The following models are contributed to the IRIS EMC by various researchers. Linked model names point to a dedicated page for the model that provides model information and download links.
|Andes.ANT.Ward.2013||Andes.ANT.Ward.2013, Ward, Zandt, Beck, Porter, Wagner, Minaya and Tavera (2013), is a 3D shear-wave velocity model of the Central Andes from ambient noise tomography. The model incorporates broadband seismic data from 20 seismic networks deployed incrementally in the Central Andes from 1994 May to 2012 August, to image the shear wave velocity structure of the South American Cordillera.|
|APVC.ANT+RF.Ward.2014||APVC.ANT+RF.Ward.2014, Ward, Zandt, Beck, Christensen, and McFarlin (2014), is a 3D shear-wave velocity model of the Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex (APVC) from the joint inversion of ambient noise tomography and receiver functions.|
|Cascade.ANT.Gao-Shen.2014||Cascade.ANT.Gao-Shen.2014, Gao and Shen (2014) , is based on a full-wave ambient noise tomographic method and the analysis of Rayleigh waves from ~1000 stations between 1995 to 2012, including the EarthScope USArray Transportable Array and many other permanent and flexible arrays.|
|DNA09||DNA09, Obrebski, Allen, Xue & Hung (2010) , model is obtained through the body wave finite frequency tomographic inversion of the available EarthScope-USArray data recorded from January 2006 to July 2009.|
|DNA10-S||DNA10-S, Obrebski, Allen, Pollitz & Hung (2011) , the DNA10-S model integrates teleseismic body-wave traveltime and surface-wave phase velocity measurements into a single inversion to constrain the S-wave velocity structure beneath the western US.|
|DNA13||DNA13, Porritt, Allen, & Pollitz (2014), the DNA13 model provides three independent body-wave derived estimates of the wave-speed for the continuous US. Teleseismic and ambient noise derived phase velocities are utilized in a joint inversion with the SV component body waves.|
|GYPSUM||GyPSuM, Simmons, Forte, Boschi & Grand (2010) , GyPSuM is a tomographic model of mantle seismic wave speeds developed through simultaneous inversion of seismic body wave travel times and geodynamic observations.|
|HMSL-P06||HMSL-P06, Houser, Masters, Shearer and Laske (2008) , is an isotropic P velocity model with 18 layers (approximately 100 km thickness in the upper mantle and 200 km in the lower mantle) and 2578 blocks in each layer (approximately 4 degree equal area blocks at the equator).|
|HMSL-S06||HMSL-S06, Houser, Masters, Shearer and Laske (2008) , is an isotropic shear velocity model with 18 layers (approximately 100 km thickness in the upper mantle and 200 km in the lower mantle) and 2578 blocks in each layer (approximately 4 degree equal area blocks at the equator).|
|LLNL-G3DV3||LLNL-G3Dv3, Simmons, Myers, Johannesson & Matzel (2012) , is a global-scale model of the crust and mantle P-wave velocity with regional-scale details. The model is parameterized using a spherical tessellation with node spacing of ~1 degree in the upper mantle and ~2 degrees in the lower mantle.|
|NA04||NA04, van der Lee and Frederiksen (2005) , is derived from inversion of the fundamental and higher mode Rayleigh waveforms using the Partitioned Waveform Inversion technique, Nolet (1990). The data set used includes waveforms from about 1400 regional seismograms recorded at North American digital broadband seismic stations (including the USArray Transportable Array waveforms). The NA04 3-D model is expressed as the velocity difference in m/s relative to the 1-D averaged Earth model MC35.|
|NA07||NA07, Bedle and van der Lee (2009) , is based on the 3-D shear velocity model NA04 and the analysis of regional S and Rayleigh waveforms for earthquakes around North America from January 2000 through September 2006, including waveforms from the USArray Transportable Array stations. The NA07 3-D model is expressed as velocity difference in m/s relative to the 1-D averaged Earth model MC35.|
|NWUS11-P||NWUS11-P, James, Fouch, Carlson and Roth (2011), is a 3-D P-wave tomography model for the northwestern United States, James et al. (2011). The P-wave inversion for NWUS11-P is based on a total of 79,212 rays from 461 teleseismic events, with typical bandpass filter range of 0.5-1.5 Hz. The percent velocity perturbations reported by this model are insensitive to the starting 1-D reference model.|
|NWUS11-S||NWUS11-S, James, Fouch, Carlson and Roth (2011), is a 3-D S-wave tomography model for the northwestern United States, James et al. (2011). The S-wave inversion is based on a total of 88,689 rays from 379 teleseismic events, with typical bandpass filter ranges of 0.04-0.15 Hz. The percent velocity perturbations reported by this model are insensitive to the starting 1-D reference model.|
|PNW10-S||PNW10-S, Porritt, Allen, ,Boyarko , and M.R. Brudzinski (2011) , PNW10-S combines the state of the art ambient noise tomography method with time tested analyst selection to ensure the highest quality data is used as input to the model inversion. Incorporating spatially and temporally long paths with this manual selection step allows recoverable structure from the surface to ~120km depth. This model focuses on the US Pacific Northwest to address a series of questions relating to variations in arc volcanism, seismicity, tremor activity, and the relation to subduction complex structure.|
|QRLW8||Gung and Romanowicz (2004) , a degree 8 3-D Q model of the upper mantlederived from three component surface waveform data in the period range of 60-400 seconds. Model is parameterized in spherical harmonics for lateral variations and cubic b-splines for depth dependence up to maximum spherical harmonics degree 16 horizontally for the SV-velocity model and 8 for the Q model with the use of 16 B-splines vertically (throughout the mantle). The velocity model is expressed as perturbations from the spherically symmetric model PREM.|
|S2.9EA||S2.9EA, Kustowski, Ekstrom and Dziewonski (2008A) , laterally parametrize the upper-mantle structure beneath Eurasia using spherical splines with ˜2.9° spacing in Eurasia and ˜11.5° spacing elsewhere. The model is obtained from a combined data set of surface wave phase velocities, long-period waveforms and body-wave traveltimes. The 1-D reference model is STW105.|
|S362ANI||S362ANI, Kustowski, Ekstrom and Dziewonski (2008) , has its radial anisotropy confined to the uppermost mantle (that is, since the anisotropy is parameterized with only the four uppermost splines, it becomes very small below a depth of 250 km, and vanishes at 410 km). The 1-D reference model is STW105.|
|S362ANI+M||Moulik and Ekstrom (2014), is an update to S362ANI and S362WMANI representing an anisotropic shear velocity model of the Earth’s mantle using normal modes, body waves, surface waves and long-period waveforms.|
|S362WMANI||S362WMANI, Kustowski, Ekstrom and Dziewonski (2008) , is a version of S362ANI with anisotropy allowed throughout the mantle. The 1-D reference model is STW105.|
|SAW24B16||SAW24B16, Megnin and Romanowicz. 2000, is a 3-D shear velocity structure of mantle based on the inversion of body, surface, and higher mode waveforms, Megnin and Romanowicz (2000). The model was derived from handpicked transverse component waveforms and is parameterized laterally in spherical harmonics up to degree 24 (Edmonds normalization) and radially in 16 unevenly spaced splines. The SAW24B16 model is expressed as the percent perturbation from PREM.|
|SAW642AN||SAW642AN, Panning and Romanowicz (2006) , is a radially anisotropic shear velocity model, parameterized in terms of isotropic S velocity (Voigt average) and the anisotropic parameter, xi (V sh 2 /V sv 2 ). Model values are percent perturbation relative to the anisotropic reference model PREM500.|
|SAW642ANb||SAW642ANb, Panning, Lekic and Romanowicz (2010) , is a radially anisotropic shear velocity model of the mantel, parameterized in terms of isotropic S velocity (Voigt average) and the anisotropic parameter, xi (V sh 2 /V sv 2). The waveform data used for this model consist of 3-component broad-band surface waveforms (short period corner of 80 seconds and cutoff of 60 seconds) as well as body waveforms (short period corner of 40 s and cutoff of 32 s). The spatial parameterization of the model is the same as SAW642AN, with 16 variably spaced cubic b-splines with depth, and level 4 spherical splines laterally. Model values are percent perturbation relative to the anisotropic reference model PREM500.|
|SAWum-NA2||SAWum-NA2, Yuan and Romanowicz (2011), North American regional shear velocity model is an isotropic and radially and azimuthally anisotropic Vs model for the North American upper mantle. The isotropic and radial anisotropic portion of the model is developed using long period 3-component fundamental and overtone surface waveforms in the frame work of the Non-linear normal Mode Asymptotic Coupling Theory (Li and Romanowicz, 1995;1996). A joint inversion of surface waveforms and SKS station average datasets is used in the azimuthal anisotropy inversion.|
