4.7 Article

Trans-Pacific upper mantle shear velocity structure

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2006JB004853

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[1] We use 50 Tonga-Fiji events recorded at the broadband TriNet array, southern California, to develop a pure path upper mantle shear velocity model across the Pacific. At the epicentral distances of 70 degrees-95 degrees, multibounce S waves up to S-5 are observed, including their triplicated branches, which become particularly clear after stacking. Since these S wave multiples turn at various depths, simultaneously modeling their differential traveltimes and waveforms provides strong constraints on the radial velocity structure. We parameterize the velocity model according to a priori information from the previous oceanic models, so that we can take a grid search approach, to fully investigate possible interdependencies among the model parameters. We construct synthetics with a reflectivity code and study both the SH and SV components. By modeling the whole recordings from events at different depths, with different mechanisms, we are able to separate shallow low-velocity zone (LVZ) features from deeper structure. Our preferred model (PAC06) contains a fast lid (V-sh = 4.78 km s(-1), V-sv = 4.58 km s(-1)) with a thickness of similar to 60 km. The underlying LVZ is prominent with the lowest velocities V-sh = 4.34 km s(-1), and V-sv = 4.22 km s(-1) occurring at a depth of similar to 160 km. These velocities are below the estimates of solid-state LVZ, suggesting the presence of partial melt. The anisotropy (V-sv < V-sh) of PAC06 extends to similar to 300 km depth, which is constrained by S-5 turning at this depth. Besides the 406 km and 651 km discontinuities, PAC06 also has a small (similar to 1%) velocity jump at similar to 516 km. We consider these main features of PAC06 to be well determined, since PAC06 explains a large data set from various events. Therefore it is ideally suited for comparing with mineralogical models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据