by particle motion diagrams [e.g.,Booth et al, 1985], and/or measured on the seismograms of the two horizontal components rotated to the fast and slow directions(Figures 3b and 3d)[e.g.,Bowman and Ando, 1987]. The largest average time delays, 0.42 -!-0.04 and 0.39 ñ 0.05 s at 99% confidence level, are at seismographs BCA and BCH, respectively (Figure 6 and…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%