1999
DOI: 10.1029/1999jb900168
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shear wave splitting in the Appalachians and the Urals: A case for multilayered anisotropy

Abstract: Abstract.Observations of shear wave splitting in the northeastern U.S. Appalachians and in the foredeep of the Urals vary significantly with the back azimuth and incidence angle of the incoming phase. These variations suggest two or more layers within the upper mantle with different anisotropic properties. Synthetic seismograms for simple multilayered anisotropic structures show that shear wave splitting parameters tend to vary substantially with the direction of approach.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

12
148
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 150 publications
(162 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
12
148
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We suggest two possible reasons for the increased scatter. First, a Fresnel zone argument (Alsina and Snieder, 1995) would imply that the low-frequency measurements are sensitive to a larger anisotropic volume than the high-frequency mea- Table 1 Results of all splitting measurements reported in this study, for high-frequency and low-frequency bandpass filters formal errors on the fast direction ϕ and split time δt are reported; errors were calculated using the formulation of Levin et al (1999). Each measurement is classified as null (N), trench-parallel ( ), trench-perpendicular (⊥), or oblique (O).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…We suggest two possible reasons for the increased scatter. First, a Fresnel zone argument (Alsina and Snieder, 1995) would imply that the low-frequency measurements are sensitive to a larger anisotropic volume than the high-frequency mea- Table 1 Results of all splitting measurements reported in this study, for high-frequency and low-frequency bandpass filters formal errors on the fast direction ϕ and split time δt are reported; errors were calculated using the formulation of Levin et al (1999). Each measurement is classified as null (N), trench-parallel ( ), trench-perpendicular (⊥), or oblique (O).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We visually checked the corrected particle motion diagrams to ensure near-linearity, and the contour plots of the cross-correlation coefficient for each potential pair of splitting parameters were inspected to ensure the best-fitting (ϕ, δt) values were well-constrained. We calculated formal errors based on the formulation of Levin et al (1999). An example of a splitting analysis for a recording at station IGK is shown in Fig.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For a detailed explanation of the splitting methods used we refer to Long and van der Hilst (in press), but for the sake of completeness we summarize them here. The cross-correlation method (Fukao, 1984, and others; we use the implementation due to Levin et al, 1999) yields an estimate of ϕ and ␦t from the horizontal components of a single seismogram by grid-searching for the inverse splitting operator that maximizes the similarity in the pulse shapes of the corrected horizontal seismogram components (which therefore maximizes their cross-correlation). The second method, due to Chevrot (2000), uses the variation of the amplitudes of the transverse components with incoming polarization angle (which for core-refracted phases such as SKS is equivalent to the backazimuth).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subduction-associated processes, therefore, are likely to lead to anisotropic structures that are more complicated than the simple single-layer anisotropic models that are often assumed when interpreting splitting measurements. Various studies have explored the effects of more complicated anisotropic models on splitting measurements, such as multilayered anisotropy Frazer, 1984, 1987;Silver and Savage, 1994;Özaleybey and Savage, 1994;Levin et al, 1999Levin et al, , 2000, dipping symmetry axes (Hartog and Schwartz, 2000;Chevrot, 2000;Chevrot and van der Hilst, 2003), and smooth variations in fast axis orientation with depth (Saltzer et al, 2000). However, the interpretation of shear wave splitting measurements in the presence of complicated three-dimensional anisotropic structure remains extremely difficult and non-unique.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%