|SEMum||SEMum, Lekic & Romanowicz (2011), is a radially anisotropic shear velocity model, parametrized in terms of isotropic S velocity (Voigt average) and the anisotropic parameter, xi (V sh 2 /V sv 2 ). The Vs (xi) model is parametrized in terms of 2562 (642) spherical splines laterally, and 16 irregularly spaced cubic b-splines radially.|
|SRPY-MT||Kelbert, Egbert, and deGroot-Hedlin (2012), A 3-D regional electrical conductivity model of the crust and upper mantle beneath the Yellowstone/Snake River Plain volcanic province (Idaho and Wyoming, United States) based on magnetotelluric data.|
|Taiwan.TTT.KWR.2012||Kuo-Chen, Wu and Roecker (2012), Is based on a travel-time tomographic method from active- and passive-source experiments of Taiwan Integrated Geodynamic Research (TAIGER) and other permanent seismic networks. Totally, ~2800 stations are used. Depth of coverage is 0 to 116 km (best resolution 0-60 km).|
|TX2000||TX2000 (also called Grand2000), Grand (2002) , refers here to the TXBW model to distinguish it from the TXBW Grand, van der Hilst and Widiyantoro (1997) model. The model is derived from the shear body wave travel times and aims at providing a more uniform global coverage of the mantle and more information on the upper-mantle seismic structure by using analysis of multibounce shear waves, core-reflected waves and SKS and SKKS waves that travel through the core.|
|TX2011||TX2011, Grand, provides shear velocity perturbations with respect to the TX2011_ref reference model with the mean from the individual layers removed. The grid is not representative of the block size used in the inversion. The model assumes the crustal thickness is given by the Mooney, Laske and Masters crustal model, Mooney et al. (1998) , and thus velocity deviations in the upper most layer are with respect to a variable crustal thickness model.|
|US-SL-2014||US-SL-2014 model, Schmandt & Lin (2014), is a P and S teleseismic body-wave tomography of the mantle beneath the United States.|
|wUS-SH-2010||wUS-SH-2010, Schmandt and Humphreys. 2010a, is a teleseismic travel-time residuals from the EarthScope Transportable Array and more than 1700 additional stations are inverted for 3-D velocity perturbations. The inversion uses frequency-dependent 3-D sensitivity kernels to map travel-time residuals, measured in multiple frequency bands, into velocity structure.|
- Trabant, C., A. R. Hutko, M. Bahavar, R. Karstens, T. Ahern and R. Aster (2012), Data products at the IRIS DMC: stepping-stones for research and other application, Seismological Research Letters, 83(6), 846:854. doi: 10.1785/0220 120032
- The corresponding Earth model reference:
- Bedle, H., and S. van der Lee. 2009. “S velocity variations beneath North America.” J. Geophys. Res. 114:B07308.
- Gao, H., and Y. Shen (2014), Upper mantle structure of the Cascades from full-wave ambient noise tomography: Evidence for 3D mantle upwelling in the back-arc, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 309, 222-233, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.01.012.
- Gao, H., and Y. Shen (2012), Validation of Shear-wave velocity models of the Pacific Northwest, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 102(6), 2611-2621, doi:10.1785/0120110336.
- Grand, S.P. 2002. “Mantle Shear-Wave Tomography and the Fate of Subducted Slabs.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 360:2475-2491.
- Grand, S.P., R.D. van der Hilst, and S. Widiyantoro. 1997. “Global Seismic Tomography: a Snapshot of Convection in the Earth.” GSAToday:1-7.
- Gung, Y. and Romanowicz, B. 2004. “Q tomography of the upper mantle using three-component long-period waveforms.” Geophysical Journal International, 157:813-830.
- Houser, C., G. Masters, P. Shearer and G. Laske. 2008. “Shear and compressional velocity models of the mantle from cluster analysis of long-period waveforms.” Geophys.
- James D.E., M.J. Fouch, R.W. Carlson and J.B. Roth J.B. 2011. “Slab fragmentation, edge flow and the origin of the Yellowstone hotspot track.” Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.09.007.
- Kuo-Chen, H., F. T. Wu, and S. W. Roecker (2012) Three-Dimensional P Velocity Structures of the Lithosphere Beneath Taiwan from the Analysis of TAIGER and Related Seismic Data sets, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B06306, doi:10.1029/2011JB009108.
- Kustowski B., G. Ekstrm, and A. M. Dziewoski. 2008. “The shear-wave velocity structure in the upper mantle beneath Eurasia” Geophys. J. Int., 174:978-992, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03865.x.
- Kustowski, B, G. Ekstrom, and A. M. Dziewonski. 2008. “Anisotropic shear-wave velocity structure of the Earth’s mantle: A global model” J. Geophys. Res., 113:B06306, doi:10.1029/2007JB005169.
