hig.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Modelling the density contrast and depth of the Moho discontinuity by seismic and gravimetric–isostatic methods with an application to Africa
University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Industrial Development, IT and Land Management. (Geodesy)
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
2012 (English)In: Journal of African Earth Sciences, ISSN 0899-5362, Vol. 68, 111-120 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The crustal thickness (Moho depth) is of interest in several geosciences applications, such as geography, geophysics and geodesy. Usually the crustal depth and density variations are estimated by seismic survey data. As such data collection is very time-consuming and expensive an attractive option could be to use a gravimetric/isostatic model. In this case, realistic estimates for the crustal density and Moho density contrast (MDC) are important. In this study, we first use the seismic crustal thickness of CRUST2.0 model as a known parameter in combination with gravimetric data in estimating the crust–mantle density contrast by the isostatic model of Vening Meinesz–Moritz. We present different models to estimate the MDC and its impact on the modelling of the gravimetric–isostatic Moho depth. The theory is applied to estimate the Moho depth of the African continental crust by using different models for the MDC: (a) constant value (0.6 g/cm3), (b) Pratt–Hayford’s model, (c) CRUST2.0 as input to three gravimetric/isostatic models based on Vening Meinesz–Moritz theory. The isostatic models agree by 5.8–7.1 km in the rms with the regional seismic model at a resolution of 2 x2, and the smallest rms difference at a resolution of 1x1is of

7.2 km. For comparison, the rms differences of CRUST2.0 and the regional seismic model are 8.8 and 9.1 km at the resolutions of 2 deg (interpolated) and 1 deg respectively. The result suggests that the gravimetric/isostatic Moho model can be used in densification of the CRUST2.0 Moho geometry, and to improve it in areas with poor data.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 68, 111-120 p.
Keyword [en]
Crust, density contrast
National Category
Geophysics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-14933DOI: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2012.04.003ISI: 000305849600008Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84861385855OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hig-14933DiVA: diva2:638043
Available from: 2013-07-25 Created: 2013-07-25 Last updated: 2013-10-31Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bagherbandi, Mohammad
By organisation
Department of Industrial Development, IT and Land Management
In the same journal
Journal of African Earth Sciences
Geophysics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 335 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf