6 views

Uploaded by Andenet Ashagrie

doc

save

- Ch14HW All
- Prefix and Suffix
- Global Tectonics
- signature assignment 1
- MÃ ĐỀ 019 .pdf
- m30 2 u5l1 AFLinvestigation
- STPM Trials 2009 Math T Paper 1 (SMJK Tsung Wah, Kuala Kangsar)
- Chapter 22-The Pre Cam Brian Earth
- Blakely Inklinasi
- Bathymetric Survey
- 2-Earth Composition Structure
- Manual
- Tektonik Dasar Laut
- Kertas 1
- 基礎測量學專業名詞中英對照表
- Algebra 1
- Exam 1 Insight 2007
- rm
- lecture2_6110
- math lesson plan- whats my rule
- functionanalysislesson amesewicz2017
- 10
- R Advanced Beginner
- __Implications of Geodesy, Spatial Reference Systems
- 1 St Vip Win Project
- PVSizing Simple
- Lab 04
- 04_01_13_1
- Updateless Decision Theory
- The Geomagnetic Field
- Flexible Pavement Design Manual Final Nov 2013
- Hello World
- Hello World
- 1957_jun_558-563
- wcms_239745
- Document(1)
- Ethiopia - Best Practice Manual for Thin Bituminous Surfacings 2013
- 1949_mar_86-91
- Biblio
- Windowing Equation
- AEC270_Chapter2
- Hello World
- Hello World
- kupdf.com_route-surveying (1).pdf
- 10.1007%2Fs11200-016-0831-7
- SS9802
- EN2manual
- chapter 8
- Geometric Design Manual 2013
- AM02
- Pavement Design Manual Volume II Rigid Pavements 2013
- multi0page_2
- Pavement Design Manual Volume II Rigid Pavements 2013.pdf
- M7L9
- Hydraulic Design of Storm Sewers With Excel Course
- Pavement Design Manual Volume II Rigid Pavements 2013.pdf
- E6-144-12
- 28ngd_401292001393412376
- AREMA Communictaions and Signals

You are on page 1of 7

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Geosciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cageo

**MohoIso: A MATLAB program to determine crustal thickness by an isostatic
**

and a global gravitational model

Mohammad Bagherbandi

Division of Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), 10044 Stockholm, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: This paper focuses on the modeling of the boundary between Earth’s crust and upper mantle using a

Received 25 May 2011 gravimetric–isostatic model. Here a MATLAB code is presented based on the gravimetric–isostatic

Received in revised form model i.e. the Vening Meinesz–Moritz model. Inverse problems in isostasy consist in making the

4 October 2011

isostatic anomalies to be zero under a certain isostatic hypothesis. The Vening Meinesz–Moritz problem

Accepted 4 October 2011

Available online 25 October 2011

is to determine the Moho depth such that the compensating attraction totally compensates the Bouguer

gravity anomaly on the Earth’s surface, implying that the isostatic anomaly vanishes on the Earth’s

Keywords: surface. The main idea is easy but the theoretical analysis is somewhat difﬁcult. Here a practical

Inversion method method to recover the Moho depth from the gravity data is used in the MATLAB code (MohoIso.m) based

Isostasy

on the Vening Meinesz–Moritz method. The code has been designed based on different sub-codes.

MATLAB

The body of the main code works according to the vectorization technique, because this technique causes

Moho depth

Mohorovičič discontinuity that the speed of code increases. One of the important possible limitations for the code is over-ﬂow and

Vening Meinesz–Moritz hypothesis under-ﬂow for higher degrees in the fully normalized associated Legendre function. This problem occurs

in the subroutine applied in this study, it limits the numerical study up to degrees 1800–2000.

& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

**1. Introduction An alternative algorithm to estimate the Moho depth was
**

presented by Parker’s (1972), which was based on the relation

Determination of the Mohorovičič discontinuity (Moho), between the vertical gravity effect and its causative topographic

which is the surface separating the crust from the mantle, is a mass in the Fourier domain. The Parker model was constructed

classical problem in geophysics. Some geophysical parameters based on variable Moho depth and the constant density contrast.

vary at this surface, such as density contrast, gravity ﬁeld, velocity In addition, a method based on loading theory can be employed

of seismic waves, etc. The Moho depth can be determined by the for determining crustal thickness (cf. Sun and Sjöberg, 1999).

seismic or the gravimetric methods. The gravimetric methods are This model is close to the Vening Meinesz model from the

based on assumptions on isostatic equilibrium theories, like conceptual point of view. Oldenburg (1974) deduced a method

varying compensation depth or density contrast or both in the to compute the density contrast of crust and mantle from the

ideal case. For example, Vening Meinesz modiﬁed the Airy– gravity anomaly in a Cartesian coordinate system using Parker’s

Heiskanen hypothesis (Heiskanen and Moritz, 1967, p. 135) by method. He deﬁned a method to stabilize the inversion in Parker’s

considering regional/global compensation instead of local com- method. The Parker-Oldenburg method used by Gomez Oritz and

pensation. In the Vening Meinesz isostatic hypothesis, the density Agarwal (2005) and Shin et al. (2006) to estimate the Moho depth

contrast is constant, while the Moho depth is variable. In the in Brittany (France) and Ulleung Basin (South of Korea), respec-

Vening Meinesz model the Bouguer gravity anomaly on the tively, based on Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) technique. Shin et al.

Earth’s surface is totally compensated by the mass attraction (2007) studied the Moho undulations beneath Tibet from the

beneath it. Moritz (1990, Chapter 8) generalized istotatic model to GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, Tapley et al.,

a spherically shaped sea level. The problem of determination of 2005) gravity data based on the Parker–Oldenburg method.

the Moho depth can be formulated mathematically by solving a For this purpose Gomez Oritz and Agarwal (2005) and Shin

non-linear Fredholm integral equation of the ﬁrst kind. This et al. (2006) presented MATALB (3DINVER.m) and FORTRAN

method was recently presented by Sjöberg (2009) and called (FW3DFFT.f) codes to determine the Moho depth, respectively.

Vening Meinesz–Moritz (VMM). The main applications of the Moho models can be mentioned

in studying dynamic isostatic effects (see Bagherbandi, 2011,

Chapter 2) such as mantle convection/heat ﬂow, post-glacial

E-mail address: mohbag@kth.se rebound and other long-wavelength geodynamic effects.

**0098-3004/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
**

doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2011.10.012

178 M. Bagherbandi / Computers & Geosciences 44 (2012) 177–183

The crustal thickness can be used for smoothing the gravity ﬁeld attraction is a function of the Moho depth as well as the position

in downward continuation of the satellite data such as GOCE of point P. We know that the compensating potentials cannot

(Gravity ﬁeld and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer) to compensate all topographic potential (Heiskanen and Vening

recover the gravity anomaly. In this method the topographic– Meinesz, 1958 p. 124). In fact, there is incomplete compensation

isostatic potential can be determined by the Moho depth model somewhere in the Earth. Therefore there is no warranty that

then their effect will removed from the satellite data for smooth- Eq. (1) will be equal zero. This issue is related to the dynamic

ing the satellite data (Eshagh and Bagherbandi, 2011). This is isostatic effects (e.g. plate tectonic, post-glacial rebound, thermal

one geodetic example for the Moho depth. It is also seen that compensation, etc; see Bagherbandi, 2011, Chapter 2 for more

the Moho depth model can be applied for determination of details).

the Moho density contrast (Sjöberg and Bagherbandi, 2011). A general scheme has been presented in Fig. 1 for formulating

The crustal thickness estimated by the VMM model can be the VMM Moho depth. Compensation attraction in Eq. (1) can be

applied to construct a synthetic Earth gravity model (SEGM), by given by Newtonian’s integral:

the topographic–isostatic coefﬁcients (Pavlis and Rapp, 1990; ZZ Z RT 0 2

r ðrr P tÞ

Haagmans, 2000). The main motivation to use the topographic– AC ðPÞ ¼ GDr 3

dr ds ð2Þ

isostatic harmonic coefﬁcients in creating the SEGM, is the large RT lP

s

correlation of power spectra of the topographic–isostatic and

where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, r and rP are

Earth gravitational models such as EGM08 (Pavlis et al., 2008). qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

To achieve the SEGM, an existing global geopotential model can r 2P þ r 2 2rr P t .

geocentric distances, s is the unit sphere and lP ¼

be used to describe the low degrees, whereas the medium and Here t ¼ cos c, where c is the geocentric angle between the

high degrees are obtained from a global topographic-isostatically computation and integration points. Hence, if the real and the

induced potential (Haagmans, 2000). mean Moho depths are in disagreement, then an apparent density

To recover the Moho depth using the gravity anomaly, we anomaly Dr occurs within a depth interval between T0 and T

need more realistic model than the traditional isostatic models. (Moritz, 1990). Dr is Moho density contrast (MDC), which is due to

The VMM model because of the global/regional assumption for the different structures of the Earth’s crust and mantle, there is a

computing the topographic potential is close to reality. Some contrast between their densities at the Moho boundary. T0 is

comparisons between different Moho models are performed by normal Moho depth (cf. Sjöberg and Bagherbandi, 2011, appendix).

Bagherbandi and Sjöberg (2011a). In this study, we use EGM08 to Here we are going to present Sjöberg’s practical method to

determine the Moho depth, because of the lack of the gravity data. recover the Moho depth by the VMM model. Sjöberg (2009)

Presenting a MATLAB code based on the VMM model and using solved Eq. (1) analytically and ﬁnally he presented the following

global geopotential and digital topography models is the goal of formula for the approximate Moho depth:

this study. The main code (MohoIso.m) use the vectorization

1 X

technique (Eshagh, 2009), the advantage of this method is the 1 X 1 n

T 1 ðPÞ 2 f Y nm ðPÞ ð3Þ

fast calculation time. Some subroutines have been written based 4p n ¼ 0 n þ 1 m ¼ n nm

on the vectorization technique. Section 2 describes the back-

where

ground of the VMM model, brieﬂy. Description of the MATLAB

(

code and its subroutines are presented in Section 3. ½B00 AC 0 =ð4pGDrÞ if n ¼ 0

f nm ¼ ð4aÞ

½Binm Gnm =ð4 pGDrÞ otherwise i ¼ s,c

2. Sjöberg’s direct solution for the crustal thickness Ynm(Q) is the fully normalized spherical harmonic of degree n and

order m, i.e.

