![]() ![]() We think that the reasons for this result are related to the differences in data used in model construction and the associated resolution. The Crust1.0 model (referred to as " C model”) is relatively worse. Within the entire studied area, the model proposed by Shen et al (referred to as " S model”) is relatively better than the model proposed by Fang et al (referred to as " F model”) and Duan et al (referred to as " D model”). The results reveal that the large-scale pattern generally shows consistency for these four models. Then, using statistical analysis we evaluate the relative merits of these four models with respect to the real underground structures. In this study we compare the observed first arrival time data of P-wave and S-wave of 1 749 earthquakes from 2009 to 2016, which were recorded by 131 seismograph stations of the National Seismological Network in North China, with the predicted travel time data from four 3D crustal velocity models in North China using the fast marching method. Due to the differences in research methods and data, there may exist multiple velocity models in the same area, but the reliability of these models usually lacks systematic and objective assessment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |