P. Schmoldt, PhD - MTNet - DIAS
P. Schmoldt, PhD - MTNet - DIAS P. Schmoldt, PhD - MTNet - DIAS
302 J-centre profile The J-centre profile is parallel to the G-centre profile, with the difference that the J-centre profile is located on top of the more conductive mantle region (500 Ωm); see Figure 8.4 for location of the stations. The inversion results for the J-centre and Gcentre profiles are very much alike (cf. Fig. A.10), indicating the impracticality of inversions with data decomposed for the crustal strike direction. Depth (km) Profile: J-centre TE Log 10(periods) Log 10(periods) RMS TM SW NE 0 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 50 100 150 200 250 synJ10 synJ09 300 0 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 144 Apparent resistivity synJ10 synJ09 synJ08 synJ07 synJ06 synJ05 synJ04 synJ03 synJ02 synJ01 synJ08 synJ07 synJ06 Distance (km) Misfit (Total = 0.63) synJ05 50 synJ04 Phase Log 10(Wm) degrees Log 10(Wm) degrees synJ10 synJ09 synJ08 synJ07 synJ06 synJ05 synJ04 synJ03 synJ02 synJ01 synJ03 synJ02 synJ01 (Wm) 2000 Fig. A.10.: Isotropic 2D inversion results for the ‘J-centre’ profile on top of the synthetic 3D model (see Figure 8.4 for station locations). An electric resistivity interface at crustal depth is located between stations synJ05 and synJ06. Periods between 10 s and 100 s are related to the crust–mantle boundary; see Section 8.2.1 for a description of the model. During the inversion the crust is kept fixed at an electric resistivity value of 100 Ωm. The misfit of the uppermost region originates from the problematic of meeting the cell size requirements for the highest frequencies. A. Appendix
A.3. Auxiliary inversion results for the synthetic 3D subsurface model A.3.2. Anisotropic 2D inversion This Section contains a collection of figures displaying results of anisotropic 2D inversion for the synthetic 3D model that, for the sake of clarity, are only referred to or partly shown in Section 8.3.3. These models illustrate different aspects of the anisotropic 2D inversion approach which are recapped here in brief. Figure A.11 demonstrates the current limitation of the second approach for the anisotropic 2D inversion (isotropic inversion of long period data in the first sequence and anisotropic inversion of short period data in the second sequence). Long period data are sensitive not only to mantle but also to crustal structures and their isotropic inversion in the first sequence yields an erroneous mantle region, which is not altered in the subsequent anisotropic inversion of the second sequence. A third sequence, consisting of anisotropic inversion of data from the whole period range can alter previous mantle structures but introduces anisotropy to the mantle region, therefore contradicting the approach and failing to reproduce mantle structures of the synthetic 3D model. As a result, the mantle region of the anisotropic 2D inversion model is significantly different from the synthetic model and any related responses exhibit an increased misfit. On the other hand, crustal structures are recovered to some degree using anisotropy to image effects of the oblique strike direction at crustal depth, with the highest anisotropy magnitude located at the crustal resistivity interface (between stations pic009 and pic011). The recovery of crustal structures indicates the potential of approach 2, which should be further exploited once recommended anisotropy-zones are included in the inversion algorithm (cf. Sec. 8.3.3). Figures A.12 – A.14 display different results of the anisotropic 2D inversion derived using different sets of smoothness constraints. The best agreement between inversion model and synthetic 3D model is achieved using resistivity gradient regularisation with a lower smoothing parameter (τ=1). Figures A.15 - A.18 show results of anisotropic 2D inversion for other profiles and stations used to test reproducibility of findings for the 3D-crust profile with the pic-stations (Fig. 8.17), of which only parts are shown in Section 8.3.3 (Fig. 8.19). Profiles 3Dcrust-west and 3D-crust-east (Figs. A.17 and A.18) reproduce the resistivity distribution of the 3D model in principle, however, the resistivity interface at mantle depth is less constrained due to large station spacing. Profiles 3D-crust-NS and 3D-crust-EW (Figs. A.15 and A.16), on the other hand, have an equidistant station spacing of 20 km and exhibit an overall good agreement with the resistivity distribution of the synthetic 3D model. Thus, the synthetic subsurface model can principally be recovered using anisotropic 2D inversion given adequate station spacing. 303
- Page 288 and 289: 10. Data inversion in the lithosphe
