Hypocenter-velocity structure coupling in local earthquake tomography

Abstract Local earthquake tomography involves the use of seismic-wave arrival times from earthquake sources with uncertain locations for the inference of three-dimensional variations in seismic velocity. Formally, this inverse problem contains explicit coupling between the earthquake hypocenters and the velocity structure. However, many studies fail to treat the hypocenter-velocity structure coupling explicitly. An examination of previous studies provides evidence that this failure can lead to significant bias in the resulting velocity model. A set of simple hypothetical test cases clearly demonstrates the seriousness of the potential bias when coupling is neglected, producing models that underestimate the actual velocity perturbations by about a factor of four. Under the same conditions, strict simultaneous inversion and simultaneous inversion with parameter separation both produce accurate inverted models. The use of appropriate station corrections and iteration of the solution can improve the results when the coupling is ignored, but velocity anomalies will still be underestimated by about a factor of two at best.

[1]  G. Pavlis,et al.  The mixed discrete‐continuous inverse problem: Application to the simultaneous determination of earthquake hypocenters and velocity structure , 1980 .

[2]  Clifford H. Thurber,et al.  Earthquake locations and three‐dimensional crustal structure in the Coyote Lake Area, central California , 1983 .

[3]  G. Pavlis,et al.  A study of the importance of nonlinearity in the inversion of earthquake arrival time data for velocity structure , 1983 .

[4]  D. Eberhart‐Phillips,et al.  Three-dimensional velocity structure in northern California Coast Ranges from inversion of local earthquake arrival times , 1986 .

[5]  Malcolm Sambridge,et al.  Non-linear arrival time inversion: constraining velocity anomalies by seeking smooth models in 3-D , 1990 .

[6]  R. Clayton,et al.  P wave velocity variations in the Coso Region, California, derived from local earthquake travel times , 1987 .

[7]  R. Crosson Crustal structure modeling of earthquake data: 2. Velocity structure of the Puget Sound Region, Washington , 1976 .

[8]  Edi Kissling,et al.  Geotomography with local earthquake data , 1988 .

[9]  Clifford H. Thurber,et al.  Three-Dimensional Seismic Imaging , 1987 .

[10]  C. Lawson,et al.  Solving least squares problems , 1976, Classics in applied mathematics.

[11]  D. Gubbins Source Location in Laterally Varying Media , 1981 .

[12]  L. Braile Seismic Studies of the Earth's Crust , 1991 .

[13]  Jonathan M. Lees,et al.  Tomographic P‐wave velocity images of the Loma Prieta Earthquake asperity , 1990 .

[14]  R. Snieder A perturbative analysis of non-linear inversion , 1990 .

[15]  David Gubbins,et al.  Travel-time inversion for simultaneous earthquake location and velocity structure determination in laterally varying media , 1980 .

[16]  S. Roecker Velocity structure of the Pamir‐Hindu Kush Region: Possible evidence of subducted crust , 1982 .

[17]  B. Kennett,et al.  Subspace methods for large inverse problems with multiple parameter classes , 1988 .

[18]  Jonathan M. Lees,et al.  Tomographic inversion for three‐dimensional velocity structure at Mount St. Helens using earthquake data , 1989 .

[19]  A. Michael Effects of three-dimensional velocity structure on the seismicity of the 1984 Morgan Hill, California, aftershock sequence , 1988 .

[20]  C. Thurber Analysis methods for kinematic data from local earthquakes , 1986 .

[21]  A. Beck,et al.  Inversion of temperature measurements in lake sediment , 1988 .

[22]  C. Thurber Earth structure and earthquake locations in the Coyote Lake area, central California , 1981 .