测试远震剪切波分裂反演的观测数据:强度、参数和波形的模糊性

IF 1.2 4区 地球科学 Q3 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS
G. Rümpker, A. Kaviani, F. Link, M. Reiss, A. Komeazi
{"title":"测试远震剪切波分裂反演的观测数据:强度、参数和波形的模糊性","authors":"G. Rümpker, A. Kaviani, F. Link, M. Reiss, A. Komeazi","doi":"10.4401/ag-8870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We assess the capabilities of different observables for the inversion of core-refracted shear waves (XKS phases) to uniquely resolve the anisotropic structure of the upper mantle. For this purpose, we perform full-waveform calculations for relatively simple, canonical models of upper-mantle anisotropy. The models are characterized by two and four domains of different anisotropic properties. Specifically, we assume hexagonal symmetry with arbitrarily chosen strength of the anisotropy and orientation of the horizontal fast axis. XKS waveforms, generated from plane-wave initial conditions, traverse through anisotropic models and are recorded at the surface by a single station (in case of vertical variations) and by a dense station profile across the laterally and vertically varying structure. In addition to waveforms, we consider the effects of anisotropic variations on apparent splitting parameters and splitting intensity. The results show that, generally, it is not possible to fully resolve the anisotropic parameters of a given model, even if complete waveforms (under noisefree conditions and for the complete azimuthal range) are considered. This is because waveforms for significantly different anisotropic models can be indistinguishable. However, inversions of both waveforms and apparent splitting parameters lead to similar models that exhibit systematic variations of anisotropic parameters. These characteristics may be exploited to better constrain the inversions. The results also show that splitting intensity holds some significant drawbacks: First, even from measurements over a wide range of back-azimuth, there is no characteristic signature that would indicate depth variations of anisotropy. Secondly, identical azimuthal variations of splitting intensity for different anisotropic structures do not imply that the corresponding split waveforms are also similar. Thus, fitting of observed and calculated splitting intensities could lead to anisotropic models that are incompatible with the observed waveforms. We conclude that (bandlimited) XKS-splitting inversions and related tomographic schemes, even if based on complete waveforms, are not sufficient to fully resolve the heterogeneous anisotropic structures of the upper mantle and that combinations with alternative methods, based on e.g., receiver-function splitting, P-wave travel-time deviations, or surface waves, are required.","PeriodicalId":50766,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Geophysics","volume":"20 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing observables for teleseismic shear-wave splitting inversions: ambiguities of intensities, parameters, and waveforms\",\"authors\":\"G. Rümpker, A. Kaviani, F. Link, M. Reiss, A. Komeazi\",\"doi\":\"10.4401/ag-8870\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We assess the capabilities of different observables for the inversion of core-refracted shear waves (XKS phases) to uniquely resolve the anisotropic structure of the upper mantle. For this purpose, we perform full-waveform calculations for relatively simple, canonical models of upper-mantle anisotropy. The models are characterized by two and four domains of different anisotropic properties. Specifically, we assume hexagonal symmetry with arbitrarily chosen strength of the anisotropy and orientation of the horizontal fast axis. XKS waveforms, generated from plane-wave initial conditions, traverse through anisotropic models and are recorded at the surface by a single station (in case of vertical variations) and by a dense station profile across the laterally and vertically varying structure. In addition to waveforms, we consider the effects of anisotropic variations on apparent splitting parameters and splitting intensity. The results show that, generally, it is not possible to fully resolve the anisotropic parameters of a given model, even if complete waveforms (under noisefree conditions and for the complete azimuthal range) are considered. This is because waveforms for significantly different anisotropic models can be indistinguishable. However, inversions of both waveforms and apparent splitting parameters lead to similar models that exhibit systematic variations of anisotropic parameters. These characteristics may be exploited to better constrain the inversions. The results also show that splitting intensity holds some significant drawbacks: First, even from measurements over a wide range of back-azimuth, there is no characteristic signature that would indicate depth variations of anisotropy. Secondly, identical azimuthal variations of splitting intensity for different anisotropic structures do not imply that the corresponding split waveforms are also similar. Thus, fitting of observed and calculated splitting intensities could lead to anisotropic models that are incompatible with the observed waveforms. We conclude that (bandlimited) XKS-splitting inversions and related tomographic schemes, even if based on complete waveforms, are not sufficient to fully resolve the heterogeneous anisotropic structures of the upper mantle and that combinations with alternative methods, based on e.g., receiver-function splitting, P-wave travel-time deviations, or surface waves, are required.