Shear wave velocity and crustal thickness in the Pannonian Basin from receiver function inversions at four permanent stations in Hungary
- 144 Downloads
Receiver functions of teleseismic waveforms recorded at four Hungarian permanent broadband stations have been analyzed using semilinearized and stochastic inversion methods to estimate the crustal thickness and S wave velocity structure in the Pannonian Basin. The results of both inversion methods agree well with the crustal thicknesses obtained by previous seismic refraction and reflection studies in the regions which are densely covered with seismic lines (28 and 27 km in westernmost and southern Hungary, respectively) and suggest a thicker crust compared to what was known before beneath the Transdanubian and Northern Ranges (34 and 33 km, respectively). The comparison of the one-dimensional shear wave velocity models derived by the different inversion methods shows that, in case of simple, smoothly varying structures, the results do not differ significantly and can be regarded as absolute velocities. Otherwise, the recovered velocity gradients agree, but there are differences in the absolute velocity values. The back-azimuthal variations of both radial and tangential receiver functions are interpreted as dipping structure and as waves sampling different geological areas. The signature of the deep structure on low-frequency receiver functions suggests a strong velocity contrast at the 670-km discontinuity. The vanishing 410-km boundary may be attributed to the remnant of a subducted oceanic slab with increased Poisson’s ratio in the transition zone.
KeywordsReceiver functions Inversion methods Pannonian Basin Crustal thickness Shear wave
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Ammon CJ, Randall GE, Zandt G (1990) On the nonuniqueness of receiver function inversions. J Geophys Res 95:15303–15318Google Scholar
- Birch F (1961) The velocity of compressional waves in rocks to 10 kilobars, part 2. J Geophys Res 66:2199–2224Google Scholar
- Horváth F, Bada G, Windhoffer G, Csontos L, Dövényi P, Fodor L, Grenerczy G, Síkhegyi F, Szafián P, Székely B, Timár G, Tóth L, Tóth T (2005) Atlas of the present-day geodynamics of the Pannonian Basin: Euroconform maps with explanatory text. http://geophysics.elte.hu/projektek/geodinamikai_atlasz_eng.htm
- Ligorría J, Ammon CJ (1999) Iterative deconvolution and receiver-function estimation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88:1395–1400Google Scholar
- Ligorría JP (2000) An investigation of the mantle–crust transition beneath North-America and Poisson’s ratio of the North American Crust. Ph.D. thesis, Saint Louis University – St. Louis, MO, USAGoogle Scholar
- Mónus P (1995) Travel time curves and crustal velocity model for the Pannonian basin. Technical Report, MTA GGKI, Budapest, 6 ppGoogle Scholar
- Środa P, Czuba W, Grad M, Guterch A, Tokarski AK, Janik T, Rauch M, Keller GR, Hegedüs E, Vozár J, CELEBRATION 2000 Working Group (2006) Crustal and upper mantle structure of the Western Carpathians from CELEBRATION 2000 profiles CEL01 and CEL04: seismic models and geological implications. Geophys J Int 167(2):737–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Świeczak M, Grad M, TOR and SVEKALAPKO working groups (2004) Upper mantle seismic discontinuities topography variations beneath Eastern Europe. Acta Geophys Pol 52(3):251–270Google Scholar
- Tapponnier P (1976) Évolution tectonique du système alpin en Méditerranée: poinçonnement et écrasement rigide-plastique. Bull Soc Géol France XIX(3):437–460Google Scholar
- Wessel P, Smith WHF (1991) Free software helps map and display data. EoS Trans. AGU, 72, pp. 441 and 445–446Google Scholar