In general, recovery of the crustal thickness from gravity (

cos ml if m Z0

anomaly is an ill-posed problem. The main problem in this type Y nm ðPÞ ¼ Pnm ðcos yÞ ð4bÞ

of problems is using the discrete data instead of the continuous sin9m9l otherwise

data. Therefore, stability of the solution and suitable resolution of

Pnm ðcos yÞ is fully normalized associated Legendre function.

the data are the main challenge in the inverse problem. Hence,

The coefﬁcient fnm of Eq. (4a) is obtained by subtracting the

one can use a regularization method (Hansen, 1998, 2008) to

free-air gravity anomaly (Gnm) from the spectral Bouguer reduc-

determine the crustal thickness, which is an iterative method. We

tion term Binm (special care must be taken for the 01 term). The

know that the convergence of the solution is important in the

functions Binm in Eq. (4a) can be obtained based on harmonics of

iterative methods. Here, we use the method presented by Sjöberg

(2009), which is independent from the regularization method and

solid Earth topography

any iteration. This is the main advantage of the VMM model. In

fact, Sjöberg (2009) tried to solve this problem practically. This ρc

method is more practical than other methods such as Parker’s

method that we have to use some ﬁlter to regularize it (see

Oldenburg, 1974; Gomez Oritz and Agarwal, 2005). mean sea level

The Vening Meinesz–Moritz problem (Vening Meinesz, 1931; ρ

c

Moritz, 1990; Sjöberg, 2009; Bagherbandi, 2011; Bagherbandi and crustal thickness

Sjöberg, 2011b) is to determine the Moho depth T(P) such that the Real Moho surface

compensating attraction AC(P) totally compensates the Bouguer ρ Mean Moho

R-T m R

gravity anomaly DgB(P) on the Earth’s surface, implying that the

isostatic anomaly DgI(P) vanishes for point P on the Earth’s below crust layer

surface (Sjöberg, 2009):

Dg I ðPÞ ¼ Dg B ðPÞ þ AC ðPÞ ¼ 0 ð1Þ Earth

center

Eq. (1) is the fundamental equation for determining the crustal

thickness isostatically. It should be stated that the compensation Fig. 1. General schematic structure of the Earth’s crust.

M. Bagherbandi / Computers & Geosciences 44 (2012) 177–183 179

**the simple Bouguer correction Bsnm : the cap size c0 (Sjöberg, 2009):
**

Z 2p Z c0 2

Bsnm ¼ 2pGrc Hnm ð4cÞ 1 T ðQ ÞT 2 ðPÞ

Inearzone ¼ sin c dc da

and harmonic of the complete Bouguer correction Bcnm is given by 32pR a ¼ 0 c ¼ 0 sin3 ðc=2Þ

Z 2p Z D0 2

(Sjöberg, 1998) 1 T ðQ ÞT 2 ðPÞ

dD da ð7aÞ

3 4p a ¼ 0 D ¼ 0 D2

Bcnm ¼ 2pG rHnm ðrHÞnm ð4dÞ

2n þ 1 where D0 ¼Rc0 and a, D are the azimuth and the distance

where between the computation and integration points, respectively.

( One may expand the numerator of Eq. (7a) into a Taylor series at

rc H if H Z0 the computation point, yielding (Heiskanen and Moritz, 1967,

rH ¼ ð4eÞ

ðrw rc ÞH if H o0 p. 121)

**Here rw and rc are the density of water and curst, respectively. D2
**

T ¼ TðPÞ þ DðT x cos a þ T y sin aÞ þ

H stands for the topographic heights, ðrHÞnm and Gnm are the 2

2

harmonics of rH and the gravity anomaly, respectively. This ðT xx cos2 a þ T xy sin 2a þ T yy sin aÞ ð7bÞ

method is more practical for using an Earth Gravitational Model

where Tx, Ty, Txx, Txy and Txy are derivatives of T with respect to the

(e.g. EGM08). In addition, the normal compensation attraction

x- and y-axis. The unknowns Tx, Ty, Txx, Txy and Txy can be

AC0(P) can be obtained by (Sjöberg, 2009)

determined by solving the system equation deﬁned in Eq. (7b).

4pGDrR h i For this purpose, T1 can be assumed as initial value in this

A~ C 0 ðPÞ ¼ ðAC 0 ÞrP ¼ R ¼ ð1t0 Þ3 1 4pGDrT 0 ð5Þ

3 equation and we can use least-squares adjustment to determine

Sjöberg (2009) showed that the regional undulations of the the unknowns. We use planner approximation around each point

Moho depth can be recovered by the following formula: in the inner zone area. In fact T(P) in this equation is ﬁx and we

ZZ need at least 5 observations (here they are the approximate Moho

T 2 ðPÞ 1 T 21 ðQ ÞT 21 ðPÞ depths T1 around point P) around the computation point to

TðPÞ ¼ T 1 ðPÞ þ 1 ds ð6Þ

R 32pR s sin3 ðc=2Þ estimate the unknowns.

Finally the inner zone contribution can be obtain by

Eq. (6) is a direct formula for computing the Moho depth from

the approximate Moho T1. As one can see, there is no need to use D0 h i

Inear zone T P ðT xx þ T yy Þ þ2ðT 2x þ T 2y Þ ð7cÞ

regularization in the inversion of integral formulas in Sjöberg’s 8

direct solution. In fact, Sjöberg (2009) inverted the formulas The cap size c0 can be obtained by comparing the area of

analytically. Eq. (6) has a strong singularity in the third term spherical (j,l) and polar (c,a) coordinate systems (cf.

when c approaches to zero (see Sjöberg, 2009). A cap size should Bagherbandi, 2011):

be considered in inner-most zone (c0) for the third term of

ðl l Þ9sin j2 sin j1 9

Eq. (6). This type of modeling the crustal thickness is direct and c0 ¼ cos1 1 þ 2 1 ð7dÞ

straightforward without any iteration and the Moho depth can be 2p

obtained at once.