- Page 290 and 291: 10. Data inversion isotropic 2D lay
- Page 292 and 293: 10. Data inversion Depth (km) Depth
- Page 294 and 295: 10. Data inversion Depth (km) Depth
- Page 296 and 297: 10. Data inversion Depth (km) Depth
- Page 298 and 299: 10. Data inversion tigation is usua
- Page 300 and 301: Depth (km) Depth (km) 10. Data inve
- Page 302 and 303: Modelled Observed Modelled Observed
- Page 304 and 305: Depth (km) 10. Data inversion 0 30
- Page 306 and 307: 10. Data inversion Depth off LAB (k
- Page 308 and 309: 10. Data inversion Depth (km) S 0 5
- Page 310 and 311: 10. Data inversion 10.3. Summary an
- Page 312 and 313: 10. Data inversion owing to availab
- Page 315 and 316: 11 Summary and conclusions The key
- Page 317 and 318: 11.2. PICASSO Phase I investigation
- Page 319 and 320: 11.2. PICASSO Phase I investigation
- Page 321: 11.2. PICASSO Phase I investigation
- Page 324 and 325: A. Appendix Eocene 54 Ma 42 Ma 36 M
- Page 326 and 327: A. Appendix A.2. Auxiliary informat
- Page 328 and 329: A. Appendix 292 Fig. A.3.: Issues i
- Page 330 and 331: A. Appendix A.2.4. Computation time
- Page 332 and 333: 296 3D-mantle profile Inversion res
- Page 334 and 335: 298 07-centre profile The profile 0
- Page 336 and 337: 300 3D-crust profile The profile 3D
- Page 340 and 341: A. Appendix Anisotropy Resistivity
- Page 342 and 343: A. Appendix Anisotropy Resistivity
- Page 344 and 345: A. Appendix Anisotropy Resistivity
- Page 346 and 347: A. Appendix Anisotropy Resistivity
- Page 348 and 349: A. Appendix A.4. Auxiliary figures
- Page 350 and 351: A. Appendix 314 ρ TE(Ω−m) φ T
- Page 352 and 353: A. Appendix 316 ρ TE(Ω−m) φ T
- Page 354 and 355: A. Appendix 318 ρ TE(Ω−m) φ T
- Page 356 and 357: A. Appendix 320 pic003 (off-diagona
- Page 358 and 359: A. Appendix 322 pic013 (off-diagona
- Page 361 and 362: Bibliography Abalos, B., J. Carrera
- Page 363 and 364: Bibliography Artemieva, I. M. (2006
- Page 365 and 366: Bibliography Berdichevsky, M., V. D
- Page 367 and 368: Bibliography Cebriá, J.-M., and J.
- Page 369 and 370: Bibliography de Vicente, G., J. Gin
- Page 371 and 372: Bibliography Egbert, G. D., and J.
- Page 373 and 374: Bibliography Ganapathy, R., and E.
- Page 375 and 376: Bibliography Haak, V., and R. Hutto
- Page 377 and 378: Bibliography Hutton, R. (1972), Som
- Page 379 and 380: Bibliography Jones, A. G., and R. W
- Page 381 and 382: Bibliography Kurtz, R. D., J. A. Cr
- Page 383 and 384: Bibliography Lviv Centre of Institu
- Page 385 and 386: Bibliography Merrill, R. T., and M.
- Page 387 and 388: Bibliography Newman, G., and G. Hoh
302<br />
J-centre profile<br />
The J-centre profile is parallel to the<br />
G-centre profile, with the difference<br />
that the J-centre profile is located on<br />
top of the more conductive mantle<br />
region (500 Ωm); see Figure 8.4 for<br />
location of the stations. The inversion<br />
results for the J-centre and Gcentre<br />
profiles are very much alike<br />
(cf. Fig. A.10), indicating the impracticality<br />
of inversions with data<br />
decomposed for the crustal strike<br />
direction.<br />
Depth (km)<br />
Profile: J-centre<br />
TE<br />
Log 10(periods)<br />
Log 10(periods)<br />
RMS<br />
TM<br />
SW NE<br />
0<br />
-2<br />
-1<br />
0<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
-2<br />
-1<br />
0<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
50<br />
100<br />
150<br />
200<br />
250<br />
synJ10<br />
synJ09<br />
300 0 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 144<br />
Apparent resistivity<br />
synJ10<br />
synJ09<br />
synJ08<br />
synJ07<br />
synJ06<br />
synJ05<br />
synJ04<br />
synJ03<br />
synJ02<br />
synJ01<br />
synJ08<br />
synJ07<br />
synJ06<br />
Distance (km)<br />
Misfit<br />
(Total = 0.63)<br />
synJ05<br />
50<br />
synJ04<br />
Phase<br />
Log 10(Wm) degrees<br />
Log 10(Wm) degrees<br />
synJ10<br />
synJ09<br />
synJ08<br />
synJ07<br />
synJ06<br />
synJ05<br />
synJ04<br />
synJ03<br />
synJ02<br />
synJ01<br />
synJ03<br />
synJ02<br />
synJ01<br />
(Wm)<br />
2000<br />
Fig. A.10.: Isotropic 2D inversion results for the ‘J-centre’ profile on top of the synthetic 3D model (see Figure<br />
8.4 for station locations). An electric resistivity interface at crustal depth is located between stations synJ05 and<br />
synJ06. Periods between 10 s and 100 s are related to the crust–mantle boundary; see Section 8.2.1 for a description<br />
of the model. During the inversion the crust is kept fixed at an electric resistivity value of 100 Ωm. The misfit of the<br />
uppermost region originates from the problematic of meeting the cell size requirements for the highest frequencies.<br />
A. Appendix
Change language