Teleseismic S-wave tomography of South Island, New Zealand upper mantle

We present two preliminary tomography models of Antarctica using seismic data recorded globally since 1994. Through combined efforts, several seismic broadband arrays have been deployed in Antarctica in previous decades, enabling the generation of two types of tomography models in this study: a multiple-frequency body-wave tomography and a waveform tomography model. Altogether, more than 2000 global events are collected resolving this region in great detail.Crustal correction is crucial in seismic tomography, as it can cause the crustal smearing or leakage of shallow heterogeneities into the deep mantle. In global multiple-frequency tomography, synthetic seismograms are calculated on a spherically symmetric earth model (e.g. PREM, IASP91) in which effects of the crust, ellipticity, and topography are neglected. At a later stage, corrections are applied to the measured traveltimes to account for the known deviations from spherically symmetric earth models.In waveform tomography, the crust has a significant impact on the Rayleigh and Love wave speeds. We invert for the crustal structure and explicitly account for its highly non-linear effects on seismic waveforms. Here, we implement a flexible workflow where different 3D reference crustal models can be plugged in. We test this using the CRUST2.0 and CRUST1.0 models.In this study, we quantify the effects of these crustal models on two types of inversion techniques with a focus on the mantle structure beneath Antarctica. We compare the mantle structures beneath Antarctica imaged by a multiple-frequency body-wave tomography technique (e.g., Hosseini et al, 2019) and a waveform tomography method (Lebedev et al. 2005; Lebedev and van der Hilst 2008) using CRUST1.0 and CRUST2.0.References: K. Hosseini, K. Sigloch, M. Tsekhmistrenko, A. Zaheri, T. Nissen-Meyer, H. Igel, Global mantle structure from multifrequency tomography using P, PPand P-diffracted waves, Geophysical Journal International, Volume 220, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 96&#8211;141, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggz394S. Lebedev, R. D. Van Der Hilst, Global upper-mantle tomography with the automated multimode inversion of surface and S-wave forms. Geophysical Journal International, Volume 173, Issue 2, May 2008, Pages 505&#8211;518, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03721.xA. J. Schaeffer, S. Lebedev, Global shear speed structure of the upper mantle and transition zone,&#160;Geophysical Journal International, Volume 194, Issue 1, 1 July 2013, Pages 417&#8211;449,&#160;https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt095

Download Full-text

The effects of seismic anisotropy on S-wave travel time-tomography: the problem of apparent anomalies and possible solutions

10.5194/egusphere-egu21-7485 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Francesco Rappisi ◽

Brandon Paul Vanderbeek ◽

Manuele Faccenda

Keyword(s):

Travel Time ◽

Upper Mantle ◽

Shear Velocity ◽

P Wave ◽

Travel Times ◽

S Wave ◽

Velocity Models ◽

Travel Time Tomography ◽

Wave Travel ◽

Wave Tomography

Teleseismic travel-time tomography remains one of the most popular methods for obtaining images of Earth's upper mantle. While teleseismic shear phases, most notably SKS, are commonly used to infer the anisotropic properties of the upper mantle, anisotropic structure is often ignored in the construction of body wave shear velocity models. Numerous researchers have demonstrated that neglecting anisotropy in P-wave tomography can introduce significant imaging artefacts that could lead to spurious interpretations. Less attention has been given to the effect of anisotropy on S-wave tomography partly because, unlike P-waves, there is not a ray-based methodology for modelling S-wave travel-times through anisotropic media. Here we evaluate the effect that the isotropic approximation has on tomographic images of the subsurface when shear waves are affected by realistic mantle anisotropy patterns. We use SPECFEM to model the teleseismic shear wavefield through a geodynamic model of subduction that includes elastic anisotropy predicted from micromechanical models of polymineralic aggregates advected through the simulated flow field. We explore how the chosen coordinates system in which S-wave arrival times are measured (e.g., radial versus transverse) affects the imaging results. In all cases, the isotropic imaging assumption leads to numerous artefacts in the recovered velocity models that could result in misguided inferences regarding mantle dynamics. We find that when S-wave travel-times are measured in the direction of polarisation, the apparent anisotropic shear velocity can be approximated using sinusoidal functions of period pi and two-pi. This observation allows us to use ray-based methods to predict S-wave travel-times through anisotropic models. We show that this parameterisation can be used to invert S-wave travel-times for the orientation and strength of anisotropy in a manner similar to anisotropic P-wave travel-time tomography. In doing so, the magnitude of imaging artefacts in the shear velocity models is greatly reduced.

Download Full-text