- Lekic, V. and B. Romanowicz, 2011, Inferring upper-mantle structure by full waveform tomography with the spectral element method. Geophys. J. Int. 185(2), 799-831.
- Megnin, Charles and Barbara Romanowicz. 2000. “The shear velocity structure of the mantle from the inversion of of body, surface and higher modes waveforms.”, Geophys. J. Int. 143:709-728.
- Moulik, P. and G. Ekstrom, 2014, An anisotropic shear velocity model of the Earth’s mantle using normal modes, body waves, surface waves and long-period waveforms, Geophys. J. Int., 199(3), 1713-1738, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu356.
- Obrebski, M., R.M. Allen, M. Xue, and S.-H. Hung. 2010. “Slab-Plume Interaction beneath the Pacific Northwest.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 37:L14305.
- Obrebski, M., R.M. Allen, F. Pollitz, and S.-H. Hung. 2011. “Lithosphere-asthenosphere interaction beneath the western United States from the joint inversion of body-wave traveltimes and surface-wave phase velocities.” Geophys. J. Int. 185:1003-1021.
- Panning, M.P., and B.A. Romanowicz. 2006. “A three dimensional radially anisotropic model of shear velocity in the whole mantle.” Geophys. J. Int. 167:361-379.
- Panning, M.P., V. Lekic, and B.A. Romanowicz. 2010. “The importance of crustal corrections in the development of a new global model of radial anisotropy.” J. Geophys. Res. 115.
- Porritt, R.W., R.M. Allen, D.C. Boyarko , and M.R. Brudzinski. 2011. “Investigation of Cascadia segmentation with ambient noise tomography.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 309(1-2), 67-76, ISSN 0012-821X, DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.06.026.
- Simmons, N.A., A.M. Forte, L. Boschi, and S.P. Grand. 2010. “GyPSuM: A joint tomographic model of mantle density and seismic wave speeds.” J. Geophys. Res. 115:B12310. J. Int., 174:195-212.
- Schmandt, B., and F.-C. Lin (2014), P and S wave tomography of the mantle beneath the United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, doi:10.1002/2014GL061231.
- Simmons, N.A., S.C. Myers, G. Johannesson, and E. Matzel. 2012. “LLNL-G3Dv3: Global P wave tomography model for improved regional and teleseismic travel time prediction.” J. Geophys. Res. 117:B10302, doi:10.1029/2012JB009525.
- Van der Lee, S., and Andrew Frederiksen. 2005. Surface Wave tomography applied to the North American upper mantle, in AGU Monograph. Seismic Earth: Array Analysis of Broadband Seismograms, Eds: Levander A., and G. Nolet, 67-80.
- Ward, K. M., G. Zandt, S. L. Beck, D. H. Christensen, and H. McFarlin (2014), Seismic imaging of the magmatic underpinnings beneath the Altiplano-Punavolcanic complex from the joint inversion of surface wave dispersion and receiver functions, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 404©, 43–53, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.07.022.
- Ward, K. M., Porter, R. C., Zandt, G., Beck, S. L., Wagner, L. S., Minaya, E., and Tavera, H., 2014, Erratum: Ambient noise tomography across the central Andes: Geophysical Journal International, v. 196, p. 1264–1265, doi:10.1093/gji/ggt429.
- Ward, K. M., Porter, R. C., Zandt, G., Beck, S. L., Wagner, L. S., Minaya, E., and Tavera, H., 2013, Ambient noise tomography across the central Andes: Geophysical Journal International, v. 194, p. 1559–1573, doi:10.1093/gji/ggt166.
- Wu, F. T., and H. Kuo-Chen, K. McIntosh (2014) Subsurface imaging, TAIGER experiments and tectonic models of Taiwan, J. Asian Earth Sci., doi:10.1016/j.jseaes.2014.03.024.
- Yuan, H. and B. Romanowicz. 2010. Lithospheric layering in the North American Craton, Nature, 466, 1063-1068.
- Kelbert A., Egbert G.D., deGroot-Hedlin C. 2012. “Crust and upper mantle electrical conductivity beneath the Yellowstone Hotspot Track” Geology, v. 40, p. 447-450, doi:10.1130/G32655.1.
- Mooney, W.D., G. Laske, and G. Masters. 1998. “A global crustal model at 5×5 degrees.” J. Geophys. Res. 103:727-747.
- Nolet, Guust. 1990. “Partitioned waveform inversion and two-dimensional structure under the network of autonomously recording seis mographs.” J. Geophys. Res. 95:8499-8512.
- The research community for their contributions and product review
There is no DOI currently assigned for this product.