San Joaquin River Delta: Joint P-Wave/Gravity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Seismic Tomography of the Sacramento – San Joaquin River Delta: Joint P-wave/Gravity and Ambient Noise Methods By Alexander C. Teel A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Geophysics) At the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 2012 Date of final oral examination: 8/1/12 The dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee: Clifford Thurber, Professor, Geoscience Harold Tobin, Professor, Geoscience Kurt Feigl, Professor, Geoscience Herbert Wang, Professor, Geoscience Dante Fratta, Associate Professor, Geological Engineering i Abstract The Sacramento – San Joaquin River Delta (SSJRD) is an area that has been identified as having high seismic hazard but has resolution gaps in the seismic velocity models of the area due to a scarcity of local seismic stations and earthquakes. I present new three-dimensional (3D) P- wave velocity (Vp) and S-wave velocity (Vs) models for the SSJRD which fill in the sampling gaps of previous studies. I have created a new 3D seismic velocity model for the SSJRD, addressing an identified need for higher resolution velocity models in the region, using a new joint gravity/body-wave tomography algorithm. I am able to fit gravity and arrival-time residuals jointly using an empirical density-velocity relationship to take advantage of existing gravity data in the region to help fill in the resolution gaps of previous velocity models in the area. I find that the method enhances the ability to resolve the relief of basin structure relative to seismic-only tomography at this location. I find the depth to the basement to be the greatest in the northwest portion of the SSJRD and that there is a plateau in the basement structure beneath the southeast portion of the SSJRD. From my findings I infer that the SSJRD may be prone to focusing effects and basin amplification of ground motion. A 3D, Vs model for the SSJRD and surrounding area was created using ambient noise tomography. The empirical Green‟s functions are in good agreement with published cross- correlations and match earthquake waveforms sharing similar paths. The group velocity and shear velocity maps are in good agreement with published regional scale models. The new model maps velocity values on a local scale and successfully recovers the basin structure beneath the Delta. From this Vs model I find the maximum depth of the basin to reach approximately 15 ii km with the Great Valley Ophiolite body rising to a depth of 10 km east of the SSJRD. We consider our basement-depth estimates from the Vp model to be more robust than from the Vs model. iii Acknowledgements I am immensely grateful to my advisor Cliff Thurber for the mentorship he has provided me during my time at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Beyond affording me the opportunity to pursue a PhD (and MS) with one of the true experts in the field of seismology, Cliff has made me a better writer and helped me develop more linear and more critical thought processes. Cliff has pushed me when I needed pushing, given me space when I needed it, and always tried to make sure I was on-course with my research. I can not begin to thank Cliff enough for investing so much time in me. I can‟t imagine a better PhD advisor. I would like to acknowledge all of my committee members (Cliff Thurber, Dante Fratta, Kurt Feigl, Harold Tobin, and Herb Wang) for their role in developing me as a scientist. In classes, seminars, and from discussions in the hallway I have learned a lot from their collective expertise. While not serving on my PhD committee, Chuck DeMets has played the same role as the aforementioned professors in helping me to reach this point. I have benefited from great technical and moral support thanks to my contemporary CTSeisers (Guoqing Lin, Jeremy Pesicek, Ninfa Bennington, Ellen Syracuse, Emily Montgomery-Brown, Summer Ohlendorf, Rachel Murphy, Helena Menendez, and Jessica Feenstra). They have played an immense role in helping me get this far. Joe Kington is great and amazing. Enough said. I have received much help from the Department of Geoscience staff during my time here. Lee Powell, Neal Lord, Peter Sobol, Ben Abernathy, and Patrick Kuhl have provided me with copious technical assistance. Jane Fox-Anderson, Jansi Prabakran, Judy Gosse, Shirley Baxa, iv Mary Schumann and Michelle Szabo have also played an important role in getting me through grad school. I have also received technical support (including codes upon which most of my thesis is based!) from Haijiang Zhang and Matt Haney, mostly on their personal time, for which I am very thankful. I have made many friends in Madison, in the department and without, and I want to thank them all for helping make my time in Wisconsin enjoyable. My parents have been always been very supportive of me and have encouraged me along the way throughout my graduate career. Finally I want to thank my fiancée Julie Keating who has provided me unlimited moral and emotional support during this endeavor. There are times where I would have been lost without her and in the time I spent writing this dissertation I likely would have starved to death without her reminding me to eat. I know it can not have been easy to have dealt with me in my most stressed-out states but she has put up with me anyways. Thank you! v Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures and Tables ...................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Seismic background ............................................................................................................ 4 CHAPTER 2: Joint P-wave/Gravity Tomographic Imaging at the Sacramento – San Joaquin River Delta .................................................................................................................... 12 Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Seismic and Gravity Datasets .......................................................................................... 15 2.3 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 17 2.3.1 Joint seismic-gravity tomographic inversion ........................................................... 17 2.3.2 Empirical Relationship Sensitivity ........................................................................... 21 2.3.3 Application to the Sacramento – San Joaquin River Delta .................................... 22 2.4 Results and Discussion...................................................................................................... 23 2.4.1 Joint Inversion Effectiveness..................................................................................... 23 2.4.2 Sacramento – San Joaquin River Delta Velocity Structure ................................... 25 2.4.3 Implications for Seismic Hazard .............................................................................. 28 2.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 29 vi Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 29 References ................................................................................................................................ 31 CHAPTER 3: Ambient Noise Tomography at the Sacramento – San Joaquin River Delta 58 Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 58 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 58 3.2 Dataset ................................................................................................................................ 60 3.3 Method ............................................................................................................................... 60 3.4 Results and Discussion...................................................................................................... 63 3.4.1 Ambient Noise Correlations ...................................................................................... 63 3.4.2 Dispersion Curves ...................................................................................................... 65 3.4.3 Group Velocity Maps ................................................................................................. 65 3.4.4 Vs Model ....................................................................................................................