Fig. 2 shows that the kernel, sin3 ðc=2Þ, used in Eq. (6) is well-

behaved and it decreases to zero very quickly around each

computation point. It means that this type of the kernel can 3. Description of the MATLAB code to determine

warranty the small truncation error in the integral equation. The the crustal thickness

ﬁgure shows that the integration radius about 31 is enough to

have minimum truncation error. The MohoIso.m code uses some MATLAB (R14) tools for

computing the crustal thickness based on the VMM isostatic

2.1. Inner zone contribution hypothesis. The code is designed to operate under MATLAB

version 7 and later developments. Using MATLAB toolboxes help

Eq. (6) has a strong singularity in third term of Eq. (6) when c us to avoid from making some complicated subroutines. The other

goes to zero. In order to remove this problem, one can determine advantage of using MATLAB toolboxes is using both text and

the near-zone contribution using a planar approximation within graphics outputs simultaneously.

The algorithm (MohoIso.m) allows the user to deﬁne the

boundary of the study area (deg.), resolution of the Moho depth

(deg.) and the MDC in land and ocean (kg/m3) through an input

ﬁle, which is INPUT.txt. The Moho depth estimates using an Earth

Gravitational Model (EGM), e.g. EGM08 (Pavlis et al., 2008).

In order to ﬁll the input ﬁle please see README.txt for more details.

Generally, MohoIso.m function determines the Moho depth by

the following functions. In each the program there are texts,

which explained clearly the necessary input and output para-

meters and their formats.

3.1. Pnm function

**The Pnm function computes fully normalized associated
**

Legendre functions for a selected order m. The inputs of this

function are degree n, order m and co-latitude (deg.) as a vector.

The output of this function is a matrix with Legendre functions.

Fig. 2. Kernel behavior for sin3 ðc=2Þ for rP ¼R and T0 ¼ 30 km. The matrix has a length equal to co-latitude rows and length

180 M. Bagherbandi / Computers & Geosciences 44 (2012) 177–183

**columns. This function was published by N. Sneeuw in 1994. This 3.3. Draw map
**

code works based on the vectorization technique (see also

Sneeuw, 2009). At the end of the MohoIso.m a sub-code is presented for

The main problem to determine the fully normalized asso- drawing the map of output results. This is performed using some

ciated Legendre functions is over- and under-ﬂow for higher excellent MATLAB tools, such as stem, contourfm and worldmap

degrees, which are occur for low and high latitudes (Holmes functions. For example the function setm plots the data sequence

and Featherstone, 2002). In fact, the current recursive techniques as stems that extend from equally spaced and automatically

for computing the associated Legendre functions to be fail. Fully generated values along the x-axis. When the data is a matrix,

normalized associated Legendre functions Pnm that depending on stem plots all elements in a row against the same x value. The

the latitude, this recursion will lead to under-ﬂow after about function worldmap map a country or region using the atlas data.

degrees 1800–2000, unless we take special measures. Thus The function contourfm produces a contour plot of map data

another algorithm should be applied when we use this function projected onto the current map axes. The input latitude and

for higher degrees than n¼ 1800. This issue was solved by Holmes longitude vectors should be the same size of the map (as in a

and Featherstone (2002) up to degree 5400 (to 7451 latitude) geolocated data grid), or can specify the corresponding row and

and degree 2700 (over the whole Earth) using the Clenshaw column dimensions for the map.

summation technique. The technique employed should be stable In this part, some parameters, which are important to deter-

for all latitude and for a certain degree and order (in this study mine the crustal thickness, are deﬁned. Maximum degree and

is 2700). order of EGM and digital terrain model (DTM) is calculated based

According to the Institute of Electrical and Electronic on the resolution of the Moho depth, which is already deﬁned in

Engineers’ (IEEE) standard 754 for binary ﬂoating-point arithmetic INPUT.txt , which is deﬁned by nmax (i.e. nmax ¼(1801/D1) where D1

only allocates eight bytes to store each double precision ﬂoating- is the grid size). After reading the spherical harmonic coefﬁcients

point number (R). Thus R may only take values within the range of of the Earth’s gravity ﬁeld by the function ReadEGM.m

(e.g. EGM08), the program subtracts normal GRS80 coefﬁcients

10310 r 9R9 r 10310 ð8Þ from zonal EGMs coefﬁcients to estimate the free-air gravity

310

anomalies. Here we used the potential derived from GRS80

Any computed value where 9R9r10 will under-ﬂow and model. The ellipsoidal parameters of GRS80 used in the program

be set to zero. Also for the case of 9R9Z10 310R will over-ﬂow can be obtained from text books (e.g. Moritz, 1992).

and the result will be a not a number (NaN). Under-ﬂow in the After storing the EGM data, the gravity anomalies will be

computation of any Pnm excludes the corresponding coefﬁcients. estimated in mGal by the EGM. Then the approximate VMM Moho

depth is determined using Eq. (3). Now two corrections terms, in

Eq. (6), for estimating the ﬁnal Moho depth are determined by

3.2. Read functions CorrectionProg2.m function. The inner zone contributions around

each computation point are calculated by InnerCoProg2.m function

Here two functions for reading the global models are deﬁned. by Eq. (7c). In this function the unknowns Tx, Ty, Txx, Txy and Txy

The functions need the name of the EGM and DTM to convert the are estimated using the least-square solution around the computa-

column wise geopotential and topographic height coefﬁcients to tion points by Eq. (7b). Here the approximate Moho depth

matrixwise whose rows and columns are related to the degree is used as initial value to estimate the unknown coefﬁcients

and orders of the coefﬁcients. Reading the EGM and the DTM in Eq. (7b).

