SPICE benchmark for global tomographic methods

Geophysical Journal International

Volumn 175, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 598-616

  Qin, Yilong ^a   Capdeville, Yann ^a   Maupin, Valerie ^b   Montagner, Jean Paul ^a   Lebedev, Sergei ^c,d   Beucler, Eric ^e  

^a INSTITUT DE PHYSIQUE DU GLOBE DE PARIS   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES   (Ireland)

^e UNIVERSITÉ DE NANTES   (France)

Author keywords

Computational seismology; Seismic anisotropy; Seismic tomography; Surface waves and oscillations

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; DATA ACQUISITION; DATA INVERSION; DATA QUALITY; DATA SET; PARAMETERIZATION; S-WAVE; SEISMIC ANISOTROPY; SEISMIC TOMOGRAPHY; SEISMIC WAVE; SEISMOLOGY; SURFACE WAVE; SYNTHETIC SEISMOGRAM; WAVE PROPAGATION;

EID: 54849421549     PISSN: 0956540X     EISSN: 1365246X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03904.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aminzadeh, F., Burkhard, N., Kunz, T., Nicoletis, L. & Rocca, F., 1995. 3-D modeling project: 3rd report, Leading Edge, 14(2), 125-128.
2. Aminzadeh, F., Burkhard, N., Long, J., Kunz, T. & Duclos, P., 1996. Three dimensional SEG/EAEG models - an update, Leading Edge, 15(2), 131-134.
3. Aminzadeh, F., Brac, J. & Kunz, T., 1997. 3-D Salt and Overthrust Models, 3-D Modeling Series, Vol. 1, Soc. of Expl. Geophysicists.
4. Backus, G.E. & Gilbert, J.F., 1968. The resolving power of gross earth data, Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 16, 169-205.
5. Bassin, C., Laske, G. & Masters, G., 2000. The current limits of resolution for surface wave tomography in North America, EOS, Trans. Am. geophys. Un., 81, F897.
6. Becker, T.W. & Boschi, L., 2002. A comparison of tomographic and geodynamic mantle models, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 3(1), 1003.
7. Beucler, E. & Montagner, J.-P., 2006. Computation of large anisotropic seismic heterogeneities (CLASH), Geophys. J. Int., 165, 447-468.
8. Beucler, É., Stutzmann, É. & Montagner, J.P., 2003. Surface wave higher-mode phase velocity measurements using a roller-coaster-type algorithm, Geophys. J. Int., 155(1), 289-307.
9. Billette, F. & Brandsberg-Dhal, S., 2005. The 2004 BP Velocity Benchmark, in Proceedings of the 67th Meeting, EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Expanded Abstract, B035, Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
10. Boschi, L., Becker, T.W., Soldati, G. & Dziewonski, A.M., 2006. On the relevance of Born theory in global seismic tomography, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06302.
11. Boschi, L., Becker, T.W. & Steinberger, B., 2007. Mantle plumes: dynamic models and seismic images, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 8, Q10006.
12. Boschi, L., Becker, T.W. & Steinberger, B., 2008. On the statistical significance of correlations between synthetic mantle plumes and tomographic models, Phys. Earth planet. Inter., 167, 230-238.
13. Brenders, A.J. & Pratt, R.G., 2007. Full waveform tomography for lithospheric imaging: Results from a blind test in a realistic crustal model, Geophys. J. Int., 168(1), 133-151.
14. Capdeville, Y., Larmat, C., Vilotte, J.P. & Montagner, J.P., 2002. Direct numerical simulation of the scattering induced by a localized plume like using a coupled spectral element and modal solution, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(9).
15. Capdeville, Y., Chaljub, E., Vilotte, J.P. & Montagner, J.P., 2003. Coupling spectral elements and modal solution: A new efficient tool for numerical wave propagation in laterally heterogeneous earth models, Geophys. J. Int., 152, 34-66.
16. Chaljub, E., Capdeville, Y. & Vilotte, J.P., 2003. Solving elastodynamics in a fluid-solid heterogeneous sphere: A parallel spectral element approximation on non-conforming grids, J. Comp. Phy. 187, 457-491.
17. Courant, R., Friedrichs, K. & Lewy, H., 1928. Über die partiellen Differenzengleichungen der mathematischen Physik, Mathematische Annalen, 100(1), 32-74.
18. Dziewonski, A.M. & Anderson, D.L., 1981. Preliminary reference earth model (PREM), Phys. Earth planet. Inter., 25, 297-356.
