Interpretation of CHAMP Crustal Field Anomaly Maps Using Geographical Information System (GIS) Technique

  • Kumar Hemant
  • Stefan Maus
  • Volker Haak

Summary

Crustal field models from CHAMP magnetic measurements are increasingly stable and reliable. In particular, they now allow for quantitative geological studies of crustal structure and composition. Here, we use a forward modeling technique to infer deep crustal structure of continental regions overlain by younger sediments. For this, a Geographical Information System (GIS) based technique has been developed to model the various geological units of the continental crust. Starting from geologic and tectonic maps of the world and considering the known rock types of each region, an average magnetic susceptibility value is assigned to every geological unit. Next, a vertically integrated susceptibility (VIS) is computed for each unit, taking into account the seismic crustal thickness, as given by models 3SMAC and CRUST2.1. From this preliminary VIS model, an initial vertical field anomaly map is computed at a satellite altitude of 400 km and compared with the corresponding CHAMP vertical field anomaly map. We demonstrate that significant geological inferences can be made from the agreement and the discrepancies between the predicted and observed anomaly maps. In particular, the lateral extent of Precambrian provinces under Phanerozoic cover is revealed.

Key words

Global magnetic crustal GIS 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. CGMW (2000) Geological Map of the World, Commission for the Geological Map of the World (CGMW) / © UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Clark DA, Emerson DW (1991) Notes on rock magnetization characteristics in applied geophysical studies, Exploration Geophysics 22: 547–555.Google Scholar
  3. Goodwin, AM (1991) Precambrian Geology, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  4. Hunt CP, Moskowitz BM, Banerjee SK (1995) Magnetic properties of Rocks and Minerals, In: Rock Physics and Phase Relations-A handbook of Physical constants, AGU Reference shelf 3, ed. Ahrens TJ.Google Scholar
  5. Langel RA, Hinze WJ (1998) The magnetic field of the Earth's Lithosphere — The satellite perspective, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Maus S, Rother M, Holme R, Lühr H, Olsen N, Haak V (2002) First scalar magnetic anomaly map from CHAMP satellite data indicates weak lithospheric field. Geophys Res Lett 29(14).Google Scholar
  7. Meyer J, Hufen J-H, Siebert M, Hahn A (1983) Investigations of the internal geomagnetic field by means of a global model of the earth's crust. J Geophys 52: 71–84.Google Scholar
  8. Mooney WD, Laske G, Masters TG (1998) CRUST 5.1: A global crustal model at 50 × 50, J Geophys Res 103: 727–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nataf H-C, Ricard Y (1996) 3SMAC: An a priori tomographic model of the upper mantle based on geophysical modeling. Phys Earth Planet Int 95: 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Purucker ME, Langel RA, Rajaram M, Raymond C (1998) Global magnetization models with a priori information. J Geophys Res 103: 2563–2584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Taylor SR, McLennan SM (1985) The Continental Crust: Its composition and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publ. 312pp.Google Scholar
  12. Wasilewski PJ, Mayhew MA (1992) The Moho as a magnetic boundary revisited, Geophys Res Lett 19: 2259–2262.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kumar Hemant
    • 1
  • Stefan Maus
    • 1
  • Volker Haak
    • 1
  1. 1.Section 2.3GeoForschungsZentrum PotsdamPotsdam

Personalised recommendations