Abstract
Previous studies have suggested prominent variations in the seismic wave behavior at the 5 s period when traveling across the Valley of Mexico, associating them with the crustal structure and contributing to the anomalous seismic wave patterns observed each time an earthquake hits Mexico City. This article confirms the variations observed at 0.2 Hz by analyzing the Green tensor diagonal retrieved from empirical Green functions (EGF) calculated using seismic noise data cross-correlations of the vertical and horizontal components. We observe time and phase shifts between the east and north EGF components and show that they can be explained by the crustal structure from the surface up to 20 km depth; we also observe that the time and phase shifts are more significant if the distance between the source and the station increases. Additionally, the article presents an updated version of the velocity model from receiver functions and dispersion curves (VMRFDC v2.0) for the crustal structure under the Valley of Mexico. To validate this model, we compare the EGFs with synthetic Green functions determined numerically. To do so, we adaptatively meshed this model using an iterative algorithm to numerically simulate the impulse response up to 0.5 Hz. Finally, the comparisons between noise and synthetic EGF showed that the VMRFDC v2.0 model explains the time shifts and phase differences at 0.2 Hz, previously observed by independent studies, suggesting it correctly characterizes the crustal structure anomalies beneath the Valley of Mexico.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The Valley of Mexico is in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (TMVB, Fig. 1a), a volcanic arc overlying other Cretaceous and Cenozoic volcanic providences (Ferrari et al. 2012). Specifically, Mexico City is in the Mexico Basin (Arce et al. 2019); together with its surroundings, it lies inside the Valley of Mexico. This complex geological framework is responsible for the seismic wave behavior in the Valley of Mexico and is considered a paradigmatic example worldwide. Distinctively, the \({M}_{\text{w}}\) 8.1 earthquake on 19 September 1985 marked a scientific watershed in understanding the structure and site effect contributions to the anomalous behavior. Multiple mechanisms contribute to the complex wavefield patterns observed in the recordings when an earthquake occurs.
For example, the first documented phenomena were the amplification and the long duration of strong motions. Singh et al. (1988) reported amplification by a factor from 8 to 50 in seismic records inside the Mexico City basin compared to a station located in the hill zone. Ordaz and Singh (1992) quantified the regional amplification, considering earthquakes occurred at similar distances from Mexico City along the trench, leaving no doubts about the essential role of the crustal structure in the seismic wave behavior. Additionally, Cárdenas-Soto and Chávez-García (2003) showed an azimuthal dependence in the amplification and duration of ground motion in Central Mexico. This implies that different seismic wave paths can result in contrasting behaviors due to diffracted pulses in the crust. They observed significant variability in the group velocity dispersion curves for periods shorter than 5 s. Furthermore, they concluded that for periods longer than 5 s, the crustal structure plays a crucial role by acting as an “efficient waveguide.” Years later, Chávez-García and Quintanar (2010) observed lateral variations in group velocity within the TMVB, with velocities ranging from 2.0 to 2.7 km/s for a 5 s period. This confirms previous observations at 5 s (0.2 Hz) and suggests differences in dispersion curves and, consequently, in the structure. However, Cruz-Atienza et al. (2016) showed that not only do the regional effects contribute to the long duration of the strong motions in Mexico City, but the basin also increases them in the range from 0.3 to 0.5 Hz since the energy propagates long distance in the deep structure.
On the other hand, Pita Sllim (2019) showed that receiver functions were sensitive to complex patterns observed in the crustal structure beneath Mexico City, suggesting that it was more complex than previous velocity models proposed by Cruz-Atienza et al. (2010) and Espíndola et al. (2017), who also retrieved them from receiver functions. Therefore, Aguilar-Velázquez et al. (2023) obtained a high-resolution S-wave velocity model from joint inversion of receiver functions and dispersion curves named Velocity Model from Receiver Functions and Dispersion Curves (VMRFDC), with VM also referring to Valley of Mexico. The authors showed a remarkable correlation between the VMRFDC velocity anomalies and geological and geophysical anomalies reported in the literature. However, a numerical validation of this model is necessary. Consequently, we complemented the VMRFDC velocity model with information also retrieved from joint inversion of receiver functions and dispersion curves at ten additional stations outside of Mexico City (Fig. 1a, b, c), obtaining the VMRFDC v2.0 model. To validate this model, we compare empirical Green functions (EGF) computed from seismic noise with synthetic Green functions (SGF) from numerical simulations using this model.
Using data from 25 broadband stations distributed across the Valley of Mexico (Fig. 1a), we estimated EGF from the seismic noise time series cross-correlations of the three seismometer components (HHZ, HHN, and HHE), i.e., we retrieved the diagonal components of the Green’s tensor for each pair of stations. On the other hand, the VMRFDC v2.0 was adaptatively meshed, and we performed numerical simulations of seismic wave propagation using the impulse response as a source, allowing us to retrieve SGF. Having the noise EGF and the SGF, this article compares them. Our results suggest similarities between both EGFs, explaining the previously reported lateral variations at 0.2 Hz and establishing the VMRFDC v2.0 as a well-validated model suitable for multiple applications. Additionally, we observed prominent phase changes between horizontal EGF and SGF at 0.2 Hz; these differences were quantified in this article for the first time and contribute to the knowledge of seismic wave behavior at this frequency.
Empirical Green functions retrieving
A Green function (GF) is defined as the wavefield response retrieved in one station due to a single force applied to the location of another station. At the beginning of the XXI century, many studies showed that the cross-correlation between seismic noise recorded in two stations may be an empirical way to retrieve de GF (i.e., EGF); this is true by assuming that the noise is a diffuse wavefield (Weaver and Lobkis 2001a, 2001b, 2004; Snieder 2004; Shapiro and Campillo 2004).
An important assumption when we work with seismic noise time series is that they are stationary, meaning that their mean and variance do not change with time (i.e., the statistical characteristics are not time-dependent; McNamara and Buland 2004). McNamara and Buland (2004) also described the main contributors to the seismic noise signals. The first contributor is the “cultural noise” due to anthropogenic activity, which can be found in the frequency range of 1–10 Hz (green region in Fig. 1d). The second contributor is geology, water, and wind. The third is the “microseisms,” defined by two peaks in the seismic noise curves: the first one, from 0.0625 to 0.1 Hz (blue region in Fig. 1d), known as the single-frequency peak, and the second one, from 0.125 to 0.25 Hz (yellow region in Fig. 1d), known as the double-frequency peak. The fourth contributor is the “instrumental noise,” which occurs due to the electromechanical operation of the instruments. The last one is the “earthquakes”; teleseisms may produce surface waves with dominant frequency values lower than 0.1 Hz, while local and small events may produce waves with dominant frequencies greater than 1 Hz. Figure 1d summarizes the frequency range of these noise bands, the body and surface waves, and the earthquake hazard frequency range (Ammon et al. 2020).
According to Stehly et al. (2006), if the seismic noise sources are homogeneously distributed in the space, the EGF will be symmetric, meaning their causal and the anticausal parts have identical waveforms. However, according to these authors, if this requirement is not fulfilled, the EGF can still be recovered, but it will not be symmetric. This last case is essential for the Valley of Mexico. We used two stations from the SSN network for the seismic noise cross-correlations: PZIG, located at Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico City, and YAIG, located at Yautepec, Morelos. Montoya Quintanar (2018) evaluated the temporary variations of the seismic noise in the stations of the Servicio Sismológico Nacional (SSN, National Seismological Service of Mexico) network. For PZIG, he observed that the seismic noise curves exceed the New High Noise Model (NHNM; Peterson 1993; McNamara and Boaz, 2005) in the frequency range from 1.0 to 5.0 Hz; the author attributes this behavior to the anthropogenic activity since the station is in the main campus of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM, National Autonomous University of Mexico). However, in the case of YAIG, the seismic noise curve is within the limits established by the New Low Noise Model (NLHM) and the NMHM (Montoya Quintanar 2018). Specifically, for the 0.2 Hz (an important frequency analyzed in this article), the average seismic noise spectral amplitude for the YAIG station was approximately − 130 dB, while for the PZIG station was − 125 dB. This analysis suggests that stations inside Mexico City might be noisier than those outside due to anthropogenic activity. Another evidence that supports this hypothesis can be found in Saldaña-Tejada et al. (2022). They presented a relationship between the county population and the median noise level and concluded that the bigger the population, the higher the median noise level. Consequently, symmetric EGF is expected not to be recovered since the seismic noise sources are mainly concentrated within Mexico City with respect to the stations outside.
We used data from 23 broadband stations of the Red Sísmica del Valle de México (RSVM; Quintanar et al. 2018) and two from the Instituto de Geofísica network (MX; SSN 2023); see Fig. 1a. We used seismic noise data for nine months, from January 1 to September 6, 2017. First, we identified the days with complete records (i.e., we removed the gaps). The next step was to homogenize the data in SAC format (per day and then per station). Then, we removed the mean, the trend, and the instrument response from the records. Finally, we decimated the signals from 100 to 5 Hz, thus the Nyquist frequency of the seismic noise records was now 2.5 Hz. This procedure was done for each station’s three components (HHZ, HHN, and HHE). Then, the cross-correlations were performed using the Python notebook called “Ambient Seismic Noise Analysis,” from the project “seismo-live” (Krischer et al. 2018). This code follows the processing workflow established by Bensen et al. (2007); we summarize the processes in the following sequence:
-
1.
Seek for standard days per pair of stations to correlate per day.
-
2.
Band-pass filtering from 0.01 to 2.00 Hz.
-
3.
Time domain normalization using the one-bit algorithm (i.e., positive values of the signal were modified to 1.0, while the negative ones were changed to − 1.0).
-
4.
Spectral whitening in the 0.01–2.00 Hz frequency range (i.e., the same used for the band-pass filter).
-
5.
Cross-correlations computation using 200-s size windows.
-
6.
Stacking using the mean.
Crustal velocity model
We used the VMRFDC model introduced by Aguilar-Velázquez et al. (2023). Figure 6 by Aguilar-Velázquez et al. (2023) shows the regions where S-wave velocity is estimated. Additionally, stations outside that domain were not included in the first version of the model. Consequently, we added the information on ACIG, AMVM, ATVM, INVM, MAVM, PPIG, TOVM, VTVM, YAIG, and ZUVM stations (Fig. 1a) to create an updated version of the VMRFDC model (VMRFDC v2.0). We retrieved 433 velocity records of 258 teleseismic events, with M ≥ 6.0 between January 2010 and January 2023, recorded in the ten stations mentioned above; Fig. 1b, c present the temporary and azimuthal distribution of the receiver functions. We performed the joint inversion scheme used by Aguilar-Velázquez et al. (2023), which we briefly summarized as follows:
-
1. Identify the P-wave arrival manually; if it was unclear, TauP (Crotwell et al. 1999) was used to identify it, but it was manually adjusted.
-
2. Cut windows from 5 s before the P-wave arrival time and 20 s after. Then, the mean and trend were removed, and a cosine taper of 5% was applied.
-
3. Rotate the records from the vertical-northeast (ZNE) system to the vertical-radial-transverse (ZRT) one.
-
4. Retrieve radial receiver functions using the iterative deconvolution algorithm by Ligorría and Ammon (1999). The spectral content of the retrieved receiver functions is controlled by a Gaussian filter defined as:
$$G(\omega)=\exp\left(\frac{-{\omega }^{2}}{4{a}^{2}}\right),$$(1)where \(\omega\) is the angular frequency and \(a\) is the Gaussian width. As Aguilar-Velázquez et al. (2023), we retrieved three different radial receiver functions per teleseismic-event record using three values for \(a\): 2.5 (1.2 Hz), 5.0 (2.4 Hz), and 10.0 (4.8 Hz); the values in parentheses are the maximum frequency reached per Gaussian width. Finally, we kept only the receiver functions with reproducibility larger than 70%.
-
5. Cluster of the events, per station, by ray parameter and back Azimuth to ensure that the receiver functions in a cluster map the same crustal structure.
-
6. Collect the dispersion curves for each station in the Valley of Mexico from the work by Spica et al. (2016); they were retrieved using noise and coda cross-correlations in Mexico and southern USA. We used their dispersion curves retrieved for the Valley of Mexico.
