Advertisement

A Global Topographic-Isostatic Model Based on a Loading Theory

  • Wenke Sun
  • Lars E. Sjöberg
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 122)

Abstract

This a preliminary report of our ongoing research on a global topographic-isostatic model. The model originates from a completely new idea—the geoid undulation is the response of an elastic earth to topographic mass load. Assuming the topography as a condensed surface mass load, we derive expressions for calculating the vertical displacement, potential and equipotential surface changes, based on the load theory proposed in (1996). We also discuss the mass conservation problem and some calculating techniques. The modeled geoid is composed of three parts: loading potential, surface displacement and mass redistribution. The surface displacement and mass redistribution of the earth compensate to some extent the topography. In practical calculations we adopt the Getech’s Global Digital Terrain Model with 5x5 minute bloc averages (DTM5). Using the load Love numbers and Green’s functions obtained from the 1066A earth model, we calculate and discuss the vertical displacements and equipotential surface changes for depths: earth’s surface, d = 36 km and the core-mantle boundary. Numerical results show that the displacements at depth 36 km and the earth surface have the same distribution pattern and magnitude, while the vertical movement of the core-mantle boundary appears much smoother and smaller. The contribution of the mass redistribution to the equipotential surfaces is rather small and smooth. The modeled geoid undulations at the earth’s surface caused by the topographic mass load vary between-352 and +555 m. Comparing the modeled and observed geoid undulations shows that there are strong positive correlations between them, but a compensation only by elastic deformations is not sufficient to explain the observed undulations because of the big difference in magnitude between the two geoids. More geodynamic effects should be considered to better explain the long-wavelength geoid features.

Keywords

Vertical Displacement Gravity Change Geoidal Height Geoid Undulation Harmonic Degree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Airy, G.B. (1855). On the computation of the effect of the attraction of mountain masses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc London, 145:101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Menahem, A. and Singh, S. J. (1968). Eigenvector expansion of Green’s dyads with applications to geophysical theory. Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc, 16:417–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Engels, J., Grafarend, E.W., and Sorcik, P. (1996). The gravitational field of topographic-isostatic masses and the hypothesis of mass condensation II-the topographic-isostatic geoid. Surveys in Geophysics, 17:41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Farrel, W.E. (1972). Deformation of the earth by surface load. Re. Geophys. Space Phys., 10:761–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gilbert, F. and Dziewonski, A. M. (1975). An application of normal mode theory to the retrieval of structural parameters and source mechanisms from seismic spectra. Phyl. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A, 278:187–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grafarend, E.W. and Engels, J. (1993). The gravitational field of topographic-isostatic masses and the hypothesis of mass condensation I. Surveys in Geophysics, 140:495–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gruber, T. and Anzenhofer, M. (1993). The GFZ 360 gravity field model, the European geoid determination. In Proceedings of session G3, European Geophysical Society XVIII General Assembly, Wiebaden, May 3-7. Published by geodetic division of KMS, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  8. Haxby, W.A. and Turcotte, D. (1978). On isostatic geoid anomalies. J. Geophys. Res., 83(B11):5473–5478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heiskanen, W.A. and Moritz, H. (1967). Physical Geodesy. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  10. Okubo, S. and Endo, T. (1986). Static spheroidal deformation of degree 1-consistency relation, stress solution and partials. Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc, 86:91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pavlis, N.K. and Rapp, R. H. (1990). The development. of an isostatic gravitational model to degree 360 and its use in global gravity modeling. Geophys. J. Int., 100:369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pratt, J.H. (1855). On the attraction of the Hymalaya Mountains, and of the elevated regions beyond them upon plumb-line in India. Philos. Trans. R. Soc London, 145(53).Google Scholar
  13. Rapp, R. H. (1982). Degree variances of the earth’s potential, topography and its isostatic compensation. Bull. Géod., 56:84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rummel, R., Rapp, R. H., Sünkel, H., and Tscherning, C.C. (1988). Comparison of global to-pographi/isostaic models to the earth’s observed gravity field. The Dept. of Geodetic science and Surveying Report no. 388, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  15. Saito, M. (1974). Some problems of static deformation of the earth. J. Phys. Earth, 22:123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sjöberg, L.E. (1998). On the Pratt and Airy models of isostatic geoid undulations. J. of Geodynamics, 26:137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sun, W. (1992). Potential and gravity changes raised by dislocation in radially heterogeneous earth models. PhD thesis, The University of Tokio, Japan.Google Scholar
  18. Sun, W. and Okubo, S. (1993). Surface potential and gravity changes due to internal dislocations in a spherical earth-I. Theory for a point dislocation. J. Goephys. Res., 114:569–592.Google Scholar
  19. Sun, W., Okubo, S., and Vanicek, P. (1996). Global displacement caused by dislocation in a realistic earth model. J. Goephys. Res., 101:8561–8577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sun, W. and Sjöberg (1996). Gravitational potential changes of a SNREI earth model to a point surface mass load. Division of Geodesy Report Report no. 1043, Department of Geodesy and Photogrammetry, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  21. Sun, W. and Sjöberg, L. E. (1998a). Gravitational potential changes of a spherical symmetric earth model caused by a surface load. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 23:47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sun, W. and Sjöberg, L. E. (1998b). A new global topographic-isostatic model. Submitted to Physics and Chemistry of the Earth.Google Scholar
  23. Sünkel, H. (1985). An isostatic earth model. The Dept. of Geodetic science and Surveying Report no. 367, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  24. Vaníček, P. and Christou, N. T. (1994). Geoids and its Geophysical interpretation. CRC Press, Boca Ration, FL.Google Scholar
  25. Vaníček, P. and Kleusberg, A. (1985). What an external gravitational potential can really tell us about mass distribution. Bollettino Di Geofisica Teorica Ed Applicata, 27:243–250.Google Scholar
  26. Veninng Meinesz, F.A. (1931). Une nouvelle méthode pour la réduction isostatique régionale de l’intensité de la pesanteur. Bull. Géod., 29:33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wenke Sun
    • 1
  • Lars E. Sjöberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geodesy and PhotogrammetryRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations