Advertisement

Inverse Model Approach for vertical Load Deformations in Consideration of Crustal Inhomogeneities

  • Florian SeitzEmail author
  • Manuela Krügel
Chapter
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 134)

Abstract

Mass redistributions in various components of the Earth system exert time-variable surface loads on the solid Earth. The resulting variations of the Earth’s geometry are reflected by vertical and horizontal displacements of geodetic markers. Usually the effect of loading on crustal deformation is computed by means of a weighting function which is based on site-independent load Love numbers (Green’s function). But as the Earth’s crust is composed of heterogeneous material, the adequateness of a site-independent approach deserves a review. We propose a procedure for the computation of vertical crustal deformations in which the Green’s function is substituted by a site-dependent exponential function. Its parameters are estimated by means of least-squares adjustment using time series of globally distributed GPS sites. On the basis of the crustal model Crust2.0 regions are predefined for which identical parameters are determined. Pressure fields of atmosphere, continentalhydrosphere and oceans are considered as forcing. In order to validate the numerical results, model time series from both the traditional and the site-dependent approach are compared with GPS observations. Explicit improvement is achieved in regions which are covered well with observations and feature strong pressure variability. However in regions like Africa and Antarctica parameter estimation is difficult due to the sparse distribution of GPS sites.

Keywords

Inverse model vertical site displacements surfaceloading Green’sfunction GPS 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bassin C, Laske G, Masters G (2000): Thecurrentlimits of resolution for surface wave tomography in North America. EOS Trans AGU 81: F897Google Scholar
  2. Brzezinski A, Bizouard C, Petrov SD (2002): InInfluence of the atmosphere on earth rotation: What can be learned from the recent atmospheric angular momentum estimates?. Surveys in Geophysics 23: 3369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chao BF, Au AY (1991): Temporal variation ofEarth’s zonalgravitational field causedby atmosphericmass redistribution: 1980-1988. J Geophys Res 96(B4): 6569-6575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen JL, Wilson CR, Chao BF, et al. (2000): Hydrological and oceanic excitations to polar motion and length-of-day variations. Geophys J Int 141: 149156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dziewonski AM, Anderson DL (1981): PreliminaryReference Earth model (PREM). Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 25:297-356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farrell W (1972): DeformationoftheEarthby surface loads. Rev Geophys Space Phys 10: 761-797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fukumori I (2002): A partitioned Kalman filter and smoother. Mon. Weather Rev. 130: 1370-1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gross RS, Fukimori I, Menemenlis D (2003): Atmospheric and oceanic excitation of the Earth’s wobbles during 1980-2000. J Geophys Res 108: doi:10.1029/2002JB002143Google Scholar
  9. Kalnay E, Kanamitsu M, Kistler R, et al. (1996): The NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77: 437-471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lambeck K (1980): The Earth’s Variable Rotation: Geophysical Causes and Consequences. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Meisel B, Angermann D, Krüugel M, et al. (2005): Refined approaches for terrestrial referenceframe computations. Advances in Space Research 36: 350-357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moritz H, Mueller II (1987): Earth Rotation: Theory and Observation. Ungar Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Milly PC, Shmakin AB (2002): Global modeling ofland water and energy balances. Part I: The land dynamics (LaD) model. Journal of Hydrometeorology 3(3): 283-299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rabbel W, Zschau J (1985): Static deformations and gravity changes at the Earth’s surface due to atmospheric loading. J Geophysics 56: 81-99Google Scholar
  15. Schuh H, Estermann G, Crétaux JF, van Dam TM, Bergé-Nguyen M (2004): Investigation of hydrological and atmospheric loading by space geodetic techniques. In: Hwang C, Shum CK, Li JC (eds) Satellite Altimetry for Geodesy, Geophysics and Oceanography, IAG Symposia 126, Springer, Berlin, pp 123-132Google Scholar
  16. Scherneck HG (1990): LoadingGreen’sfunctionsfor a continental shield with a Q-structure for the mantle and density constraints from the geoid. Bulletin d’Information Marées Terrestres 108: 7757-7792Google Scholar
  17. Seitz F (2005): Atmospheric and oceanicin influences on polar motion -Numerical results from two independent model combinations. Artificial Satellites 40(3): 199-215Google Scholar
  18. Sun HP, Ducarme B, Dehant V (1995): Effect of the atmospheric pressure on surface displacements. J Geodesy 70: 131-139CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Earth Oriented Space Science and Technology (ESPACE)Technische Universität MüunchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Deutsches Geodätisches Forschungsinstitut (DGFI)MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations