Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70273820

Seismic tomography 2023

Abstract

Seismic tomography is the most abundant source of information about the internal structure of the Earth at scales ranging from a few meters to thousands of kilometers. It constrains the properties of active volcanoes, earthquake fault zones, deep reservoirs and storage sites, glaciers and ice sheets, or the entire globe. It contributes to outstanding societal problems related to natural hazards, resource exploration, underground storage, and many more. The recent advances in seismic tomography are being translated to nondestructive testing, medical ultrasound, and helioseismology. Nearly 50 yr after its first successful applications, this article offers a snapshot of modern seismic tomography. Focused on major challenges and particularly promising research directions, it is intended to guide both Earth science professionals and early‐career scientists. The individual contributions by the coauthors provide diverse perspectives on topics that may at first seem disconnected but are closely tied together by a few coherent threads: multiparameter inversion for properties related to dynamic processes, data quality, and geographic coverage, uncertainty quantification that is useful for geologic interpretation, new formulations of tomographic inverse problems that address concrete geologic questions more directly, and the presentation and quantitative comparison of tomographic models. It remains to be seen which of these problems will be considered solved, solved to some extent, or practically unsolvable over the next decade.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Andreas Fichtner, Brian Kennett, Victor C. Tsai, Clifford Thurber, Artie Rodgers, Carl Tape, Nicholas Rawlinson, Roger D. Borcherdt, Sergei Lebedev, Keith Priestley, Christina Morency, Ebru Bozdağ, Jeroen Tromp, Jeroen Ritsema, Barbara Romanowicz, Qinya Liu, Eva Golos, Fan-Chi Lin. 2024-05-03. Seismic tomography 2023. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120230229

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Introduction to the special section on improving measurements of earthquake source parameters

Earthquake source parameters such as magnitude, seismic moment, source dimension, stress drop, and radiated energy are fundamental to understanding earthquake physics, and are also key ingredients in earthquake ground‐motion modeling, rupture simulation, and statistical seismology. However, the uncertainties in these parameters estimated from the radiated seismic wavefield are large due to variability in approaches, including site and attenuation characterizations, and so estimates for an individual earthquake made by different studies can vary greatly. Estimating spectral source parameters remains a popular topic, due to a combination of their intrinsic importance and their apparent ease of measurement, but also a controversial one, due to many sources of variability and large uncertainty. The available methods coupled with necessary parameter choices and assumptions in the analysis make it challenging for researchers to apply methods or understand the reliability in results or reported source parameters. This Special Section on Improving Measurements of Earthquake Source Parameters showcasing comparisons between methods and studies seeks to alleviate some of these difficulties to help the community identify the important components and trade‐offs of decomposing recorded seismograms into their source, path, and site components.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

The impact of source time function complexity on stress drop estimates

Earthquake stress drop—a key parameter for describing the energetics of earthquake rupture—can be estimated in several different, but theoretically equivalent, ways. However, independent estimates for the same earthquakes sometimes differ significantly. We find that earthquake source complexity plays a significant role in why theoretically (for simple rupture models) equivalent methods produce different estimates. We apply time‐ and frequency‐domain methods to estimate stress drops for real earthquakes in the SCARDEC (Seismic source ChAracteristics Retrieved from DEConvolving teleseismic body waves, Vallée and Douet, 2016 ) source time function (STF) database and analyze how rupture complexity drives stress‐drop estimate discrepancies. Specifically, we identify two complexity metrics—Brune relative energy (BRE) and spectral decay—that parameterize an earthquake’s complexity relative to the standard Brune model and strongly correlate with the estimate discrepancies. We find that the observed systematic magnitude–stress‐drop trends may reflect underlying changes in STF complexity, not necessarily trends in actual stress drop. Both the decay and BRE parameters vary systematically with magnitude, but whether this magnitude–complexity relationship is real remains unresolved.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

A comprehensive fault system inversion approach: Methods and application to NSHM23

We present updated inversion‐based fault‐system solutions for the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23), standardizing earthquake rate model calculations on crustal faults across the western United States. We build upon the inversion methodology used in the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) to solve for time‐independent rates of earthquakes in an interconnected fault system. The updated model explicitly maps out a wide range of fault recurrence and segmentation behavior (epistemic uncertainty), more completely exploring the solution space of viable models beyond those of UCERF3. We also improve the simulated annealing implementation, greatly increasing computational efficiency (and thus inversion convergence), and introduce an adaptive constraint weight calculation algorithm that helps to mediate between competing constraints. Hazard calculations show that ingredient changes (especially fault and deformation models) are the primary driver of hazard changes between NSHM23 and UCERF3. Updates to the inversion methodology are also consequential near faults in which the slip rate in UCERF3 was poorly fit or was satisfied primarily using large multifault ruptures that are now restricted by explicit b ‐value and segmentation constraints.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America