On the validation of seismic imaging methods: Finite frequency or ray theory?. Issue 2 (23rd January 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Maceira, Monica; Larmat, Carene; Porritt, Robert W.; Higdon, David M.; Rowe, Charlotte A.; Allen, Richard M.
• Is Part Of: Geophysical research letters. Volume 42:Issue 2(2015:Jan.)
• Page Start: 323
• Page End: 330
• Publication Date: 2015-01-23
• Subjects: Geophysics -- Periodicals; Planets -- Periodicals; Lunar geology -- Periodicals; 550
• DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062571
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-8276

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="grl52498-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <p id="grl52498-para-0001">We investigate the merits of the more recently developed finite‐frequency approach to tomography against the more traditional and approximate ray theoretical approach for state of the art seismic models developed for western North America. To this end, we employ the spectral element method to assess the agreement between observations on real data and measurements made on synthetic seismograms predicted by the models under consideration. We check for phase delay agreement as well as waveform cross‐correlation values. Based on statistical analyses on <italic>S</italic> wave phase delay measurements, finite frequency shows an improvement over ray theory. Random sampling using cross‐correlation values identifies regions where synthetic seismograms computed with ray theory and finite‐frequency models differ the most. Our study suggests that finite‐frequency approaches to seismic imaging exhibit measurable improvement for pronounced low‐velocity anomalies such as mantle plumes.</p> </abstract>