Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; October 2008; v. 98; no. 5; p. 2391-2401; DOI: 10.1785/0120070214
© 2008 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sun, W.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, R.-S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

2.5D SH Wave Propagation in Heterogeneous Crustal Wave Guides Using the Phase Screen Method

Weijia Sun and Li-Yun Fu

State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China

Ru-Shan Wu

Modeling and Imaging Laboratory, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, California 95064

One-way approximations for regional phases slice the half-space crustal wave guide into a number of slabs perpendicular to the propagation direction; the Moho discontinuity can be easily treated as a perturbation from the crustal background. The advantage of one-way propagation methods is their great saving of computing time and memory compared to full-waveform numerical methods, especially for 3D simulations. In this article, we present general 2.5D SH formulas for the thin-slab method and a generalized screen propagator (GSP) for simulating SH wave propagation in the heterogeneous half-space crustal wave guide. Comparisons of numerical results with a finite-difference (FD) algorithm for a standard flat crustal model show excellent agreement, demonstrating the validity and accuracy of the 2.5D GSP for the half-space problem. We then compare the curves of energy attenuation calculated by the 2D and 2.5D formulas. The comparison shows that the energy attenuation of the 2.5D case is about 1.5–3 times greater than that of the 2D case when the trapped mode is formed. The SH screen propagator is also used to simulate two laterally unvarying (in the y direction) crustal models, showing the path effects on regional wave propagation.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the Seismological Society of America.