Qs of the lower mantle—A body wave determination

1981 ◽  
pp. 55-58
Author(s):  
I. Selwyn Sacks
Keyword(s):  
Lower Mantle ◽  
Body Wave

Radial Qμ structure of the lower mantle from teleseismic body-wave spectra

2011 ◽  
Vol 303 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 369-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong Keun Hwang ◽  
Jeroen Ritsema
Keyword(s):  
Lower Mantle ◽  
Body Wave ◽  
Wave Spectra

Towards consistent seismological models of the core-mantle boundary landscape

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Koelemeijer
Keyword(s):  
Normal Mode ◽  
Lower Mantle ◽  
Seismic Velocity ◽  
Body Wave ◽  
P Wave ◽  
Mantle Boundary ◽  
Core Mantle Boundary ◽  
The Core ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Multiple Data Sets

<p>The dynamic topography of the core-mantle boundary (CMB) provides important constraints on dynamic processes in the mantle and core. However, inferences on CMB topography are complicated by the uneven coverage of data with sensitivity to different length scales and strong heterogeneity in the lower mantle. Particularly, a trade-off exists with density variations, which ultimately drive mantle flow and are vital for determining the origin of mantle structures. Here, I review existing models of CMB topography and lower mantle density, focusing on seismological constraints (Koelemeijer, 2020). I develop average models and vote maps with the aim to find model consistencies and discuss what these may teach us about lower mantle structure and dynamics.</p><p>While most density models image two areas of dense anomalies beneath Africa and the Pacific, their exact location and relationship to seismic velocity structure differs between studies. CMB topography strongly influences the retrieved density structure, which partially helps to resolve differences between recent studies based on Stoneley modes and tidal measurements. CMB topography models vary both in pattern and amplitude and a discrepancy exists between models based on body-wave and normal-mode data. As existing models typically feature elevated topography below the Large-Low-Velocity Provinces (LLVPs), very dense compositional anomalies may be ruled out as possibility.</p><p>To achieve a similar consistency as observed in lower mantle models of S-wave and P-wave velocity, future studies should combine multiple data sets to break existing trade-offs between CMB topography and density. Important considerations in these studies should be the choice of theoretical approximation and parameterisation. Efforts to develop models of CMB topography consistent with both body-wave and normal-mode data should be intensified, which will aid in narrowing down possible explanations for the LLVPs and provide additional insights into mantle dynamics.</p><p><em>Koelemeijer, P. (2020), “Towards consistent seismological models of the core-mantle boundary landscape”. Book chapter in revision for AGU monograph "Mantle upwellings and their surface expressions", edited by Marquardt, Cottaar, Ballmer and Konter</em></p>

scholarly journals Attenuation of shear waves in the upper and lower mantle

1964 ◽  
Vol 54 (6A) ◽  
pp. 1855-1864 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Kovach ◽  
Don L. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Lower Mantle ◽  
Seismic Waves ◽  
Wave Amplitude ◽  
Body Wave ◽  
Shear Waves ◽  
Normal Incidence ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Spectral Ratios ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Deep Focus

abstract The attenuation of seismic waves is a direct measure of the absorption due to nonelastic processes in the earth. The well known difficulties in obtaining body wave amplitude decrement data have been avoided by studying the spectral ratios of multiple ScS and sScS phases from two deep focus earthquakes recorded at near normal incidence. The average Q, for shear, in the mantle is about 600 for the frequency range 0.015 to 0.07 cps. Assuming that equal radiation occurs upwards and downwards from the source the average Q for the upper 600 km of the mantle is determined to be about 200 and about 2200 for the rest of the mantle. The value for Q at the base of the mantle is at least 5000 for shear waves.