19. Hole, J.A., Zelt, C.A. & Pratt, R.G., 2005. Advances in controlled-source seismic imaging, EOS, Trans. Am. geophys. Un., 86, 177-188.
20. House, L., Fehler, M., Aminzadeh, F., Barhen, J. & Larson, S., 1996. A national laboratory-industry collaboration to use the SEG/EAEG model data sets, Leading Edge, 15, 135-136.
21. Komatitsch, D. & Tromp, J., 2002. Spectral-element simulations of global seismic wave propagation -II. 3-D models, oceans, rotation, and gravity, Geophys. J. Int., 150, 303-318.
22. Komatitsch, D. & Vilotte, J.P., 1998. The spectral element method: an effective tool to simulate the seismic response of 2D and 3D geological structures, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 88, 368-392.
23. Komatitsch, D., Ritsema, J. & Tromp, J., 2002. The spectral-element method, beowulf computing, and global seismology, Science, 298, 1737-1742.
24. Lebedev, S. & Van Der Hilst, R.D., 2008. Global upper-mantle tomography with the automated multimode inversion of surface and S wave forms, Geophys. J. Int., 173, 505-518.
25. Lebedev, S., Nolet, G., Meier, T. & Van Der Hilst, R.D., 2005. Automated multi-mode inversion of surface and S waveforms, Geophys. J. Int., 162(3), 951-964.
26. Martin, G.S., Wiley, R. & Marfurt, K.J., 2006. Marmousi2: An elastic upgrade for Marmousi, Leading Edge, 25(2), 156-166.
27. Montagner, J.P. & Jobert, N., 1981. Investigation of upper mantle structure under young regions of the South-East Pacific using long-period Rayleigh waves, Phys. Earth planet. Inter., 27, 206-222.
28. Montagner, J.P. & Nataf, H.C., 1986. A simple method for inverting the azimuthal anisotropy of surface waves, J. geophys. Res., 91(B1), 511-520.
29. Mulder, W.A., Nicoletis, L. & Alkhalifah, T., 2006. The EAGE 3D anisotropic elastic modelling project, in Proceedings of the 68th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Vienna (2006).
30. NOAA, 1988. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) product information catalog-ETOPO5 earth topography 5-minute digital model, Technical report, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, p. 171.
31. Qin, Y., Capdeville, Y., Maupin, V. & Montagner, J.P., 2006. A SPICE blind test to benchmark global tomographic methods, EOS (Washington DC), 87, 512-513.
32. Ritsema, J. & van Heijst, H.J., 2000. Seismic imaging of structural heterogeneity in Earth's mantle: Evidence for large-scale mantle flow, Sci. Prog., 83, 243-259.
33. Romanowicz, B., 2003. Global mantle tomography: Progress status in the last 10 years, An. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 31(1), 303.
34. Ronchi, C., Ianoco, R. & Paolucci, P.S., 1996. The "Cubed Sphere": A new method for the solution of partial differential equations in spherical geometry, J. Comput. Phys., 124, 93-114.
35. Smith, M.L. & Dahlen, F.A., 1973. The azimuthal dependence of Love and Rayleigh wave propagation in a slightly anisotropicmedium, J. geophys. Res., 78, 3321-3333.
36. Stutzmann, E. & Montagner, J.-P., 1994. Tomography of the transition zone from the inversion of higher mode surface waves, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 86, 99-115.
37. Stutzmann, E. & Montagner, J.P., 1993. An inverse technique for retrieving higher mode phase velocity and mantle structure, Geophys. I. Int., 113, 669-683.
38. Stutzmann, E., Roult, G. & Astiz, L., 2000. GEOSCOPE station noise levels, Bull. seismol. Soc. Am., 90, 690-701.
39. Tarantola, A. & Valette, B., 1982. Generalized nonlinear inverse problems solved using the least squares criterion, Rev. geophys. Space Phys., 20(2), 219-232.
40. Tsuboi, S., Komatitsch, D., Chen, J. & Tromp, J., 2004. Modeling of global seismic wave propagation on the earth simulator, J. Earth Simulator, 1, 57-66.
41. Versteeg, R., 1994. The Marmousi experience: Velocity model determination on a synthetic complex data set, Leading Edge, 13, 927-936.
42. Yoshizawa, K. & Kennett, B.L.N., 2002. Determination of the influence zone for surface wave paths, Geophys. J. Int., 149, 440-453.
43. Zhou, Y., Dahlen, F.A., Nolet, G. & Laske, G., 2005. Finite-frequency effects in global surface-wave tomography, Geophys. J. Int., 163, 1087-1111.