P. Schmoldt, PhD - MTNet - DIAS

List of Figures
10.10.RMS misfit variation for different lateral extents of the upper crustal conductor
labelled ‘c’ in Figure 10.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
10.11.Comparison of the crustal model for the Tajo Basin derived through inversion
of MT data and results of the surface wave tomography study by
Villaseñor et al. [2007] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
10.12.Real induction vectors for 64 s periods at PICASSO Phase I station in
proximity of the high conductivity – low velocity anomaly within the
Iberian Massif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
10.13.Electric resistivity of a partially molten rock as function of melt fraction . 245
10.14.Results of initial isotropic 2D smooth inversion for the Tajo Basin subsurface
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
10.15.Results of initial isotropic 2D smooth inversion for the Tajo Basin subsurface,
using a starting model that contains previously derived crustal
structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
10.16.Isotropic 2D sharp boundary inversion models of the Tajo Basin subsurface 253
10.17.Results of anisotropic 1D inversion for Tajo Basin subsurface structures . 256
10.18.Results of anisotropic 1D inversion for Tajo Basin subsurface structures
using a dataset decomposed according to the strike direction of the mantle 257
10.19.Models of the Tajo Basin subsurface used as starting model for anisotropic
2D inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
10.20.Results of the ρYY component from the anisotropic 2D inversion approach
for structures of the Tajo Basin subsurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
10.21.Models of electric resistivity distribution beneath the Tajo Basin using an
anisotropic 2D inversion approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
10.22.Average apparent resistivity – depth profile for the Tajo Basin subsurface;
obtained through anisotropic 2D inversion of the PICASSO Phase I data. . 261
10.23.RMS misfit for isotropic 3D inversion models at different iteration steps
using a halfspace and a layered arrangement as starting model . . . . . . 263
10.24.Results of the initial 3D inversion sequence using a halfspace starting
model and a layered starting model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
10.25.RMS misfit for isotropic 3D inversion models at different iteration steps
of the second inversion sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
10.26.Comparison of observed and modelled response data for the 3D inversion
model labelled ‘a’ in Figure 10.27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
10.27.Results of the second 3D inversion sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
10.28.Lowest misfit model of the third 3D inversion sequence . . . . . . . . . . 268
10.29.RMS misfit for isotropic 3D inversion models at different iteration steps
of the third inversion sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
10.30.Smoothed resistivity – depth profiles from models of the Tajo Basin mantle
used for forward modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
xiii