-
7. Jointly invert the receiver functions and the dispersion curves per station, using the algorithm by Julià et al. (2000, 2003). The starting model was the same as in Table 1 by Aguilar-Velázquez et al. (2023). The weight value for the joint inversion was 0.3, meaning that the receiver functions have more influence than dispersion curves.
-
8. Keep only the models generated when the semblance (\(S\)) between the data (\(D\)) and inverted (\(I\)) receiver functions, defined as:
$$S=\left(0.5-\frac{\text{corr}\left(D,I\right)}{\text{auto}\left(D\right)+\text{auto}\left(I\right)}\right)\times 100\text{\%},$$(2)was lower than 20%. We also established a criterion for dispersion curves: a mean absolute error lower than 10%. Finally, we only considered models with a maximum S-wave velocity value of 5.5 km/s, eliminating unstable solutions.
-
9. Project the velocity models to the ray path using the pierce points calculated each 2 km with the retrieved velocity models, obtaining the S-wave velocity distribution per depth.
Aguilar-Velázquez et al. (2023) performed a geostatistical analysis after the joint inversion to estimate the S-wave velocity using kriging. However, this was impossible for the above stations due to the great distances between them. Instead, we performed a classical interpolation using MATLAB’s “natural neighbor interpolation” algorithm. Once the interpolation was done, a smoothing algorithm was applied to mitigate the effect of non-realistic velocity contrasts. Figure 2 shows the VMRFDC v2.0 S-wave model retrieved from this work, extending it outside Mexico City. P-wave velocity (\(\alpha\)) was retrieved using the \({V}_{P}/{V}_{S}\) ratio equal to \(\sqrt{3}\), i.e., a Poisson solid. Then, the density (\(\rho\)) is calculated using the Berteussen (1997) relationship:
except in the first layer (the TMVB), where it was fixed to 2.2 g/cm3 (Shapiro et al. 2001).
Numerical validation
When a velocity model is retrieved using, for example, full-waveform inversion, it is assumed that the model will reproduce the seismograms. However, as discussed in the section above, the velocity model was retrieved from a joint inversion of receiver functions and dispersion curves; consequently, as discussed, it was necessary to validate it using seismograms and not only geological and geophysical information.
Meshing the velocity model
We mesh the velocity model using TetGen (Si 2015). This software allows the generation of tetrahedral meshes for any 3D domain using Delaunay algorithms. We decided to use an adaptative mesh to optimize the computing time of the simulations. To do this, we defined the maximum frequency of the simulation as 0.5 Hz; this value justification can be found in the following sections. Then, the minimum wavelength, \({\lambda }_{\text{min}}\), is calculated as:
where \(\beta\) is the S-wave velocity at each node. We employ an iterative procedure to ensure the accurate propagation of the minimum wavelength, \({\lambda }_{\text{min}}\), in the model with the fewest elements. This process starts with an initial coarse mesh and progressively refines it iteratively. In each iteration, we identified the nodes with an adequate size since, to simulate the wavefield accurately, DGCrack requires that the elements’ size warranties the presence of at least three elements per minimum wavelength (Etienne et al. 2010). The elements that do not fulfill this size condition are updated in the next iteration until all the elements are sized correctly. Figure 3 shows a vertical profile of the resulting mesh for 0.5 Hz using the updated VMRFDC model presented in Fig. 2.
As it was explained by Aguilar-Velázquez et al. (2023), the receiver functions and dispersion curves were not sensitive to the sedimentary basin; this was due to the frequency range reached by their receiver functions (up to 4.8 Hz); they can only be sensible to layer up to 1 km, and the deepest point estimated for the sedimentary basin was around 0.5 km. Therefore, solving its structure with the joint inversion was impossible, meaning this model could only be validated for low frequencies in this first approach. Consequently, the basin was not included in the numerical simulations since we want to prove that the pulse duration could be explained only by the effect of the complex crustal structure. Also, not introducing the basin saves computational time, crucial for these simulations.
Simulations with DGCrack
DGCrack (Etienne et al. 2010; Tago et al. 2012) is a software that solves the velocity-stress weak formulation of the elastodynamic equations in the 3D domain using a hp-adaptative discontinuous Galerkin method. The code provides the possibility to model the wavefield produced by single forces acting in the coordinate system directions (i.e., in the vertical, north, or east directions), allowing us to recover the Green tensor’s diagonal. The p-adaptative, interpolation order per element, was unnecessary in solving our problem since the mesh does not change the element sizes drastically. Instead, all the elements used were second order, i.e., quadratic interpolation functions.
At the surface, the free boundary conditions were applied. However, for the rest of the boundaries, we decided to use convolutional perfectly matched layers (CPML) to satisfy the absorbing boundary conditions since we have a finite medium. Following Collino and Tsogka (2001) and Etienne et al. (2010), we constructed CPML of three times the maximum value of all the minimum wavelengths calculated according to the largest frequency in our simulation (0.5 Hz). To ensure that the waves travel at least three minimum wavelengths in all depths, we choose the maximum S-wave velocity (5.1 km/s) to estimate the thickness of CPML as:
However, we decided to round this value to 32 km to ensure we fulfilled the criteria. The 32 km layer was added at the boundaries by extending the S-wave velocities in the borders of our model; the CPML elements also had an adaptative size, depending on such velocities, to reduce the computation time. According to Collino and Tsogka (2001) and Etienne et al. (2010), the damping profile (\({d}_{\theta }\)) varies from 0 at the beginning of the CPML, up to \({d}_{{\theta }_{\text{max}}}\) at the end as:
where:
\({\delta }_{\theta }\) is the perpendicular distance from the model region to the CPML in which the element barycenter is located, \({R}_{\text{coeff}}\) is the theoretical reflection coefficient, and \(\alpha\) is the maximum P-wave velocity in the model. For our numerical simulations, \({R}_{\text{coeff}}=0.01\) and \(\alpha =\left(\sqrt{3}\right)\left(5.1 \frac{km}{s}\right)\approx 8.8 \frac{km}{s}.\) Finally, the CPML elements also used a second-order interpolation.
Additionally, we added spatial support to the source. This strategy distributes the source over a 1.5 km ratio (i.e., almost half of the minimum wavelength for the TMVB) and helps to avoid numerical noise.
DGCrack works in parallel and calculates the time step for the numerical simulation, ensuring the Courant’s condition is fulfilled, meaning the time step (\(\Delta t\)) for the numerical simulation must satisfy:
where \({e}_{s}\) and \(\alpha\) are the element size and its P-wave velocity, respectively. Since both values are taken from the same element, the one with the lowest ratio is taken for the \(\Delta t\) calculation. The time step is penalized for our case due to the S-wave velocity contrast between the TMVB and the upper crust (from ~ 1.65 to ~ 2.85 km/s) since the refined mesh produces smaller elements than required at the discontinuity.
Now, we compare the EGF recovered from seismic noise with the synthetic seismograms. Let the EGF retrieved using seismic noise (\({\text{EGF}}_{k}\)) defined as:
where both, \({W}_{{N}_{k}}^{{S}_{c}}\left(t\right)\) and \({W}_{{N}_{k}}^{R}\left(t\right)\) are seismic noise wavefields recorded in the \(k\) component; \({S}_{c}\) indicates the station assumed as the virtual source, and \(R\) is the receiver and \(\otimes\) means cross-correlation. As discussed in Sect. “Empirical Green functions retrieving,” \({W}_{{N}_{k}}^{{S}_{c}}\left(t\right)\) and \({W}_{{N}_{k}}^{R}\left(t\right)\) were preprocessed using the Bensen et al. (2007) methodology.
We performed numerical simulations to compute synthetic seismograms using impulsive point forces, which can be interpreted as synthetic Green functions (\({\text{SGF}}_{k}\)). As Chen et al. (2014), we assume that:
the \({\text{SGF}}_{k}\) were retrieved using synthetic seismograms of the impulse response wavefield recorded in the \(k\) component if a point source is also applied in the \(k\) direction. These \({\text{SGF}}_{k}\) are valid up to the maximum frequency reached in the study, \({f}_{\text{max}}\) (0.5 Hz for our case) since our source time function has a planar spectrum up to \({f}_{\text{max}}\). Finally, since the impulsive source is applied in the same direction as the records, we only analyze the diagonal of the empirical and synthetic Green tensors.
Results
Figure 4 shows the source time function and its amplitude spectrum; note that the spectrum is planar up to ~ 0.50 Hz. Additionally, Fig. 4 shows the wavefield snapshots, considering that the source is located at the YAIG station. Further, Fig. 5 shows an example of the cross-correlations retrieved from seismic noise and the numerical simulations in the Valley of Mexico if the source were at the YAIG station and using the HHZ component; seismograms are band-pass filtered from 0.10 to 0.22 Hz. This figure illustrates that the SGF surface wave pulses arrive at the expected time compared to the EGF ones. Additionally, there is no observable azimuthal dependence of the travel times between the EGF and the SGF, indicating that the VMRFDC v2.0 represents a reliable 3D velocity structure. Upon examining the seismograms in Fig. 5, it becomes evident that the EGF lacks high-frequency content compared to the SGF. This discrepancy is acceptable since this article focuses solely on comparing large wavelengths associated with the crust.
On the other hand, an interesting observation can be found at the Green tensor diagonal. Figure 6 shows some examples. The tensor’s diagonal for the AOVM-PZIG pair of stations reveals that the pulses in the horizontal components (HHN and HHE) are similar. However, if we analyze pairs separated for a greater distance (as the YAIG-TXVM, the VTVM-PZIG, or the ZUVM-PZIG pair), we observe that the pulse in the HHN arrives before the one in the HHE. A similar effect can be observed in the TOVM-TXVM pair, but the HHE pulse arrives first this time. This observation suggests the presence of a time shift. Additionally, the pulse duration is also different in the components. In this work, these effects may be explained by the complexity of the crustal structure observed in the VMRFDC v2.0 model.
Knowing that there is a time shift presumably produced by the crustal structure complexity, and the next step is quantifying it, we performed the continuous wavelet transform (CWT) analysis introduced by Kristeková et al. (2006), a misfit criterion for comparing seismograms. We aimed to contrast the HHN and HHE Green pulses in a frequency-time domain. This comparison is crucial to also understanding the frequency content differences. The steps to perform this analysis are described as follows:
-
1.
Transform the HHN and HHE using the CWT kernel, resulting in two time–frequency matrices (one for each component).
-
2.
Calculate the amplitude and phase of the CWT matrices since the CWT produces complex numbers like the Fourier transform.
-
3.
Subtract the amplitude and phase matrices of HHE from HHN, which will produce two new matrices: the differences in amplitude and phase.
-
4.
Average the amplitudes of all the time samples per frequency and obtain the amplitude and phase differences as a function of the frequency.
-
5.
Average the amplitudes of all the frequency samples per time and obtain the amplitude and phase differences as a function of the time.
-
6.
Obtain the single value misfit for the amplitude and phase by calculating their integrals in frequency and time.
The central hypothesis when using this technique is that if the pulses at the HHN and HHE components are equal, all the differences should be zero. Therefore, when the pulses are different, we can characterize where the changes are in time and frequency. Figure 7 presents the comparison between the CWT analyses of the Green functions retrieved from both data (EGF) and numerical simulations (SGF) using the YAIG-TXVM station pair (separated ~ 65 km; the red path in Fig. 6). We observe a change in the phase around 25 s and 0.20 Hz in the EGF (region delimited by the black rectangle in Fig. 7k). This change is also observed in the SGF but at ~ 0.25 Hz (region delimited by the black rectangle in Fig. 7n). The differences in amplitude (Fig. 7c, f, g) may have the same shape. Both observations suggest that the VMRFDC v2.0 model may reproduce the EGF. We repeated this analysis using the TOVM-TXVM station pair (separated ~ 80 km; purple path in Fig. 6); please note that the analysis was done at TXVM for a fair comparison; quasi-perpendicular paths were selected (see Fig. 6). Figure 8k reveals that the phase shift in the EGF also occurs around 0.20 Hz, but now at ~ 30 s (region delimited by the black rectangle in Fig. 8k); it makes sense that the shift appears after the YAIG-TXVM pair since the distance is larger in this example. In this case, the SGF suggests that the phase shift is at ~ 0.23 Hz, which is again consistent with the EGF. Figure 8c, f, g suggests that the differences in relative amplitude are similar for the EGF and the SGF (see the regions delimited by the black rectangles). Figures in the Supplementary Information show examples of the other paths observed in Fig. 6 (see Figs. S1 to S3 in the Supplementary Information). Furthermore, Fig. 8h reveals that in the TOVM-TXVM path, the observed EGF obtained from the HHN component has a longer motion duration than in the HHE component; the numerical simulation also shows that behavior, meaning that the VMRFDC v2.0, can reproduce such a feature.
Discussion
Before discussing our results, we consider it important to remember that a recent study by Hernández-Aguirre et al. (2023) supports the decision not to include the basin in the numerical simulations in this work. They also performed 3D numerical simulations, but they included the sedimentary basin and retrieved synthetic seismograms of the 17 July 2019 \({M}_{\text{w}}\) 3.2 earthquake instead. Their results suggest that the amplification occurs in the frequency interval from 0.4 to 0.7 Hz. Additionally, they establish that the dominant wavefields in the lake-sediments zone are the surface waves with predominant prograde particle motion; according to their results, the transition from retrograde to prograde particle motions occurs from 0.53 to 0.65 Hz (depending on the site). As reported before, our phase anomalies are detected around 0.2 Hz, meaning that the basin is meaningless to the seismogram, positioning the crustal structure as the primary contributor.
Some studies have shown that surface waves retrieved from EGF can be used to characterize azimuthal velocity changes. Castellanos et al. (2018) obtained a high-resolution S-wave velocity and radial anisotropy model of the Eastern TMVB zone using ambient seismic noise correlations. According to the authors, the discrepancy between Rayleigh and Love waves allowed them to produce anisotropic images for central Mexico. On the other hand, Granados-Chavarría et al. (2022) obtained a high-resolution anisotropic S-wave velocity model for the geothermal system of the Los Humeros caldera in Mexico also using Rayleigh and Love wave dispersion curves retrieved from seismic noise EGF. Both examples showed that surface waves are sensitive to anisotropic effects, and their interpretations followed that line of research. However, as we said before, in this article, we propose that the seismic wave behavior change observed in the Valley of Mexico may not be due to an anisotropic crust. Instead, we postulate that these effects may be explained by the complexity of the crustal structure observed in the VMRFDC v2.0 model since these velocity anomalies might influence the surface wave behavior. We must bear in mind that even transverse isotropic layers or discontinuities between isotropic materials may produce time-shifted observations (Stein and Wyssession, 2003), meaning that anisotropy is not the only feature that can induce them. Understanding this concept is crucial for contextualizing our findings in relation to previous studies. We hypothesize that the observations by Cárdenas-Soto and Chávez-García (2003) and Chávez-García and Quintanar (2010) of a prominent change in the seismic wave behavior at 5 s period (i.e., 0.2 Hz) may be explained by the 3D structure variations mapped by VMRFDC v2.0. However, we also suggest that these changes could potentially lead to time and phase shifts in the horizontal components.
Following the discussion on time and phase shifts, Figs. 7 and 8 also show the single-valued envelope (amplitude) misfit (EM) and the single-valued phase misfit (PM) values (left bottom values; the mint ones for the observed and the brown ones for synthetic), calculated as the integrals of the amplitude and phase differences matrices in the domain delimited from 0.10 to 0.35 Hz and 10–60 s (delimited by the solid black lines). The next step was to verify if those values were sensitive to the time shifts. To do this, we performed a sensitivity test by shifting the wavelet presented on top of Fig. 9. The shifting was done in two ways: the simple one considered only an amplification factor for the shifted signal and the time shift. The complex shift is considered a more sophisticated and realistic amplification factor controlled not only by a factor since it is also multiplied by a negative-power exponential function. The envelope and phase diagrams obtained as a function of the amplitude variations (Amp. v. in Fig. 9) and the time shifts (\({\delta }_{\text{shift}}\) in Fig. 9) revealed that the single-valued misfits (SVM) for the envelope may produce non-unique solutions, inducing imprecise interpretations. Instead, the SVM for the phase may be the value to interpret since, independently of the amplification factor, the minimum of the misfits’ function is always at \({\delta }_{shift}=0\) s, i.e., when there is no time shift. However, the criteria cannot distinguish between positive and negative \({\delta }_{\text{shift}}\). Taking this into account, the maps in Fig. 9 show that if the source is at YAIG or TOVM, the SVM for the phase is more significant as long as the distance increases, meaning that the time shifts between the HHN and HHE components should be more evident because the influence of the complex structure is more considerable as well since when the impulse response is registered in greater distances, the influence the crustal velocity model is more “accumulated” (or contributes more to the record) than in those seismograms recorded at shorter distances.
As discussed, the EGF retrieved from seismic noise is dominated by surface wave pulses. Since the anomalous behavior occurs in the frequency interval from 0.15 to 0.30 Hz, the next step was to calculate the radial and transverse eigenfunctions, using the VMRFDC v2.0 model, to investigate which part of the crustal structure is responsible for the observations reported above. We used the Computer Programs in Seismology (Herrmann 2013) and 1D velocity models retrieved at TOVM, TXVM, and YAIG station locations; two points were also included to have a representative 1D velocity model for the midpoint between the station’s paths (M1 and M2 in Fig. 10). Figure 10 presents the S-wave velocity profiles between the station pairs explored in Figs. 7 and 8. Additionally, Fig. 10 shows the radial (UR) and transverse (UT) normalized displacement of surface waves as a function of the depth and frequency. It also reveals that surface waves are sensitive until 20 km depth for the frequency range reported above. Consequently, the shallow crust may be responsible for the time shifts and anomalous behavior reported before. The velocity profiles support this asseveration since we see prominent changes in the shallow-crustal structure between the two paths in that depth interval; the YAIG-TXVM path has faster velocities than the TOVM-TXVM one.
The comparisons presented in this paper were made using normalized amplitudes since our goal was to show only the crustal structure contribution to the seismograms. However, this has an essential implication in our work: we can only interpret spectral changes between normalized signals, but not amplification factors; once we normalized the seismic noise records using the one-bit method, we lose the actual amplitudes of the EGF, meaning that no absolute amplitude changes can be interpreted. Instead, relative amplitudes can be interpreted. For example, Fig. 7h shows that for the YAIG-TXVM path, the HHN component oscillates before the HHE starts doing it. Figure 8h reveals that for the TOVM-TXVM path, the HHN wavefield vibrates when the HHE ones are attenuated. Both examples reveal that the wavefield behavior can be comparable using only the relative amplitudes. Fig. S4, in the Supplementary Information, presents that these differences can also be observed in the radial-transverse system for these analyzed paths.
However, the limitation described before does not mean we do not recognize the influence of the crustal structure in the amplification. As is well-known, the surface waves generated by Mexican subduction earthquakes’ wavefield and the impedance contrast between the crust and the TMVB and between the TMVB and the sedimentary basin are responsible for the significant amplification in the Valley of Mexico. Let us provide a simple analysis of body waves to prove this. We approximated the velocity of the layer just beneath the TMVB, from VMRFDC v2.0, as \({\alpha }_{\text{crust}}=\) 4.94 km/s, \({\beta }_{\text{crust}}=\) 2.85 km/s, and \({\rho }_{\text{crust}}=\) 2.35 g/cm3. Then, the TMVB properties were approximated as \({\alpha }_{\text{TMVB}}=\) 2.86 km/s, \({\beta }_{\text{TMVB}}=\) 1.65 km/s, and \({\rho }_{\text{TMVB}}=\) 2.20 g/cm3. Finally, an average velocity structure for the basin was retrieved from the Shapiro et al. (2001) velocity model, approximating the basin parameters as \({\alpha }_{\text{Basin}}=\) 2.00 km/s, \({\beta }_{\text{Basin}}=\) 0.40 km/s, and \({\rho }_{\text{Basin}}=\) 2.05 g/cm3. Assuming plane layers, which is realistic for the crust-TMVB discontinuity but may not be for the TMVB-basin one, we calculated the P-SV and SH reflection and transmission coefficients using Table 13.1 by Ammon et al. (2020) equations and the Snell’s law. Figure S5, in the Supplementary Information, presents the reflection and transmission coefficients for both seismic discontinuities as a function of the incidence angle.
We see that if, for example, a P-wave is incident at an angle of 38.0° (a value obtained averaging incidence angles of some Mexican subduction earthquakes) from the crust to the TMVB, it may produce a P-wave amplified ~ 20%, if this transmitted wave is incident at the basin, it may produce an extra amplification of ~ 20%, meaning that if the P-wave amplitude was unitary at the beginning, the amplitude at the surface should be, at least, 1.44. On the other hand, if an SV-wave is incident at an angle of 39.0° (a value also obtained by us averaging incidence angles of some Mexican subduction earthquakes) from the crust to the TMVB, it may produce an SV-wave with no amplification; however, if this wave is incident at the basin, it may produce an amplification of ~ 50%, meaning that if the SV-wave amplitude was unitary at the beginning, the amplitude at the surface should be, at least, 1.50. Finally, the SH case reveals an interesting result since if an SH-wave is incident at an angle of 39.0°, the amplification due to the TMVB is ~ 25%. Then, the basin gives an extra amplification of ~ 62.5%, meaning that if the SH-wave amplitude was unitary at the beginning, the amplitude at the surface should be at least 2.03. This simple example may help in understanding the influence of the TMVB in the amplification and in having a simplified idea of the basin’s effect. The average amplification factors due to the TMVB should give a precise idea of the shallow crust influence in the amplification. However, the actual amplification factors reported in the literature for stations in the sedimentary basin may differ from those reported in this paper since they also include the attenuation, the site effects, and the basin’s 3D model.
Conclusions
We introduced the VMRFDC v2.0 model, an upgraded version of the VMRFDC model obtained by Aguilar-Velázquez et al. (2023) using stations outside Mexico City that extends from Toluca, Estado de México to Sierra Nevada in the east–west direction, and from Yautepec, Morelos to Zumpango, Estado de México in the north–south direction (see Figs. 1a, 2, 6). The authors previously compared the VMRFDC model with geological and geophysical features reported in the literature; however, in this work, we present the validation of the entire model using numerical simulations of the wave propagation employing a discontinuous Galerkin program, DGCrack. An anomalous of the seismic wave behavior at 5 s period was previously reported by Cárdenas-Soto and Chávez-García (2003) and Chávez-García and Quintanar (2010). Our synthetic EGF obtained from numerical simulations and our velocity model proposed here showed that the first 20 km of the crustal structure is responsible for the time shifts and the phase and amplitude changes observed in the EGF at 0.2 Hz. Our numerical simulations are enough to prove the influence of the crustal structure in the frequency range analyzed in this work because the crustal structure is positioned as the primary wavefield contributor, validating our results. Consequently, the VMRFDC v2.0 was thoroughly tested, and the results suggest that it is a good velocity model to be used by the seismological community; this is the main contribution of this work.
However, we recognize a limitation of the results presented in this article. Since we compare large wavelengths (or low frequencies), the use of VMRFDC v2.0 for higher-frequency studies may still be tested; for example: 1) the numerical simulations of small earthquakes that occurred inside the Valley of Mexico, or 2) its use for earthquake location and moment tensor retrieving.
Data availability
SSN data are available at https://doi.org/10.21766/SSNMX/SN/MX. RSVM data associated with this research are available upon request to Luis Quintanar (luisq@igeofisica.unam.mx). The VMRFDC v2.0 (Aguilar-Velázquez et al., 2024) velocity model retrieved in this work is available as a mat-file at https://doi.org/10.21766/SSNMX.ds.VMRFDCV2p.27367.
References
Aguilar-Velázquez MJ, Pérez-Campos X, Pita-Sllim O (2023) Crustal structure beneath Mexico City from joint inversion of receiver functions and dispersion curves. J Geophys Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JB025047
Aguilar-Velázquez MJ, Pérez-Campos X, Tago J, Villafuerte C (2024). Data for “Azimuthal crustal variations and their implications on the seismic impulse response in the Valley of Mexico”. Servicio Sismológico Nacional, Instituto de Geofísica, UNAM. https://doi.org/10.21766/SSNMX.ds.VMRFDCV2p.27367
Ahrens J, Geveci B, Law C (2005) ParaView: an end-user tool for large data visualization, visualization handbook, Elsevier, ISBN-13: 9780123875822
Ammon CJ, Velasco AA, Lay T, Wallace TC (2020) Foundations of modern global seismology. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815679-7.00002-1
Arce JL, Layer PW, Macías JL, Morales-Casique E, García-Palomo A, Jiménez-Domínguez FJ, Benowitz J, Vásquez-Serrano A (2019) Geology and stratigraphy of the Mexico Basin (Mexico City), central trans-Mexican volcanic belt. J Maps 15(2):320–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2019.1593251
Ayachit U (2015) The paraview guide: a parallel visualization application, Kitware, ISBN 9781930934306.
Bensen GD, Ritzwoller MH, Barmin MP, Levshin AL, Lin F, Moschetti MP, Shapiro NM, Yang Y (2007) Processing seismic ambient noise data to obtain reliable broad-band surface wave dispersion measurements. Geophys J Int 169(3):1239–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03374.x
Cárdenas-Soto M, Chávez-García FJ (2003) Regional path effects on seismic wave propagation in Central Mexico. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):973–985. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020083
Castellanos JC, Clayton RW, Pérez-Campos X (2018) Imaging the eastern Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt with ambient seismic noise: evidence for a slab tear. J Geophys Res 123:7741–7759. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JB015783
Chávez-Garcı́a FJ, Quintanar L (2010) Velocity structure under the trans-Mexican volcanic belt: preliminary results using correlation of noise. Geophys J Int 183(2):1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04780.x
Chen M, Huang H, Yao H, van der Hilst R, Niu F (2014) Low wave speedzones in the crust beneath SE Tibet revealed by ambient noise adjoint tomography. Geophys Res Lett 41:334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058476
Collino F, Tsogka C (2001) Application of the perfectly matched absorbing layer model to the linear elastodynamic problem in anisotropic heterogeneous media. Geophysics 66:294–307
Crotwell HP, Owens TJ, Ritsema J (1999) The TauP toolkit: flexible seismic travel-time and ray-path utilities. Seismol Res Lett 70(2):154–160. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.70.2.154
Cruz-Atienza VM, Iglesias A, Pacheco JF, Shapiro NM, Singh SK (2010) Crustal structure below the Valley of Mexico estimated from receiver functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(6):3304–3311. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100051
Cruz-Atienza VM, Tago J, Sanabria-Gómez JD, Chaljub E, Etienne V, Virieux J, Quintanar L (2016) Long duration of ground motion in the paradigmatic Valley of Mexico. Sci Rep 6(1):38807. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38807
Espíndola VH, Quintanar L, Espíndola JM (2017) Crustal structure beneath Mexico from receiver functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(5):2427–2442. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160152
Etienne V, Chaljub E, Virieux J, Glinsky N (2010) An hp-adaptive discontinuous Galerkin finite-element method for 3-D elastic wave modeling. Geophys J Int 183(2):941–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04764.x
Ferrari L, Orozco-Esquivel T, Manea V, Manea M (2012) The dynamic history of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt and the Mexico subduction zone. Tectonophysics 522–523:122–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2011.09.018
Granados-Chavarría I, Calò M, Figueroa-Soto A, Jousset P (2022) Seismic imaging of the magmatic plumbing system and geothermal reservoir of the Los Humeros caldera (Mexico) using anisotropic shear wave models. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 421:107441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2021.107441
Hernández-Aguirre VM, Paolucci R, Sánchez-Sesma FJ, Mazzieri I (2023) Three-dimensional numerical modeling of ground motion in the Valley of Mexico: A case study from the Mw3.2 earthquake of July 17, 2019. Earthq Spectra. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231192463
Herrmann RB (2013) Computer programs in seismology: An evolving tool for instruction and research. Seismol Res Lett 84:1081–1088. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220110096
Julià J, Ammon CJ, Herrmann RB, Correig AM (2000) Joint inversion of receiver functions and surface wave dispersion observations. Geophys J Int 143:99–112. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246x.2000.00217.x
Julià J, Ammon CJ, Herrmann RB (2003) Lithospheric structure of the Arabian Shield from the joint inversion of receiver functions and surface-wave group velocities. Tectonophysics 371:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(03)00196-3
Krischer L, Aiman JA, Bartholomaus T, Donner S, van Driel M, Duru K, Garina K, Gessele K, Gunawan T, Hable S, Hadziioannou C, Koymans M, Leeman J, Lindner F, Ling A, Megies T, Nunn C, Rijal A, Salvermoser J, Talavera Soza S, Tape C, Taufiqurrahman T, Vargas D, Wassermann J, Wölfl F, Williams M, Wollherr S, Igel H (2018) Seismo-live: an educational online library of Jupyter notebooks for seismology. Seismol Res Lett 89(6):2413–2419. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180167
Kristeková M, Kristek J, Moczo P, Day SM (2006) Misfit criteria for quantitative comparison of seismograms. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(5):1836–1850. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060012
Ligorría JP, Ammon CJ (1999) Iterative deconvolution and receiver-function estimation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(5):1395–1400. https://doi.org/10.1785/bssa089005139
McNamara DE, Boaz RI (2005) Seismic Noise Analysis System, Power Spectral Density Probability Density Function: Stand-Alone Software Package. U.S.G.S, Open File Report, 2005–1438
McNamara DE, Buland RP (2004) Ambient noise levels in the continental United States. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(4):1517–1527. https://doi.org/10.1785/012003001
Montoya Quintanar E (2018) Evaluación de la variación temporal del nivel de ruido sísmico en las estaciones de la red de banda ancha del Servicio sismológico Nacional. TESIS-UNAM
Ordaz M, Singh SK (1992) Source spectra and spectral attenuation of seismic waves from Mexican earthquakes, and evidence of amplification in the hill zone of Mexico City. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82(1):24–43. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0820010024
Peterson J (1993) Observations and Modeling of Seismic Background Noise. U.S.G.S, Open File Report, 93–322
Pita Sllim OD (2019) Discontinuidades sísmicas corticales en la Ciudad de México. Bachelor Thesis. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México. Tesiunam
Quintanar L, Cárdenas-Ramírez M, Bello-Segura DI, Espíndola VH, Pérez-Santana JA, Cárdenas-Monroy C, Carmona-Gallegos AL, Rodríguez-Rasilla I (2018) A seismic network for the Valley of Mexico: present status and perspectives. Seismol Res Lett 89(2A):356–362. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170198
Saldaña-Tejeda A, Pérez-Campos X, Reddy E (2022) Seismic noise to public health signal: investigating the effects of pandemic guidance in Mexico. Tapuya Lat Am Sci Technol Soc 5:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2022.2086446
Shapiro NM, Campillo M (2004) Emergence of broadband Rayleigh waves from correlations of the ambient seismic noise. Geophys Res Lett 31:L07614. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019491
Shapiro NM, Singh SK, Almora D, Ayala M (2001) Evidence of the dominance of higher-mode surface waves in the lake-bed zone of the Valley of Mexico. Geophys J Int 147(3):517–527. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0956-540x.2001.01508.x
Si H (2015) TetGen, a Delaunay-based quality tetrahedral mesh generator. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 41(2) Article 11:36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2629697
Singh SK, Mena E, Castro R (1988) Some aspects of source characteristics of the 19 September 1985 Michoacan earthquake and ground motion amplification in and near Mexico City from strong motion data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78(2):451–477. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0780020451
Snieder R (2004) Extracting the Green’s function from the correlation of coda waves: a derivation based on stationary phase. Phys Rev E 69:046610
Spica Z, Perton M, Calò M, Legrand D, Córdoba-Montiel F, Iglesias A (2016) 3-D shear wave velocity model of Mexico and South US: bridging seismic networks with ambient noise cross-correlations (C1) and correlation of coda of correlations (C3). Geophys J Int 206:1795–1813. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw240
SSN (2023). Servicio Sismológico Nacional, Instituto de Geofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, https://doi.org/10.21766/SSNMX/SN/MX
Stehly L, Campillo M, Shapiro NM (2006) A study of the seismic noise from its long-range correlation properties. J Geophys Res 111:B10306. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004237
Stein S, Wysession M (2003) An introduction to seismology, earthquakes and earth structure. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Hoboken
Tago J, Cruz-Atienza VM, Virieux J, Etienne V, Sánchez-Sesma FJ (2012) A 3D hp-adaptive discontinuous Galerkin method for modeling earthquake dynamics. J Geophys Res 117:B09312. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JB009313
Weaver RL, Lobkis OI (2001a) Ultrasonics without a source: thermal fluctuation correlation at MHz frequencies. Phys Rev. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.134301
Weaver RL, Lobkis OI (2001b) On the emergence of the Green’s function in the correlations of a diffuse field. J Acoust Soc Am 110:3011–3017
Weaver RL, Lobkis OI (2004) Diffuse fields in open systems and the emergence of the Green’s function. J Acoust Soc Am 116:2731–2734
Wessel P, Smith WHF, Scharroo R, Luis J, Wobbe F (2013) Generic mapping tools: improved version released. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 94(45):409–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013EO450001
Acknowledgements
SSN data were obtained by the Servicio Sismológico Nacional (Mexico); station maintenance, data acquisition, and distribution are possible thanks to its personnel. We thank Luis Quintanar, Arturo Cárdenas, Delia Irisene Bello Segura, Adriana González, Jesús Pérez, and Iván Rodríguez for RSVM data retrieving and sharing; we acknowledge the support received from government authorities of Mexico City through their Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología and Secretaría de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación for the acquisition of seismological equipment for the RSVM network and its deployment through Collaboration Agreement 059/201. The Ambient Seismic Noise Analysis python notebook is available on the link: https://krischer.github.io/seismo_live_build/html/Ambient%20Seismic%20Noise/NoiseCorrelation_wrapper.html; we thank Celine Hadziioannou and Ashim Rijal for sharing it to the research community. We thank Leonardo Ramirez-Guzman for the valuable discussion and all his support that enriched this paper. We also thank Víctor M. Cruz-Atienza for the valuable discussion and for allowing us to use the Gaia cluster at the Instituto de Geofísica to perform the numerical simulations more efficiently. We used the “Generic Map Tools v.5.4.3” (Wessel et al., 2013) to generate the map in Fig. 1a. Fig. 3 was made using ParaView (Ahrens et al. 2005, Ayachit 2015). For the rest of the figures, we used MATLAB with an academic license provided by the UNAM. Finally, we thank Ramon Zuñiga (the co-editor-in-chief), Laura Ermert, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments and suggestions that helped to improve this paper. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CTBTO Preparatory Commission.
Funding
This project was funded through the Secretaría de Educación Ciencia y Tecnología de la Ciudad de México SECTEI/194/2019 project and was also partially supported by the UNAM-PAPIIT IN108221 project. Manuel J. Aguilar-Velázquez had a scholarship funded by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT). Open Access funding was provided by the Springer Nature and Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MJAV retrieved the receiver functions and performed their joint inversion with dispersion curves; he proposed the use of EGF to validate the model; he also obtained the EGF from seismic noise and performed the numerical simulations to retrieve the synthetic ones and compare both observed sets; finally, he wrote the original draft. XPC supervised MJAV’s PhD work; she gave the main ideas on how to image the crust structure, quantify its effect on seismic wave propagation, and validate the results; she also got funding and resources to conduct the research successfully. As one of the DGCrack developers, JT taught MJAV how to make the numerical simulations correctly and supervised him in the process. CV shared the code to construct adaptative meshes iteratively, taught MJAV how to use it, and supervised him. All the authors contributed and discussed the final formal analysis of the ideas presented in this article, reviewed and edited the manuscript, and approved their final manuscript to submit to the “Acta Geophysica” journal.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Edited by Prof. Ramón Zúñiga (CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF).
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Aguilar-Velázquez, M.J., Pérez-Campos, X., Tago, J. et al. Azimuthal crustal variations and their implications on the seismic impulse response in the Valley of Mexico. Acta Geophys. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-024-01383-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-024-01383-7