Layered azimuthal anisotropy of Rayleigh wave phase velocities in the European Alpine lithosphere inferred from ambient noise

Fry, Bill; Deschamps, Frédéric; Kissling, Edi; Stehly, Laurent; Giardini, Domenico

doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2010.06.008

Cited by 113 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On a global scale, Debayle and Ricard (2012) showed that large, but feasible, datasets, with >300 000 distinct surface-wave observations, suffer only modest leakage of isotropic upper-mantle structure into anisotropic upper-mantle models, though the potential for bias was greater for the weaker anisotropies of the transition zone and lower mantle. Still, it is interesting to note that local measurements made on arrays of stations often report smaller azimuthal variations than the global models, often less than 1% (Adam and Lebedev, 2012;Freybourger et al, 2001;Friederich and Huang, 1996;Pedersen et al, 2006), with the exception of the Alps where 1-2% are observed mainly range-perpendicular (Fry et al, 2010). In South Africa (Adam and Lebedev, 2012), although the azimuthal variations of Rayleigh-wave phase velocities are less than 1%, they are well constrained and consistent with directions inferred from SKS splitting.…”

Section: Surface Waves and Upper Mantlesupporting

confidence: 61%

Theory and Observations - Seismic Anisotropy

Maupin

Park

2015

Treatise on Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Surface Waves and Upper Mantlesupporting

confidence: 61%

Theory and Observations - Seismic Anisotropy

Maupin

Park

2015

Treatise on Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…10 does suggest that the region of interest is anisotropic. Fry et al (2010) show that, at 30 s, the average anisotropy fast direction in the western and central Alpine region is around 0 • with 2.5 per cent anisotropic anomaly. The magnitude fits our results very well, with 2.5 per cent of 3.8 km s −1 being around 0.1 km s −1 .…”

Section: Dispersion Curvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-receiver measurements of phase velocity: cross-validation of ambient-noise and earthquake-based observations

Kästle¹,

Soomro

Weemstra

et al. 2016

Geophys. J. Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S U M M A R YPhase velocities derived from ambient-noise cross-correlation are compared with phase velocities calculated from cross-correlations of waveform recordings of teleseismic earthquakes whose epicentres are approximately on the station-station great circle. The comparison is conducted both for Rayleigh and Love waves using over 1000 station pairs in central Europe. We describe in detail our signal-processing method which allows for automated processing of large amounts of data. Ambient-noise data are collected in the 5-80 s period range, whereas teleseismic data are available between about 8 and 250 s, resulting in a broad common period range between 8 and 80 s. At intermediate periods around 30 s and for shorter interstation distances, phase velocities measured from ambient noise are on average between 0.5 per cent and 1.5 per cent lower than those observed via the earthquake-based method. This discrepancy is small compared to typical phase-velocity heterogeneities (10 per cent peak-to-peak or more) observed in this period range.We nevertheless conduct a suite of synthetic tests to evaluate whether known biases in ambient-noise cross-correlation measurements could account for this discrepancy; we specifically evaluate the effects of heterogeneities in source distribution, of azimuthal anisotropy in surface-wave velocity and of the presence of near-field, rather than far-field only, sources of seismic noise. We find that these effects can be quite important comparing individual station pairs. The systematic discrepancy is presumably due to a combination of factors, related to differences in sensitivity of earthquake versus noise data to lateral heterogeneity. The data sets from both methods are used to create some preliminary tomographic maps that are characterized by velocity heterogeneities of similar amplitude and pattern, confirming the overall agreement between the two measurement methods.

show abstract

“…Solving this controversy is particularly relevant for the Friuli seismic hazard area, which is located either in the foreland (if the slab beneath the Eastern Alps is Adriatic) or in the hinterland of the Alps (if the slab beneath the Eastern Alps remained European). In general for the entire region, the determination of mantle seismic anisotropy patterns helps to reconstruct the current and past plate motions and dynamics in three dimensions; the broad coverage with the uniform AASN will allow a more comprehensive analysis with respect to previous studies often focused on smaller areas (Margheriti et al 2003;Plomerová et al 2006;Kummerow et al 2006;Fry et al 2010;Barruol et al 2011;Salimbeni et al 2013;Qorbani et al 2016;Subašić et al 2017).…”

Section: Geodynamic Setting Questions and Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The AlpArray Seismic Network: A Large-Scale European Experiment to Image the Alpine Orogen

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The AlpArray programme is a multinational, European consortium to advance our understanding of orogenesis and its relationship to mantle dynamics, plate reorganizations, surface processes and seismic hazard in the Alps-Apennines-Carpathians-Dinarides orogenic system. The AlpArray Seismic Network has been deployed with contributions from 36 institutions from 11 countries to map physical properties of the lithosphere and asthenosphere in 3D and thus to obtain new, high-resolution geophysical images of structures from the surface down to the base of the mantle transition zone. With over 600 broadband stations Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1071 2-018-9472-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. operated for 2 years, this seismic experiment is one of the largest simultaneously operated seismological networks in the academic domain, employing hexagonal coverage with station spacing at less than 52 km. This dense and regularly spaced experiment is made possible by the coordinated coeval deployment of temporary stations from numerous national pools, including ocean-bottom seismometers, which were funded by different national agencies. They combine with permanent networks, which also required the cooperation of many different operators. Together these stations ultimately fill coverage gaps. Following a short overview of previous large-scale seismological experiments in the Alpine region, we here present the goals, construction, deployment, characteristics and data management of the AlpArray Seismic Network, which will provide data that is expected to be unprecedented in quality to image the complex Alpine mountains at depth.

show abstract

Layered azimuthal anisotropy of Rayleigh wave phase velocities in the European Alpine lithosphere inferred from ambient noise

Cited by 113 publications

References 51 publications

Theory and Observations - Seismic Anisotropy

Theory and Observations - Seismic Anisotropy

Two-receiver measurements of phase velocity: cross-validation of ambient-noise and earthquake-based observations

The AlpArray Seismic Network: A Large-Scale European Experiment to Image the Alpine Orogen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About