models is performed by ReadEGM.m and RreadDTM.m functions, An ASCII ﬁle is then written for the ﬁnal results, which consist

which are EGM08 (Pavlis et al., 2008) and DTM2006 (Pavlis et al., of ﬁve columns: latitude and longitude (deg.), the VMM Moho

2007) spherical harmonic models up to degree and order 2160 in depth (km), height (km) and free-air gravity anomaly (mGal).

this study. The functions storage the harmonic coefﬁcients in These data are available through RESULTS.txt. The ﬁnal outputs are

matrices. This technique help us to use the vectorization techni- two the ﬁgures, which are the VMM Moho depth and the the

que (see Sneeuw, 2009; Eshagh, 2009). The main advantage of the Bougure gravity anomaly.

vectorization technique is fast calculation of the parameters and Fig. 3 shows a ﬂowchart of the crustal thickness estimation

decreasing the computational time. In fact, by selecting an based on the VMM model using an EGM and DTM models. The

inappropriate algorithm can increase computation time. inputs are showed by the latitudes and longitudes (S, N, W and E)

RreadEGM.m

Input data Plm.m

INPUT.txt

S N

W E

DFg

dϕ d λ

RESULTS.tx

Δρ Y (Q )

G T(P)

CorrectionProg2.m

InnerCoProg2.m

c(1:nmax, m+1)

corrections

EGM

adding

f

RreadDTM.m

DTM c H(1:nmax, m+1) B

T (P)

Eq. (5)

CRUST2.0 A

DFt1

**Fig. 3. Flowchart of the gravimetric–isostatic Moho synthesis.
**

M. Bagherbandi / Computers & Geosciences 44 (2012) 177–183 181

**with dimension of 1 kj and 1 kl, respectively. The geopoten- Table 1
**

tial coefﬁcients c and the harmonic coefﬁcients of topographic The constant values used in MohoIso.m MATLAB code.

height cH matrices are constructed, which have the dimensions

Parameter Value Remarks

nmax nmax .

After constructing the harmonic coefﬁcients matrices of topo- r 2670 kg/m3 Mean topographic and crustal density

graphy and geopotential, the factor fi (see Eq. (9a) for computing rm 3270 kg/m3 Density of mantle

Dg is calculated by (cf. Eshagh and Abdollahzadeh, 2010) rw 1027 kg/m3 Density of water

h i G 6.674e 11 m3/kg s2 Gravitational constant

GM 0.3986004418Eþ 15 Product of the gravitational constant

DFg ¼ f 2 f 3 f nmax Ikj 1 ð9aÞ

and Earth

R 6,378,137 m The mean Earth radius

where

GM

fi ¼ ðn1Þ ð9bÞ

R2

where stands for Kronecker’s product and I is unit vector. DFg is

a matrix with the same dimension of the Ynm(Q) matrix (Eq. (4b)).

We use the vectorization technique here to increase the speed of

the program. The interested readers can ﬁnd the details in

Sneeuw (2009) and Eshagh (2009).

According to the vectorization technique the gravity anomaly

harmonics of

GM

Dg nm ¼ ðn1ÞðC nm cos ml þSnm sin mlÞPnm ðcos yÞ ð10aÞ

R2

can be presented as the following form which is using the

advantage of multiplication of vectors

Gnm ¼ ðYnm #DFgÞc nm ð10bÞ

Fig. 4. Topographic height from DTM2006 with resolution of 21 21. Unit: km.

where # is multiplication of each corresponding elements of the

matrices.

We construct other factor for Eq. (3) as grid as it offers a detailed density structure of the crust and

h i uppermost mantle. The 7th layer of the CRUST2.0 belongs to the

DFt1 ¼ t 2 t 3 t nmax Ikj 1 ð11aÞ

Moho depth and other layers of this model are (1) ice, (2) water,

(3) soft sediments, (4) hard sediments, (5) upper crust, (6) middle

1 1 crust and (7) lower crust. This model is available through http://

ti ¼ 2 ð11bÞ

4p n þ1 igppweb.ucsd.edu/~gabi/rem.dir/crust/crust2.html. The mean Moho

Again using vectorization technique Eq. (3) can be written depths (with respect to sea level) are 21.8 km (global), 38.0 km

(continents) and 12.6 km (ocean), see Mooney et al. (1998) for more

ðT 1 Þnm ¼ ðYnm #DFt1Þf nm ð11cÞ details.

According to Bagherbandi and Sjöberg (2011a) assuming 0.6

g/cm3 for the MDC is too large especially for oceanic areas.

Because of this reason, we have to select a realistic MDC in each

4. Numerical results by MohoIso.m region. We can obtain the MDC for a region by comparing the

VMM results with CRUST2.0 for instance by altering the MDC.

