Geophysics Case Study: India, the Himalayas and Tibet

  • Upload
    a

  • View
    215

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/23/2019 Geophysics Case Study: India, the Himalayas and Tibet

    1/7

  • 7/23/2019 Geophysics Case Study: India, the Himalayas and Tibet

    2/7

    g

    2 l 7

    (l 7)/5

  • 7/23/2019 Geophysics Case Study: India, the Himalayas and Tibet

    3/7

    10 106

    Time (sec)

    Vp=8.1Vs=4.67

    Ps

    Dire

    ctP

    PsSms

    PsPms,Pp

    Sms,P

    sSmp

    Pp

    Pmp

    Pp

    Pms,Pp

    Smp,PsP

    mp

    Vp=6.0Vs=3.46

    33 Km

    35Km

    P waveS wave

    Direct P

    Ps

    PpS sm

    PpP sm PsS s

    m

    PsP sm

    Surface

    Moho

    adial receiver

    function

    Ps

    PpPms PpSms + PsPms

  • 7/23/2019 Geophysics Case Study: India, the Himalayas and Tibet

    4/7

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    Depth(km)

    0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750

    Distance along section (km)

    33.23.4

    3.4

    3.4

    3.63.8

    44.2

    4.4

    0

    5

    Elv(km)

    C1 C2

    ou orKKFBNS

    STD IZSMCTMFTMBTLhasa TerraneTHHimalayasIndian Foreland Basin

    2 .0 2 .2 2 .4 2 .6 2 .8 3 .0 3 .2 3 .4 3 .6 3 .8 4 .0 4 .2 4 .4 4 .6 4 .8 5 .0

    km/s

  • 7/23/2019 Geophysics Case Study: India, the Himalayas and Tibet

    5/7

    crust

    upper mantle

    surface

    Moho

    Sn Sn

    Sn

    Sn Sn

    Sn Sn Sn

  • 7/23/2019 Geophysics Case Study: India, the Himalayas and Tibet

    6/7

    seismographs

    earthquake

    76

    76

    80

    80

    84

    84

    88

    88

    92

    92

    96

    96

    100

    100

    28 28

    32 32

    36 36

    40 40

    76

    76

    80

    80

    84

    84

    88

    88

    92

    92

    96

    96

    100

    100

    28 28

    32 32

    36 36

    40 40

    76

    76

    80

    80

    84

    84

    88

    88

    92

    92

    96

    96

    100

    100

    28 28

    32 32

    36 36

    40 40

    76

    76

    80

    80

    84

    84

    88

    88

    92

    92

    96

    96

    100

    100

    28 28

    32 32

    36 36

    40 40

    76

    76

    80

    80

    84

    84

    88

    88

    92

    92

    96

    96

    100

    100

    28 28

    32 32

    36 36

    40 40

    76

    76

    80

    80

    84

    84

    88

    88

    92

    92

    96

    96

    100

    100

    28 28

    32 32

    36 36

    40 40

    76

    76

    80

    80

    84

    84

    88

    88

    92

    92

    96

    96

    100

    100

    28 28

    32 32

    36 36

    40 40

    76

    76

    80

    80

    84

    84

    88

    88

    92

    92

    96

    96

    100

    100

    28 28

    32 32

    36 36

    40 40

    A

    A

    B

    B

    C

    C

    AA XC (1991), XR (1994), X4 (20072009)BB XR (19981999)

    CC XF (20022005)

    A A

    BBC C

  • 7/23/2019 Geophysics Case Study: India, the Himalayas and Tibet

    7/7

    1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

    0

    50

    100

    150

    200

    250

    150.

    90. 60.

    40. 20. 10. 0.

    Temperature, deg C

    Depth,

    km

    0.

    40.

    80.

    120.

    160.

    200.

    240.

    1400

    1150

    900

    650

    400

    150

    0. 20. 40. 60. 80. 100. 120. 140.

    Age, Ma

    Depth,

    km

    Tempera

    ture(C)

    o

    Temperature ( C)o

    Depth(km)

    De

    pth(km)

    (a)

    (b)

    (c)

    Age (Ma)

    by thrusting (2x)

    crustal thickening

    crust

    lithospheric

    mantle

    Thermal evolution of the lithosphere