Blunt-body wave drag reduction using focused energy deposition

AIAA Journal ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 460-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Riggins ◽  
H. F. Nelson ◽  
Eric Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Drag Reduction ◽  
Energy Deposition ◽  
Blunt Body ◽  
Body Wave ◽  
Wave Drag ◽  
Wave Drag Reduction

Investigation of the Crustal Structure in the Middle East from Body-Wave Analysis (POSTPRINT). Annual Report 2

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Gritto ◽  
Matthew S. Sibol ◽  
Pierre Caron ◽  
Hafidh A. Ghalib ◽  
Bakir S. Ali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
Crustal Structure ◽  
Annual Report ◽  
Body Wave ◽  
Wave Analysis

scholarly journals Imaging the subsurface using induced seismicity and ambient noise: 3-D tomographic Monte Carlo joint inversion of earthquake body wave traveltimes and surface wave dispersion

2020 ◽  
Vol 222 (3) ◽  
pp. 1639-1655
Author(s):  
Xin Zhang ◽  
Corinna Roy ◽  
Andrew Curtis ◽  
Andy Nowacki ◽  
Brian Baptie
Keyword(s):  
Surface Wave ◽  
Ambient Noise ◽  
Velocity Structure ◽  
Joint Inversion ◽  
Body Wave ◽  
Source Parameters ◽  
Wave Dispersion ◽  
Inversion Method ◽  
Surface Wave Dispersion ◽  
Wave Data

SUMMARY Seismic body wave traveltime tomography and surface wave dispersion tomography have been used widely to characterize earthquakes and to study the subsurface structure of the Earth. Since these types of problem are often significantly non-linear and have non-unique solutions, Markov chain Monte Carlo methods have been used to find probabilistic solutions. Body and surface wave data are usually inverted separately to produce independent velocity models. However, body wave tomography is generally sensitive to structure around the subvolume in which earthquakes occur and produces limited resolution in the shallower Earth, whereas surface wave tomography is often sensitive to shallower structure. To better estimate subsurface properties, we therefore jointly invert for the seismic velocity structure and earthquake locations using body and surface wave data simultaneously. We apply the new joint inversion method to a mining site in the United Kingdom at which induced seismicity occurred and was recorded on a small local network of stations, and where ambient noise recordings are available from the same stations. The ambient noise is processed to obtain inter-receiver surface wave dispersion measurements which are inverted jointly with body wave arrival times from local earthquakes. The results show that by using both types of data, the earthquake source parameters and the velocity structure can be better constrained than in independent inversions. To further understand and interpret the results, we conduct synthetic tests to compare the results from body wave inversion and joint inversion. The results show that trade-offs between source parameters and velocities appear to bias results if only body wave data are used, but this issue is largely resolved by using the joint inversion method. Thus the use of ambient seismic noise and our fully non-linear inversion provides a valuable, improved method to image the subsurface velocity and seismicity.

scholarly journals Feedbacks between a non-Newtonian upper mantle, mantle viscosity structure and mantle dynamics

2020 ◽  
Vol 224 (2) ◽  
pp. 961-972
Author(s):  
A G Semple ◽  
A Lenardic
Keyword(s):  
Upper Mantle ◽  
Lower Mantle ◽  
Mantle Convection ◽  
Mantle Flow ◽  
Mantle Dynamics ◽  
Plate Motions ◽  
Low Viscosity ◽  
Mantle Viscosity ◽  
Flow Feature ◽  
Mantle Rheology

SUMMARY Previous studies have shown that a low viscosity upper mantle can impact the wavelength of mantle flow and the balance of plate driving to resisting forces. Those studies assumed that mantle viscosity is independent of mantle flow. We explore the potential that mantle flow is not only influenced by viscosity but can also feedback and alter mantle viscosity structure owing to a non-Newtonian upper-mantle rheology. Our results indicate that the average viscosity of the upper mantle, and viscosity variations within it, are affected by the depth to which a non-Newtonian rheology holds. Changes in the wavelength of mantle flow, that occur when upper-mantle viscosity drops below a critical value, alter flow velocities which, in turn, alter mantle viscosity. Those changes also affect flow profiles in the mantle and the degree to which mantle flow drives the motion of a plate analogue above it. Enhanced upper-mantle flow, due to an increasing degree of non-Newtonian behaviour, decreases the ratio of upper- to lower-mantle viscosity. Whole layer mantle convection is maintained but upper- and lower-mantle flow take on different dynamic forms: fast and concentrated upper-mantle flow; slow and diffuse lower-mantle flow. Collectively, mantle viscosity, mantle flow wavelengths, upper- to lower-mantle velocities and the degree to which the mantle can drive plate motions become connected to one another through coupled feedback loops. Under this view of mantle dynamics, depth-variable mantle viscosity is an emergent flow feature that both affects and is affected by the configuration of mantle and plate flow.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document