In this paper the recent theory of the VMM model is used to Testing the different MDC continues while the rms of difference of

estimate the Moho depth. The results are determined based on the VMM and CRUST2.0 become smaller than other cases. Another

using the Earth Gravitational Model EGM08 (Pavlis et al., 2008) way to introduce the MDC is using CRUST2.0 density layers.

and Digital Topographic Model DTM2006 (Pavlis et al., 2007) up By subtracting the mantle density from the CRUST2.0 density

to degree and order 90 corresponding to 21 21 grid in Iran as the data, we achieve the MDC (Bagherbandi, 2011, Chapter 3). An

default case. The study area is selected between 201 and 451 N alternative method to determine the Moho density contrast is

and 401 to 701 W for instance in INPUT.txt. It is necessary to using the method proposed by Sjöberg and Bagherbandi (2011).

mention that the high degrees in the crustal modeling is mean- They presented some methods to estimate the MDC through

ingless, because the Moho surface is a smooth surface and CRUST2.0 based on the VMM model. The mean value of the

determining the Moho surface in denser resolutions is not MDC based on Sjöberg and Bagherbandi (2011) is 0.43 g/cm3,

realistic. globally. This value show there is large systematic difference

Before presenting the ﬁnal results for the VMM Moho depth, between the continental and oceanic MDC. The MATLAB code

we review the assumptions used in the MATLAB code. The MohoIso.m works based on two different values for the MDC in

constants used in the MATLAB code are listed in Table 1. Among land and ocean. These values are different for each area, for

these values, the density assumptions for crust, topographic mass example we use 0.43 g/cm3 both in land and ocean in Iran.

and upper mantle can affect our results signiﬁcantly. In addition, Figs. 4 and 5 show the global solid Earth topography using

the program requires a prior knowledge of two main parameters DTM2006 and the Bouguer gravity anomaly estimated from

i.e. the MDC and normal Moho depth. The normal Moho depth in EGM08 with 21 21 resolution. The statistic of the estimated

Eq. (5) can be estimated by CRUST2.0 (Bassin et al., 2000) in each heights is presented in Table 2. The program uses these data to

region. The global crustal model CRUST2.0, released by the US determine the approximate Moho depth (T1) by Eq. (3).

Geological Survey and Institute for Geophysics at the University The global approximate Moho depth (T1) has been presented

of California, is obtained based on using the travel times of by Fig. 6. It varies between 3.2 km and 61 km. In this ﬁgure, we

seismic waves. CRUST2.0 is a global crustal model at a 21 21 have not corrected the gravity anomalies based on the ice

182 M. Bagherbandi / Computers & Geosciences 44 (2012) 177–183

**Fig. 5. Bouguer gravity anomaly (DgB) from EGM08 with resolution of 21 21.
**

Unit: mGal.

Fig. 7. Final VMM Moho depth with resolution of 21 21 in Iran. Unit: km.

**Fig. 6. Approximate crustal thickness from the VMM model (T1) with resolution of
**

21 21. Unit: km.

**Fig. 8. Percentages of the corrections terms for updating the approximate Moho
**

Table 2 depth T1 with respect to T1 in Iran. Unit: %.

Statistical analysis of topographic height (H), approximate Moho depth (T1),

CRUST2.0 (TSM), ﬁnal VMM Moho depth (TVMM) and difference between VMM

Moho depth and CRUST2.0 in Iran with 21 21 resolution. Unit: km. depth are similar to CRUST2.0. As mentioned already CRUST2.0 is

an external crustal model in this study.

Quantities Max Mean Min Std rms As discussed before, we should consider the ﬁrst and second-

order corrections to the approximate Moho depth T1 because they

H 5.5 1.9 6.6 2.6 –

T1 47.6 36.9 21.4 4.4 – have signiﬁcant role in some areas. Fig. 8 shows the percentage of

TVMM 49.4 37.1 20.8 4.8 – each one with respect to T1 from south-west to north-east of Iran.

TSM 48.8 38.7 11.8 5.2 – The maximum, mean, minimum and standard deviation of the

TSM TVMM 10.5 1.6 12.3 4.1 4.4

percentages are 8.5%, 0.8%, 2.5% and 1.6%, respectively. As we

can observe in some points the corrections terms are important to

consider for determining the ﬁnal Moho depth.

thicknesses in Antarctica and Greenland. In order to remove this

problem we can use the ice thickness to obtain pure topographic

data. For this issue one can use the CRUST2.0 and British 5. Conclusions

Antarctica Survey (BAS) ice data (cf. Bagherbandi, 2011).

In addition, the topographic masses need to introduce the true The MATLAB code presented in this paper needs global Earth

density instead of constant values assumed, which we have Gravitational Model and solid Earth topography data for deter-

considered a constant value (see Table 2). T1 updates using two mining the crustal thickness by a gravimetric–isostatic model

correction terms, which have been presented in Eq. (6). i.e. the VMM model. The code (MohoIso.m) is designed to contain

The correction terms are the second and third terms in Eq. (6). a number of different subroutines. Using vectrization technique is

Here we focus on the Moho depth determination in Iran for very useful because of the speed of the calculation in this case. In

instance. Fig. 7 shows the ﬁnal VMM Moho depth. There are large addition applying the vectorization technique can compete with

correlation and similarities between the VMM Moho depth and fast Fourier transform technique. The obtained results are pro-

CRUST2.0 as a known Moho model. This relationship is remark- mising because of the small rms obtained in comparison with

able except some differences appear, which are due to the lack of CRUST2.0. Generally, we found a good agreement between the

data for deﬁning the realistic density of crust and topography. Moho geometry obtained from EGM08 and DTM2006 with the

Other problem is related to seismic data gap in Iran. CRUST2.0 can rms of 4.4 km in Iran for instance. Some differences are due to our

help us to test the VMM Moho depth in study area. assumptions for density of crust, topographic mass, upper mantle

Table 2 shows the statistic of the results. The last row of the and the data gaps in the CRUST2.0 model. In addition, the isostatic

table compares the VMM Moho depth with CRUST2.0. By compar- hypothesis assumes that all topographic potential compensate by

ing the results we observe that the statistics of the VMM Moho variable density and crustal thickness, which is not the case in

M. Bagherbandi / Computers & Geosciences 44 (2012) 177–183 183

reality. We know that the real Earth is very complicated from our Parker–Oldenburg’s algorithm. Computers and Geosciences 31, 513–520.

assumption for the VMM model. Another problem is lack of the doi:10.1016/j.candgeo.2004.11.004.

Haagmans, R., 2000. A synthetic Earth for use in geodesy. Journal of Geodesy. 74,

terrestrial gravity data to compute the crustal thickness, which is 503–511. doi:10.1007/s001900000112.

main reason to use EGM08 instead of the terrestrial data. Heiskanen, W.A., Moritz, H., 1967. Physical Geodesy. W H Freeman and Co., San

In conclusions, we think that the VMM Moho depth estimation Francisco, London 364 pp.

Heiskanen, W.A., Vening Meinesz, F.A., 1958. The Earth and its Gravity Field.

is good starting point to complete the CRUST2.0 model because of McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 470 pp.

its data gap problem (cf. Eshagh et al., 2011). This issue (combi- Hansen, P.C., 1998. Rank-deﬁcient and discrete ill-posed problems. SIAM Mono-

nation of the VMM and CRUST2.0) will be very useful for the graphs on Mathematical Modeling and Computation, 247.

Hansen, P.C., 2008. Regularization tools version 4.0 for Matlab 7.3. Numerical

future geophysical and seismological applications.

Algorithms 46, 189–194.

Holmes, S.A., Featherstone, W.E., 2002. A uniﬁed approach to the Clenshaw

summation and the recursive computation of very high degree and order

Acknowledgment normalised associated Legendre functions. Journal of Geodesy 76, 279–299.

doi:10.1007/s00190-002-0216-2.

Moritz, H., 1990. The Figure of the Earth. H Wichmann, Karlsruhe 277 pp.

The author would like to thank Professor Lars E. Sjöberg for the Moritz, H., 1992. Geodetic reference system 1980. In: C.C. Tscherning (Ed.), The

scientiﬁc discussion about the Vening Meinesz–Mortiz hypothesis. Geodesist’s Hand Book 1992—Bull. Geo., vol. 66 (2), pp. 187–192.

Professor N. Sneeuw is cordially acknowledged for his guidance Mooney, W.D., Laske, G., Masters, T.G., 1998. CRUST 5.1: a global crustal model at

5 51. Journal of Geophysical Research 103, 727–747. doi:10.1029/97JB02122.

and fruitful discussions about fully normalized associated Legendre Oldenburg, D.W., 1974. The inversion and interpretation of gravity anomalies.

functions and vectorization technique. Dr. M. Eshagh is gratefully Geophysics 39, 526–536.

thanked because of our discussion about vectorization technique Parker, R.L., 1972. The rapid calculation of potential anomalies. Geophysics Journal

Research Astronomy Society 31, 447–455.

and his support. The Swedish National Space Board (SNSB) is Pavlis, N.K., Rapp, R.H., 1990. The development of an isostatic gravitational model

cordially acknowledged for the ﬁnancial support, project no. to degree 360 and its use in global gravity modeling. Geophysical Journal

76/10:1. The unknowns’ reviewers are cordially appreciated for International 100, 369–378 1990.

Pavlis, N.K., Factor, J.K., Holmes, S.A., 2007. Terrain-related gravimetric quantities

their constructive comments on the manuscript. Dr. D. Gómez

computed for the next EGM. In: A. Kilic- oglu, R. Forsberg (Eds.), Gravity Field of

Ortiz immensely acknowledged for reviewing the paper. the Earth, Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Interna-

tional Gravity Field Service (IGFS), Harita Dergisi, Special Issue No. 18, General

Command of Mapping, Ankara, Turkey.

References

Pavlis, N., Holmes, S.A., Kenyon, S.C., Factor, J.K., 2008. An Earth gravitational

model to degree 2160: EGM08. In: Presented at the 2008 General Assembly of

Bagherbandi, M., 2011. An isostatic Earth Crustal Model and its Application. Ph.D. the European Geosciences Union, Vienna, Austria, April 13–18, 2008.

Dissertation. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden, 207 pp. Sjöberg, L.E., 1998. The exterior Airy/Heiskanen topographic–isostatic gravity

Bagherbandi, M., Sjöberg, L., 2011a. Comparison of crustal thickness from two potential anomaly and the effect of analytical continuation in Stokes’ formula.

gravimetric–isostatic models and CRUST2.0. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica Journal of Geodesy 72, 654–662. doi:10.1007/s001900050205.

55, 641–666. doi:10.1007/s11200-010-9030-0 2011. Sjöberg, L.E., 2009. Solving Vening Meinesz–Moritz inverse problem in isostasy.

Bagherbandi, M., Sjöberg, L., 2011b. Earth Crustal Modelling: Geodetic Applica- Geophysics Journal International 179 (3), 1527–1536. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

tions of the Vening Meinesz–Mortiz Hypothesis. Lap Lambert Academic 246X.2009.04397.x.

Publishing. Sjöberg, L.E., Bagherbandi, M., June 2011. A method of estimating the Moho

Bassin, C., Laske, G., Mastersm, T.G., 2000. The current limits of resolution for density contrast with a tentative application by EGM08 and CRUST2.0. Acta

surface wave tomography in North America. EOS Transactions AGU 81, F897. Geophysica 59 (3), 502–525. doi:10.2478/s11600-011-0004-6.

Eshagh, M., 2009. Impact of vectorization on global synthesis and analysis in Shin, Y.H., Choi, K.S., Xu, H., 2006. Three-dimensional forward and inverse models

gradiometry. Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica 44 (3), 323–342. for gravity ﬁelds based on the fast Fourier transform. Computers and

doi:10.1556/AGeod.44.2009.3.5. Geosciences 32, 727–738. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2005.10.002.

Eshagh, M., Abdollahzadeh, M., 2010. Semi-vectorization: an efﬁcient technique Shin, Y.H., Xu, H., Braitenberg, C., Fang, J., Wang, Y., 2007. Moho undulation

for synthesis and analysis of gravity gradiometry data. Earth Science Informa- beneath Tibet from GRACE-integrated gravity data. Geophysics Journal Inter-

tion 3, 149–158. doi:10.1007/s12145-010-0062-3 2010. national 170, 971–985. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03457.x.

Eshagh, M., Bagherbandi, M., Sjöberg, L.E., 2011. A combined global Moho model Sneeuw, N., 2009. Inclination functions: orthogonality and other properties.

based on seismic and gravimetric data. Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica In: Hotine–Marussi Symposium on Mathematical Geodesy, IAG Symposia,

Hungarica 46 (1), 25–38. doi:10.1556/AGeod.46.2011.1.3(2011). doi:10.1556/ Rome, Italy.

AGeod.46.2011.1.3. Sun, W., Sjöberg, L., 1999. A new global topographic–isostatic model. Physics and

Eshagh, M., Bagherbandi, M., 2011. Smoothing impact of isostatic crustal thickness Chemistry of the Earth 24 (1), 23–27. doi:10.1016/S1464-1895(98)00006-4.

models on local integral inversion of satellite gravity gradiometry data. Acta Tapley, B., et al., 2005. GGM02—an improved Earth gravity ﬁeld model from

Geophysica 59 (5), 891–906. doi:10.2478/s11600-011-0017-1. GRACE. Journal of Geodesy. doi:10.1007/s00190–005-0480-z.

Gomez Oritz, D., Agarwal, B.N.P., 2005. 3DINVER.M: a MATLAB program to Vening Meinesz, F.A., 1931. Une nouvelle methode pour la reduction isostatique

invert the gravity anomaly over a 3D horizontal density interface by regionale de l’intensite de la pesanteur. Bulletin Géodésique 29, 33–51.

- Ch14HW AllUploaded bydhiru12314
- Prefix and SuffixUploaded byeloughrige
- Global TectonicsUploaded byMuhammad Bilal
- signature assignment 1Uploaded byapi-276368526
- MÃ ĐỀ 019 .pdfUploaded byThảo Nguyễn Cla
- m30 2 u5l1 AFLinvestigationUploaded byLuke Ook Choi
- STPM Trials 2009 Math T Paper 1 (SMJK Tsung Wah, Kuala Kangsar)Uploaded byHaRry Chg
- Chapter 22-The Pre Cam Brian EarthUploaded byncl12142
- Blakely InklinasiUploaded bywahyudin
- Bathymetric SurveyUploaded byKhaled Abdelbaki
- 2-Earth Composition StructureUploaded byMarc Jandel Polante
- ManualUploaded bypajovsky
- Tektonik Dasar LautUploaded byRidho Ryzkita Sulaksono
- Kertas 1Uploaded byjuliet84
- 基礎測量學專業名詞中英對照表Uploaded byZenPhi
- Algebra 1Uploaded byDave Vic Solis
- Exam 1 Insight 2007Uploaded byIsuru Hewakoon
- rmUploaded byChan Menk
- lecture2_6110Uploaded byOzgur Tung
- math lesson plan- whats my ruleUploaded byapi-353685975
- functionanalysislesson amesewicz2017Uploaded byapi-376783060
- 10Uploaded byakaisya
- R Advanced BeginnerUploaded byश्रीकांत शरमा
- __Implications of Geodesy, Spatial Reference SystemsUploaded bySuta Vijaya
- 1 St Vip Win ProjectUploaded byrimce77
- PVSizing SimpleUploaded byGanesh Ayer
- Lab 04Uploaded byJONATHAN TENG ,
- 04_01_13_1Uploaded byWR Rahayu
- Updateless Decision TheoryUploaded byTyrrell McAllister
- The Geomagnetic FieldUploaded byArnaldo Hernández Cardona

- Flexible Pavement Design Manual Final Nov 2013Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Hello WorldUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Hello WorldUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- 1957_jun_558-563Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- wcms_239745Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Document(1)Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Ethiopia - Best Practice Manual for Thin Bituminous Surfacings 2013Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- 1949_mar_86-91Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- BiblioUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Windowing EquationUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- AEC270_Chapter2Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Hello WorldUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Hello WorldUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- kupdf.com_route-surveying (1).pdfUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- 10.1007%2Fs11200-016-0831-7Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- SS9802Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- EN2manualUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- chapter 8Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Geometric Design Manual 2013Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- AM02Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Pavement Design Manual Volume II Rigid Pavements 2013Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- multi0page_2Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Pavement Design Manual Volume II Rigid Pavements 2013.pdfUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- M7L9Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Hydraulic Design of Storm Sewers With Excel CourseUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- Pavement Design Manual Volume II Rigid Pavements 2013.pdfUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- E6-144-12Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- 28ngd_401292001393412376Uploaded byAndenet Ashagrie
- AREMA Communictaions and SignalsUploaded byAndenet Ashagrie