Finite-frequency tomography

Lapo Boschi (lapo@erdw.ethz.ch)

October 14, 2009

Application of Born theory (scattering theory) to the ray-theory

solution (the forward problem)
In earlier lectures we have seen how the tomographic inverse problem can be formulated on
the basis of ray theory, i.e. the approximation that  1. This approximation leads to
the introduction of the eikonal equation, on whose basis seismic ray paths are defined and
travel-time or phase anomalies are written as integrals of Earths structure along the ray-path
only: in the ray-theory approximation, sensitivity kernels associated to such measurements
are zero everywhere except along the ray path.
The requirement that  1 limits the quality of our modeled seismic waves (whose
frequency, however high, is finite), and therefore the quality of tomographic maps based on
ray theory. The limit it imposes will be more severe as frequency decreases and we move
away from a regime of very high frequency.
How can the resolution limit caused by this flaw in the theory be quantified? as frequency
decreases, and the concept of ray path becomes meaningless, what effect will Earth structure
away from the ray path have on the seismograms, on the time and phase anomaly that
we observe? how should we change our formulation of the inverse problem to account for
non-ray-theoretical phenomena?
One way to answer these questions is to solve numerically the equations of motion of the
Earth, with no approximations. But this is very expensive and practically unaffordable.
Another proposed approach involves perturbative theory, or Born theory, that physicists
are already familiar with. To see how Born theory works in global seismology, let us once again
go back to the Earths equation of motion, written as a differential equation in displacement,
which we dubbed equation (*) in the first lecture of this course. Let L be an operator such
that eq. (*) can be simply written
Lu = 0.

(1)

In earlier lectures we assumed that the effect of the earthquake excitation, necessary to have
a nontrivial solution to (1), could be prescribed in the form of an initial/boundary condition.
It is now more convenient to write it as a body force equivalent f , replacing (1) with
Lu = f .

(2)

If f is impulsive, eq. (2) is called Greens problem; its solution is denoted G and called
Greens function1 . It is useful to write G as a function of the source and receiver positions,
1

The concept of Greens problem is nicely illustrated, for example, by Dahlen and Tromp, Theoretical

which we shall denote rS and rR , respectively; then G = G(rR , rS ). The complete Greens
function here is a 3 3 tensor, and eq. (2) has to be solved for three different impulsive
forcing terms f , each oriented in the direction of one of the axes. It can be proved that, once
the Greens problem is solved, the displacement field u associated with any seismic source
can be derived, by a simple convolution of a function describing the source in time and space,
and the Greens function G.
We can use the ray-theory approach to solve the Greens problem and find a Greens
tensor G0 , valid at high frequencies. Let us then introduce a small perturbation (r), (r),
(r), in the parameters describing Earths structure. , and , are replaced by + ,
+ and + in the analytical expression for L; after linearization, a perturbation operator
L can be defined such that the perturbed Greens problem can be written
(L + L)(G0 + G) = f ,

(3)

where everything is known apart from the perturbation G to the Greens function. From
eq. (3), neglecting second order terms,
LG0 + LG0 + LG = f ,

(4)

and since LG0 = f , we are left with

LG = LG0 ,

(5)

where the right hand side is known. Having already solved (in the ray-theory approximation)
the Greens problem associated with the operator L, we are able to find G by a simple
convolution of G0 with the new forcing term LG0 . In the frequency domain,
Z
G =
G0 (rR , x) LG0 (x, rS )d3 x,
(6)
V

with x denoting the integration variable. The response u of the perturbed Earth model (+,
etc.) at any location r, to any earthquake with arbitrary hypocenter rS , can now be found
convolving G(r, rS ) + G(r, rS ) with the appropriate source function.
Equation (6) is often interpreted as follows: a wave travels, according to ray theory, from
rS to x. Once it is hit, the point x becomes a secundary source and another wave travels from
x to rR . The cumulative effect of all possible secundary sources is integrated. The importance
of a secundary source (in principle, any point in the Earth can function as secundary source)
depends on the properties of the operator L. If (x) = (x) = (x) = 0, then also
LG0 (x, rS ) = 0. If LG0 (x, rS ) 6= 0, we say that the point x acts as a scatterer for the
incident wave. Born theory is often referred to as scattering theory.
Born theory holds so long as perturbations , , are small. Then, the perturbed
Greens tensor G0 + G provides a higher order of accuracy than the ray-theory one, G0 .

Scattering and tomography (the inverse problem)

After replacing LG0 with its explicit expression, eq. (6) can be rewritten in terms of a
scattering tensor S,
Z
G =
G0 (rR , x) S(x) G0 (x, rS )d3 x.
(7)
V

Global Seismology, Princeton Univ. Press 1998, section 4.1.7; a more lengthy treatment is given by Aki and
Richards, Quantitative Seismology, chapters 2 and 4.

After some algebra, tensors SP , SS and S are defined so that the scattering tensor can in
turn be written




 
vP
vS

S = SP
+ SS
+ S
.
(8)
vP
vS

Replacing (8) into (7), an expression for G in terms of relative perturbations to compressional and shear velocities and density throughout the Earth is found. This is the main
ingredient we need to set up a linear inverse problem. The next step, necessary to derive
from (7) and (8) an equation relating seismic observable to Earth heterogeneity, is to write a
quantity that we can observe directly from a seismogram in terms of G.
Let ( ) denote the cross-correlation of a reference seismogram u0 and a perturbed seismogram u1 (the treatment that follows is going to hold independently for any component of
u as defined above),
Z t2
( ) =
u0 (t )u1 (t)dt,
(9)
t1

with the time window (t1 , t2 ) chosen to isolate the phase of interest. It is reasonable to
establish that the delay time T between reference and perturbed phase equals the value of
for which ( ) is maximum. After expanding ( ) in a Taylor series around = 0, and
equating to zero the derivative of the Taylor series (up to second order) with respect to ,
an expression for the delay time in terms of the perturbed seismogram, and therefore G, is
found2 . Eqs. (7) and (8), with explicit expressions for SP , SS , S , are plugged into the latter
expression, and after some algebra kernels KP , KS and K can be defined such that3

 



Z 

vS
vP
+ KS
K
d3 x,
T =
KP
vP
vS

(10)

and heteroengeities in Earth structure are now directly related to the delay time, i.e. something that we can pick from a seismogram. The functions KP (x), KS (x) and K (x) have
the peculiar banana-doughnut shape (with zero value on the infinite-frequency ray path) long
discussed by Dahlen, Nolet and their co-workers at Princeton, and illustrated here in figures
1 and 2. Eq. (10) should be compared with eq. (2) of my lecture notes on body-wave tomography: they relate the same quantities, but the earlier equation rests on pure ray-theory
approximation, and the integral there is to be performed only along the ray path; eq. (10)
here should represent an improvement to that approximation.
Some authors4 have suggested that the application of finite-frequency tomography, as
described here, to global body wave databases helps to enhance model resolution, imaging
narrow features like plumes that have been invisible to traditional tomography (figure 3).
However, the significance of such improvements is under debate (figure 4).

Surface wave scattering

The above treatment is naturally applied to the case of body waves, where it is possible to
define travel time, and pick it on a seismogram. Surface waves require a separate formulation.
The principles, however, are the same, and the results are similar.
2

Dahlen, Hung and Nolet, GJI 2000, vol. 141 page 157, section 4.1.
The following equation is equivalent to eq. (77) of Dahlen and co-authors.
4
e.g., Montelli et al., Science, 303 pages 338ff, 2004.
3

Figure 1: Finite-frequency kernels for a uniform background medium. From Hung, Dahlen
and Nolet, Frechet kernels for finite-frequency traveltimesII. Examples, Geophysical Journal International, 141, pages 175ff, 2000.

Figure 2: Finite-frequency kernels for a spherically symmetric reference Earth model. From
Hung et al., 2000.

Figure 3: P-velocity in the mantle from scattering theory: ascending plumes. From Montelli
et al., 2004 (supplementary online material).

Figure 4: P-velocity at several depths in the mantle, derived tomographically from ray theory
(left) and the finite-frequency approach (right: model of figure 3). From Montelli et al., 2004.

Figure 5: Finite-frequency kernels relating the phase (measured from the seismogram) and
the phase velocity of 150 s Love waves, for two different source-station geometries. From
Boschi, Geophys. J. Int., 167, pages 238252, 2006.

The problem can be collapsed to two dimensions only, like in the previous lecture (surface wave tomography). A (, )-dependent (not r-dependent) kernel relating t() and the
corresponding phase velocity anomaly c(, ) is found at each frequency ; let us call it
KL (, ; ) for Love waves, or KR for Rayleigh waves; then eq. (9) from the previous lecture
(surface wave tomography) is replaced by
Z
tL () =
KL (, ; )cL (, ; )ds
(11)
ray path
(and an analogous expression for Rayleigh waves), and the inverse problem is set up exactly
as in earlier lectures.
Looking at KL (, ; ), KR (, ; ) we find them to be nonzero over very large portions
of the Earths surface, if compared to the body wave kernels, KP , etc. As surface waves are
waves of lower frequency than body waves, it is to be expected that, in their case, limits of
the high-frequency (ray theory) approximation be more evident, and scattering effects more
relevant.
Alternatively, one can leave explicit the dependence of surface wave phase on Earth structure at varying depth; an expression analogous to equation (17) of lecture 3 follows, with the
kernels KSH , etc., now accounting for scattering effects as well.
The former approach has been followed, for example, by R. Snieder and other authors
from the Utrecht group5 , and likewise in the works of the ETH group illustrated in figures 5
and 6. In a more recent article6 , the Princeton group have worked out the latter, more
general, approach. They show that known 2-D equations for phase velocity maps can be
derived as a particular case of the 3-D formulation. Note that their unperturbed solution
(that I have always called ray-theoretical) is now defined as a linear combination of normal
modes. Hence, it does not involve ray paths. However, the requirement that heterogeneities
be smooth is still needed. The rest of the Princeton treatment is substantially analogous
to what I have outlined in this lecture, though much more detailed.

Snieder and Nolet, J. geophys. Res. 61 pages 55ff, 1987. Spetzler, Trampert and Snieder, Geophys. J.
Int., 149 pages 755ff, 2002.
6
Zhou, Dahlen and Nolet, Geophys. J. Int., 158, pages 142ff, 2004.

Figure 6: The 2D inverse problem: phase-velocity maps obtained from inversions based on
numerical finite-frequency (top) and ray theory (bottom), from Rayleigh-wave measurements
at 40 s, 75 s, 150 s and 250 s. From Peter et al., Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L16315, 2008.
Significant differences between ray-theory and finite-frequency results emerge at long periods.