1887
Volume 56, Issue 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

While seismic imaging for crustal and mantle structures has traditionally relied on surface wave and refraction data, the use of reflection data for crustal‐scale targets has been largely limited to the common midpoint (CMP) stack techniques. The rapid increase in the number of seismograph array deployments in recent years in crustal and mantle seismology has reached a level such that a re‐examination of the imaging techniques is becoming necessary. In this paper we show the advantage of prestack depth imaging for crustal reflection studies, based on data from two reflection surveys of the Los Angeles Regional Seismic Experiment (LARSE) to map faults and crustal‐scale structures. Our analysis indicates that the quality of the previous images of these surveys is limited by the CMP stack technique. For comparison, we present here depth images of the same LARSE data using wave equation prestack depth imaging and a tomographic velocity model based on first arrivals of the LARSE surveys and local earthquakes. Our new images are considerably improved over previous images in terms of resolution and reflector continuity. The new images show reflectors throughout the crust and suggest truncations in the Moho associated with the San Andreas Fault. A series of bright reflector segments, which are associated with the San Gabriel and San Andreas faults have been identified and might represent reflections from the fault zones. Our results suggest that the presence of high noise level, strong lateral velocity heterogeneity and wide angle geometry argue for, rather than against, the use of prestack depth imaging over the simple CMP stack techniques. As demonstrated in this study, it is now viable to conduct prestack depth imaging of crustal reflection data using a velocity model based on earthquake first arrivals thanks to the dense acquisition deployment.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00706.x
2008-06-28
2020-08-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AliM.Y. and WattsA.B.2003. A seismic reflection profile study of lithospheric flexure in the vicinity of the Cape Verde Islands. Journal of Geophysical Research108, 2239.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ClaerboutJ.1971. Toward a unified theory of reflector mapping. Geophysics36, 467–481.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ClaerboutJ.1985. Imaging the Earth's Interior . Blackwell Scientific.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. FuisG.S., ClaytonR.W., DavisP.M., RybergT., LutterW.J., OkayaD.A. et al . 2003. Fault systems of the 1971 San Fernando and 1994 Northridge earthquakes, southern California: Relocated aftershocks and seismic images from LARSE II. Geology31, 171–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. FuisG.S., MurphyJ.M., OkayaD.A., ClaytonR.W., DavisP.M., ThygesenK. et al . 2001b. Report for borehole explosion data acquired in the 1999 Los Angeles Region Seismic Experiment (LARSE II), southern California: Part I, description of the survey. Open‐File Report 01–408, USGS.
  6. FuisG.S., RybergT., GodfreyN.J., OkayaD.A. and MurphyJ.M.2001a. Crustal structure and tectonics from the Los Angeles basin to the Mojave Desert, southern California. Geology29, 15–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. HaukssonE. and HaaseJ.S.1997. Three‐dimensional VP and VP /VS velocity models of the Los Angeles Basin and central Transverse Ranges, California. Journal of Geophysical Research102, 5423–5453.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. HopperJ.R., JensenT.D., HolbrookW.S., LarsenH.C., LizarraldeD., KorenagaJ. et al . 2003. Structure of the SE Greenland margin from seismic reflection and refraction data: Implications for nascent spreading center subsidence and asymmetric crustal accretion during North Atlantic opening. Journal of Geophysical Research108, 2269.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LutterW.J., FuisG.S., ThurberC.H. and MurphyJ.1999. Tomographic images of the upper crust from the Los Angeles basin to the Mojave Desert, California: Results from the Los Angeles Region Seismic Experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research104, 25543–25565.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. KohlerM., MagistraleH. and ClaytonR.2003. Mantle heterogeneities and the SCEC three‐dimensional seismic velocity model version 3. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93, 757–774.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. KoppH., KlaeschenD., FluehE.R. and BialasJ.2002. Crustal structure of the Java margin from seismic wide‐angle and multichannel reflection data. Journal of Geophysical Research107, 2034
    [Google Scholar]
  12. MeltzerA, RudnickR., ZeitlerP., LevanderA., HumphreysG., KarlstromK. et al . 1999. USArray Initiative. GSA Today11, 8–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. MurphyJ.M., FuisG.S., RybergT., OkayaD.A., CrileyE.E., BenthienM.L. et al . 1996. Report for explosion data acquired in 19994 Los Angeles Region Seismic Experiment (LARSE 94), Los Angeles, California. Open‐File Report 96–536, USGS.
  14. RybergT. and FuisG.1998. The San Gabriel Mountains bright reflective zone: possible evidence of young mid‐crustal thrust faulting in southern California. Tectonophysics286, 31–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. ThorntonM.2006. Depth imaging of crustal scale seismic reflection surveys in southern California. PhD thesis, University of Houston.
  16. YounO.K. and ZhouH.2001. Depth imaging with multiples. Geophysics66, 246–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. ZhouH.2004. Multi‐scale tomography for crustal P and S velocities in southern California. PAGEOPH161, 283–302. doi:DOI: 10.1007/s00024-003-2444-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. ZhuL. and KanamoriH.2000. Moho depth variation in southern California from teleseismic receiver functions. Journal of Geophysical Research105, 2969–2980.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00706.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2008.00706.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error