Lauren Waszek

Distinct layering in the hemispherical seismic velocity structure of Earth's upper inner core

The existence of hemispherical variation in the Earths inner core is well-documented, but consensus has not yet been reached on its detailed structure. The uppermost layers are a region of particular importance, as they are directly linked to the growth processes and post-solidification mechanisms of the inner core. Here, we use a large PKIKP-PKiKP differential travel time residual data set to derive a model for the upper inner core, providing new constraints on its isotropic and anisotropic velocity, and the amount of scattering. We find that the eastern and western hemisphere are separated by sharp boundaries. This is incompatible with the recently proposed inner core translation model, but might be explained by differences in outer core convection and inner core solidification rates. The eastern hemisphere displays weak anisotropy of 0.5%–1.0%. The western hemisphere, on the other hand, is characterized by the presence of an isotropic upper layer with a thickness of 57.5 km, with anisotropy of 2.8% appearing at deeper depths. The boundary between the isotropic layer and the deeper anisotropy appears sharp. We also detect, for the first time, a high velocity layer at the top of the eastern hemisphere with a thickness of 30 km, which we interpret as being due to an increased amount of light elements. There appears to be no relationship between the layered structure in the two hemispheres, with abrupt changes in velocity with depth in one hemisphere without any significant change at the same depth in the other hemisphere. Our results indicate that there is a difference in composition and mineral structure between the hemispheres, resulting in differing responses to external processes.

PKP precursors : Implications for global scatterers

Precursors to the core phase PKP are generated by scattering of seismic energy from heterogeneities in the mantle. Here we examine a large global data set of PKP precursors in individual seismograms and array data, to better understand scattering locations. The precursor amplitudes from individual seismograms are analyzed with respect to the inner core phase PKIKP and mantle phase PP. We find and correct for a hemispherical asymmetry in the precursor/PKIKP amplitudes, resulting from inner core structure. Using ray tracing, we locate scatterers in our array data and use these to infer scattering locations in the individual data. The scattering strength displays regional variation; however, we find no relationship with long-scale core-mantle boundary velocity structure. Scattering is observed in all regions of data coverage, as are paths with no precursors. This indicates that scattering occurs from various small-scale heterogeneities, including but not limited to ultralow velocity zones or partial melt, and slabs.

Global observations of reflectors in the mid-mantle with implications for mantle structure and dynamics

Seismic tomography indicates that flow is commonly deflected in the mid-mantle. However, without a candidate mineral phase change, causative mechanisms remain controversial. Deflection of flow has been linked to radial changes in viscosity and/or composition, but a lack of global observations precludes comprehensive tests by seismically detectable features. Here we perform a systematic global-scale interrogation of mid-mantle seismic reflectors with lateral size 500–2000 km and depths 800–1300 km. Reflectors are detected globally with variable depth, lateral extent and seismic polarity and identify three distinct seismic domains in the mid-mantle. Near-absence of reflectors in seismically fast regions may relate to dominantly subvertical heterogeneous slab material or small impedance contrasts. Seismically slow thermochemical piles beneath the Pacific generate numerous reflections. Large reflectors at multiple depths within neutral regions possibly signify a compositional or textural transition, potentially linked to long-term slab stagnation. This variety of reflector properties indicates widespread compositional heterogeneity at mid-mantle depths.The Earth’s mantle undergoes changes as temperature and pressure increase with depth. Here, the authors present a global interrogation of reflectors in the Earth’s mid-mantle revealing a significant variation in their properties, with widespread compositional heterogeneity and seismic velocity in the mid-mantle, which signify contrasting styles of mantle flow.

GrowYourIC: A Step Toward a Coherent Model of the Earth's Inner Core Seismic Structure

A complex inner core structure has been well-established from seismic studies, showing radial and lateral heterogeneities at various length scales. Yet, no geodynamic model is able to explain all the features observed. One of the main limits for this is the lack of tools to compare seismic observations and numerical models successfully. We use here a new Python tool called GrowYourIC to compare models of inner core structure. We calculate properties of geodynamic models of the inner core along seismic ray paths, for random or user-specified datasets. We test kinematic models which simulate fast lateral translation, super-rotation, and differential growth. We explore first the influence on a real inner core data set, which has a sparse coverage of the inner core boundary. Such a data set is however able to successfully constrain the hemispherical boundaries due to a good sampling of latitudes. Combining translation and rotation could explain some of the features of the boundaries separating the inner core hemispheres. The depth shift of the boundaries, observed by some authors, seems unlikely to be modelled by a fast translation, but could be produced by slow translation associated to super-rotation.

Correction to “Distinct layering in the hemispherical seismic velocity structure of Earth's upper inner core”

[ 1 ] In the paper “ Distinct layering in the hemispherical seismic velocity structure of Earth ’ s upper inner core ” by L. Waszek and A. Deuss ( Journal of Geophysical Research , 116 , B12313, doi:10.1029/2011JB008650, 2011), an incorrect version of Table 3 was published. The correct Table 3 and its caption are shown here.