4.7 Article

Discriminating Between Causes of D Anisotropy Using Reflections and Splitting Measurements for a Single Path

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
卷 124, 期 5, 页码 4811-4830

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2018JB016993

关键词

D ''; seismic anisotropy; array seismology; shear wave splitting; postperovskite; deep mantle flow

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [642029-ITN CREEP]
  2. DFG [TH1530/5-1]
  3. NERC [NE/K004875/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge of deep mantle deformation is based on seismic anisotropy: the variation of seismic wave speed and polarization with direction. Measuring this directional dependency requires azimuthal seismic coverage at D depth-the bottom few hundred kilometers of the mantle-which is often a limit in retrieving the style of anisotropy. Shear wave splitting is the standard technique for probing mantle anisotropy, and recently, reflections from the D region have been used to infer azimuthal anisotropy. Here we combine observations and modeling of D reflections with shear wave splitting along a given raypath direction in order to constrain mineralogy and dynamics of the lower mantle. From our modeling, a clear distinction between different anisotropic media is possible by using both types of observations together but only one directional path. We focus on the lowermost mantle beneath the central Atlantic Ocean by using South-Central American earthquakes recorded in Morocco. We find complex azimuthal and distance variation for both polarities of D reflections and shear wave splitting parameters, which rules out a simple style of anisotropy-such as vertical transverse isotropy-for the region. Our preferred model consists of a phase transition from a randomly oriented bridgmanite to lattice-preferred orientation fabric in postperovskite, developed in a tilted plane sheared along a roughly SW-NE deformation direction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据