TY - JOUR
T1 - Shear-Wave Anisotropy Measurements in the Crust from Receiver Functions
T2 - An Interplay of Lower and Upper Crustal Anisotropy
AU - McCormack, Kevin L.
AU - Zoback, Mark D.
AU - Frederiksen, Andrew W.
AU - Dvory, Noam Z.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 by the authors.
PY - 2023/3/1
Y1 - 2023/3/1
N2 - We report a study using teleseismic P-wave receiver functions to infer the orientation of the maximum horizontal principal stress from the direction of upper crustal shear-wave velocity anisotropy. We apply an inverse approach using the Neighborhood Algorithm to conduct a nonlinear search, attaining a best-fitting crustal model that includes shear velocity anisotropy. Unlike previous methods reported in the literature, this method is able to distinguish anisotropy in the upper, brittle crust from that in the lower, ductile crust in certain instances. We apply this method to teleseismically recorded earthquakes in the Central Valley of California, the Permian Basin, Texas, northern Oklahoma and sites near the San Andreas Fault in California. Of the forty-one stations to which we apply this method, twenty have a good apparent signal. A misfit calculation is performed by calculating a zero-lag cross-correlation coefficient for each modeled receiver function with the data for a given back azimuth range. While the fast polarization direction in the upper crust of some of these stations aligns with independent indicators of the direction of the maximum horizontal principal stress, the fast direction in the upper crust at other stations does not, apparently indicating that the anisotropy was resulting from a different mechanism.
AB - We report a study using teleseismic P-wave receiver functions to infer the orientation of the maximum horizontal principal stress from the direction of upper crustal shear-wave velocity anisotropy. We apply an inverse approach using the Neighborhood Algorithm to conduct a nonlinear search, attaining a best-fitting crustal model that includes shear velocity anisotropy. Unlike previous methods reported in the literature, this method is able to distinguish anisotropy in the upper, brittle crust from that in the lower, ductile crust in certain instances. We apply this method to teleseismically recorded earthquakes in the Central Valley of California, the Permian Basin, Texas, northern Oklahoma and sites near the San Andreas Fault in California. Of the forty-one stations to which we apply this method, twenty have a good apparent signal. A misfit calculation is performed by calculating a zero-lag cross-correlation coefficient for each modeled receiver function with the data for a given back azimuth range. While the fast polarization direction in the upper crust of some of these stations aligns with independent indicators of the direction of the maximum horizontal principal stress, the fast direction in the upper crust at other stations does not, apparently indicating that the anisotropy was resulting from a different mechanism.
KW - receiver functions
KW - S orientation
KW - shear-wave velocity anisotropy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151137313&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/geosciences13030079
DO - 10.3390/geosciences13030079
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85151137313
SN - 2076-3263
VL - 13
JO - Geosciences (Switzerland)
JF - Geosciences (Switzerland)
IS - 3
M1 - 79
ER -