Data Services Products: EMC-SoCal_BergEtAl2021_UpperCrustVsandVpVs Shallow Crustal Shear Velocity and Vp/Vs across Southern California: Joint Inversion of Short-Period Rayleigh Wave Ellipticity, Phase Velocity, and Teleseismic Receiver Functions

Summary

SoCal_BergEtAl2021_UpperCrustVsandVpVs includes S-wave (shear) velocity structure from the surface into the upper crust and ratio of compressional to shear velocity in the near-surface. This model was created through joint inversion of ambient noise derived Rayleigh phase velocity, through eikonal tomography, Rayleigh wave ellipticity; and we also incorporated data from teleseismic receiver functions. Relations of Vp and density to Vs below the upper layer are constrained through Brocher (2005) in the Markov Chain Monte Carlo joint inversion. As such, we include our Vs results from the surface to 20km below, Vp/Vs as determined in the upper 1km, and uncertainties of both from our Bayesian MCMC joint inversion. This study is available through Geophysical Research Letters, published 2021, doi:10.1029/2021GL092626.

Description

Name SoCal_BergEtAl2021_UpperCrustVsandVpVs
Title Shallow Crustal Shear Velocity and Vp/Vs across Southern California: Joint Inversion of Short-Period Rayleigh Wave Ellipticity, Phase Velocity, and Teleseismic Receiver Functions
Type 3-D Tomography Earth Model
Sub Type Shear-wave velocity (km/s) and Ratio of Compressional- to Shear-Wave velocity (dimensionless)
Year 2021
Data Revision r0.0 (revision history)
 
Short Description   This is a shear wave velocity model of the near-surface through upper crust, and a model of the near-surface ratio of compressional to shear wave velocity. This model was derived through Bayesian joint inversion, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), of Rayleigh ellipticity and phase velocity from ambient noise and ambient-noise cross-correlations, and from teleseismic receiver functions determined for seismic stations throughout Southern California. The reported MCMC model is created from Gaussian smoothing individual MCMC results at each station, as is the uncertainty (1 standard deviation of posterior distribution at each station). Vp and density beneath the upper layer are determined from Vs via Brocher (2005). The lower crust and upper mantle are fixed in the joint inversion based on values from CVMS5 (Lee et al., 2014), and thus not reported here.
 
Authors: Elizabeth M. Berg, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Utah, 115 South 1460 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA

Fan-Chi Lin, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Utah, 115 South 1460 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA

Vera Schulte-Pelkum, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, 216 UCB, Boulder, CO, USA

Amir Allam, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Utah, 115 South 1460 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84113, USA

Hongrui Qiu, Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005, USA

Konstantinos Gkogkas, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Utah, 115 South 1460 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84113, USA
 
Previous Model SoCal.ANT_Vph+HV-1.Berg.2018
 
Reference Model SCEC CVM (Lee et al., 2014)
 
Model Download SoCal-BergEtAl2021-UpperCrustVsandVpVs.r0.0.nc (see metadata) in the Polar Stereographic Projection and in netCDF 3 Classic format.
 
Depth Coverage 0 to 20.0 km (below earth surface)
 
Area Southern California (latitude 32.8°/35.8°, longitude: -120.3°/-115.1°)
 
Data Set Description Berg et al., (2021) Dataset includes S-wave velocity structure from the near-surface into the upper crust and ratio of P-wave to S-wave velocity in the near-surface across Southern California from joint inversion of ambient noise tomography (phase velocity) and Rayleigh wave ellipticity; also includes data from receiver functions..
 
 

Vs results at each station
Figure 1. Vs results at each station, with Gaussian-smoothed underlying map, at (a) the surface and (b) 1 km depths, and© depth (km) to 3 km/s. (d) Cross-section A-A’ for Vp/Vs ratio in the top linear layer (top) and Vs to 10 km depth (bottom), including white dashed line at 1.5 km/s and black dashed line at 3 km/s.

Vp/Vs results from the top linear laye
Figure 2. Vp/Vs results from the top linear layer as a (a) map at each station, with Gaussian-smoothed underlying map, and (b) scatter plot from each station of average Vs in the top linear layer versus Vp/Vs of the top linear layer.

Citations and DOIs

To cite the original work behind this Earth model:

  • Berg, E. M., Lin, F. C., Schulte-Pelkum, V., Allam, A., Qiu, H., Gkogkas, K. (2021). Shallow Crustal Shear Velocity and Vp/Vs across Southern California: Joint Inversion of Short-Period Rayleigh Wave Ellipticity, Phase Velocity, and Teleseismic Receiver Functions. Geophysical Research Letters, Accepted May 2021, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092626

To cite IRIS DMC Data Products effort:

  • 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 Applications, Seismological Research Letters, 83(5), 846–854, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220120032.

DOI for this EMC webpage:
https://doi.org/10.17611/dp/emc.2021.scabergetal.1

References

  • Berg, E. M., Lin, F. C., Allam, A., Qiu, H., Shen, W., & Ben‐Zion, Y. (2018). Tomography of Southern California via Bayesian joint inversion of
    Rayleigh wave ellipticity and phase velocity from ambient noise cross‐correlations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 123(11), 9933–9949. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JB016269

  • Bensen, G. D., Ritzwoller, M. H., Barmin, M. P., Levshin, A. L., Lin, F., Moschetti, M. P., et al. (2007). Processing seismic ambient noise data
    to obtain reliable broad‐band surface wave dispersion measurements. Geophysical Journal International, 169(3), 1239–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03374.x
  • Brocher, T. (2005). Empirical relations between elastic wavespeeds and density in the Earth’s crust. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
    America, 95(6), 2081–2092. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050077
  • Lee, E. J., Chen, P., Jordan, T. H., Maechling, P. B., Denolle, M. A., & Beroza, G. C. (2014). Full-3-D tomography for crustal structure in southern California based on the scattering-integral and the adjoint-waveform methods. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 119, 6421–6451. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JB011346
  • Lin, F.‐C., Tsai, V. C., & Schmandt, B. (2014). 3‐D crustal structure of the western United States: Application of Rayleigh‐wave ellipticity
    extracted from noise cross‐correlations. Geophysical Journal International, 198(2), 656–670. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggu160
  • Qiu, H., Lin, F. C., & Ben‐Zion, Y. (2019). Eikonal tomography of the Southern California plate boundary region. Journal of Geophysical Research:
    Solid Earth, 124(9), 9755-9779. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB017806
  • Schulte‐Pelkum, V., & Mahan, K. H. (2014a). A method for mapping crustal deformation and anisotropy with receiver functions and first
    results from USArray. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 402, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2014.01.050
  • Shen, W., & Ritzwoller, M. H. (2016). Crustal and uppermost mantle structure beneath the United States. Journal of Geophysical Research:
    Solid Earth, 121, 4306–4342. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB012887

Credits

  • r0.0 model provided by Elizabeth Berg.

Revision History

revision r0.0: uploaded July 12, 2021.

Timeline

2021-07-12
online

Categories

Page built 19:39:43 | v.b'8fc683