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50766,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Geophysics\",\"volume\":\"20 1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Geophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-8870\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Geophysics","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-8870","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我们评估了不同观测值反演核折射横波(XKS相位)的能力,以独特地解析上地幔的各向异性结构。为此,我们对相对简单的上地幔各向异性标准模型进行了全波形计算。模型具有不同各向异性的二域和四域特征。具体来说,我们假设具有任意选择的各向异性强度和水平快速轴方向的六边形对称。XKS波形由平面波初始条件产生,穿过各向异性模型,由单个台站(在垂直变化的情况下)和密集台站剖面在地表记录(横向和纵向变化的结构)。除了波形外,我们还考虑了各向异性变化对表观分裂参数和分裂强度的影响。结果表明,一般情况下,即使考虑完整波形(在无噪声条件下和完整方位范围内),也不可能完全解析给定模型的各向异性参数。这是因为不同的各向异性模型的波形是无法区分的。然而,波形和表观分裂参数的反演导致类似的模型显示出各向异性参数的系统变化。可以利用这些特征来更好地约束反转。结果还表明,分裂强度存在一些明显的缺点:首先,即使从大范围的反向测量中,也没有特征信号可以表明各向异性的深度变化。其次,不同各向异性结构劈裂强度的相同方位角变化并不意味着相应的劈裂波形也相似。因此,拟合观测和计算的劈裂强度可能导致各向异性模型与观测波形不相容。我们得出结论,(限带)xks分裂反演和相关层析方案,即使基于完整的波形,也不足以完全解决上地幔的非均质各向异性结构,并且需要结合其他方法,例如基于接收函数分裂,p波走时偏差或表面波。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing observables for teleseismic shear-wave splitting inversions: ambiguities of intensities, parameters, and waveforms
We assess the capabilities of different observables for the inversion of core-refracted shear waves (XKS phases) to uniquely resolve the anisotropic structure of the upper mantle. For this purpose, we perform full-waveform calculations for relatively simple, canonical models of upper-mantle anisotropy. The models are characterized by two and four domains of different anisotropic properties. Specifically, we assume hexagonal symmetry with arbitrarily chosen strength of the anisotropy and orientation of the horizontal fast axis. XKS waveforms, generated from plane-wave initial conditions, traverse through anisotropic models and are recorded at the surface by a single station (in case of vertical variations) and by a dense station profile across the laterally and vertically varying structure. In addition to waveforms, we consider the effects of anisotropic variations on apparent splitting parameters and splitting intensity. The results show that, generally, it is not possible to fully resolve the anisotropic parameters of a given model, even if complete waveforms (under noisefree conditions and for the complete azimuthal range) are considered. This is because waveforms for significantly different anisotropic models can be indistinguishable. However, inversions of both waveforms and apparent splitting parameters lead to similar models that exhibit systematic variations of anisotropic parameters. These characteristics may be exploited to better constrain the inversions. The results also show that splitting intensity holds some significant drawbacks: First, even from measurements over a wide range of back-azimuth, there is no characteristic signature that would indicate depth variations of anisotropy. Secondly, identical azimuthal variations of splitting intensity for different anisotropic structures do not imply that the corresponding split waveforms are also similar. Thus, fitting of observed and calculated splitting intensities could lead to anisotropic models that are incompatible with the observed waveforms. We conclude that (bandlimited) XKS-splitting inversions and related tomographic schemes, even if based on complete waveforms, are not sufficient to fully resolve the heterogeneous anisotropic structures of the upper mantle and that combinations with alternative methods, based on e.g., receiver-function splitting, P-wave travel-time deviations, or surface waves, are required.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Geophysics
Annals of Geophysics 地学-地球化学与地球物理
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Geophysics is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online journal. Annals of Geophysics welcomes contributions on primary research on Seismology, Geodesy, Volcanology, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Oceanography and Climatology, Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism, Geodynamics and Tectonophysics, Physics and Chemistry of the Atmosphere. It provides: -Open-access, freely accessible online (authors retain copyright) -Fast publication times -Peer review by expert, practicing researchers -Free of charge publication -Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact -Worldwide media coverage. Annals of Geophysics is published by Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), nonprofit public research institution.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信