4.6 Article

A comparative analysis of deformable layer tomography and cell tomography along the LARSE lines in southern California

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL
Volume 180, Issue 3, Pages 1200-1222

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04472.x

Keywords

Inverse theory; Tomography; Crustal structure

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [0635714]
  2. Division Of Earth Sciences
  3. Directorate For Geosciences [0635714] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We conducted a comparative analysis of the new deformable layer tomography (DLT) with the traditional fixed-in-space cell tomography along three 2-D crustal profiles of P-wave velocities in southern California using first arrivals from local earthquakes and two Los Angeles Regional Seismic Experiment (LARSE) seismic lines. The DLT method inverts for the depth-varying geometry of velocity interfaces, which include major velocity discontinuities near the top and bottom of the crust and boundaries between velocity layers in the middle crust. In regions characterized by large lateral velocity changes, the DLT method may improve the depth resolution of major velocity interfaces compared to traditional cell tomography using fixed-in-space cells or grids. We also tested the use of crustal thickness estimates from a receiver function study for constraining the depth range of the Moho geometry. Tests indicate that, in areas of sufficient ray coverage, the depth resolution of the DLT for major velocity interfaces is usually less than 1 km in the upper crust and less than 3 km in the lower crust. Our 2-D DLT models fit the first arrival data significantly better than three published 3-D cell tomography models along the profiles. The configurations of basin edges and undulating velocity discontinuities are well delineated in the DLT models and indicative of the crustal architecture of the region.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available