1887

Abstract

Summary

Recent deep seismic studies support the existing isostatic systems only to a limited extent and, in some areas, considerable disagreements have been pointed at. This implies that we should attempt to replace the classic isostatic corrections by quantities calculated from a-priori information which should be as independent of the gravity data themselves as possible. We believe that CRUST1.0 model provides applicable material for such an attempt. In our contribution we demonstrate that to calculate gravitational effects of the CRUST1.0 model layers taking the model densities into consideration is in fact a viable option. We have used two different methods of calculation, more or less independent of each other, both of them working in space domain. We believe that space-domain calculations are suitable for employing the results in gravimetrical practice since they not only are synoptic, i.e. offering a general view of the whole, but also enable us to analyze their elementary and differential properties.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201600634
2016-05-30
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Evans, P. and Crompton, W.
    [1946] Geological factors in gravity interpretation illustrated by evidence from India and Burma. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 102, 211–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Gilbert, GK.
    [1914] Interpretation of anomalies of gravity. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 85-C, 29–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hayford, J.F. and Bowie, W.
    [1912] The effect of topography and isostatic compensation upon the intensity of gravity. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Special Publication No. 10.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Heiskanen, WA.
    [1926] Schwerkraft und isostatische Kompensation in Norwegen. Publications of the Finnish Geodetic Institute, 5.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Laske, G, Masters, G, Ma, Z. and Pasyanos, M.
    [2013] Update on CRUST1.0 - A 1-degree global model of Earth’s crust. EGU General Assembly 2013, Geophysical Research Abstracts, 15, EGU2013–2658.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Mikuška, J., Pašteka, R. and Marušiak, I.
    [2006] Estimation of distant relief effect in gravimetry. Geophysics, 71, J59–J69.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Pohánka, V.
    [1998] Optimum expression for computation of the gravity field of a polyhedral body with linearly increasing density. Geophysical Prospecting, 46, 391–404.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. [2006] The maximally regular net on the sphere. Contributions to Geophysics and Geodesy, 36, 115–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Tenzer, R, Chen, W., Tsoulis, D., Bagherbandi, M., Sjöberg, L.E., Novák, P. and Jin, S.
    [2015] Analysis of the refined CRUST1.0 crustal model and its gravity field. Surveys in Geophysics, 36, 139– 165.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Webb, S.
    [2010] Deep gravity - long wavelengths and measured Moho. EGM 2010 International Workshop "Adding new value to Electromagnetic, Gravity and Magnetic Methods for Exploration", Capri, Italy, April 11–14, 2010 (abstract).
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201600634
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201600634
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error