SCEC Award Number 11163 View PDF
Proposal Category Collaborative Proposal (Integration and Theory)
Proposal Title Adding the Moho and Anisotropy to the SCEC CVM including a search for Moho offsets.
Investigator(s)
Name Organization
Paul Davis University of California, Los Angeles Robert Clayton California Institute of Technology
Other Participants
SCEC Priorities A3, A11 SCEC Groups Seismology, SDOT
Report Due Date 02/29/2012 Date Report Submitted N/A
Project Abstract
 The ultimate goal is to understand earthquakes by contributing seismic properties of the lithosphere such as Moho depth, Moho offsets and lithospheric anisotropy to the SCEC CVM. We use the CLM (California Lithosphere Model) as our workspace model.
We have been refining the CLM (section-1), which can be downloaded from the web. It contains ascii files of the LAD working group models of the velocities, densities and anisotropy to a depth of 635 km in Southern California, as well as a program to load the data, and plot images. Paul Cox continued to analyze receiver functions at all the new stations along the southern San Andreas Fault (Section-4) and to compare with older stations and present evidence of Moho offset beneath the SAF that decreases sotuhwards. We participated in the Salton Trough experiment. A paper on Rayleigh wave anisotropy and SKS splitting was published in JGR (Kosarian et al., 2011).
Intellectual Merit This study adds two components to the California Lithosphere Model (CLM) - anisotropy and Moho depth. The anisotropy is important for determining this direction of forces that drive the crust in California. The depth of Moho is important for a number of reason, but in particular it separates the two force regimes in the system.
Broader Impacts The California Lithosphere model contributes to the understanding of the dynamic evolution of the tectonic structure of California.
Exemplary Figure Figure 1a (top) Surface wave azimuthal anisotropy (Lin et al., 2011) upper mantle to 150 km depth. Bars give the fast directions with the largest bars = 3% peak-peak anisotropy
Figure 1b. Surface wave anisotropy upper mantle 33-100 km depth (Prindle and Tanimoto, 2006) showing good agreement with the more recent estimates.