3.04 Gravimetric Methods – Superconducting Gravity Meters

More documents

Recommendations

Info

100 Superconducting Gravity Meters induce a gravity signal of several tens of nanometers per square second with a dominant beating between an annual term and the 435 day Chandler wobble. We now review some scientific studies in the various period ranges, as discussed in Figure 15. Section 3.04.3.2 deals with the short-period seismic phenomena and other normal modes up to a 1 day period. In Section 3.04.3.3, atmospheric effects on gravity are described while tidal contributions (fluid core resonance effect, linear and nonlinear ocean loading) are discussed in Section 3.04.3.4. Section 3.04.3.5 deals with nontidal ocean loading, hydrology contributions are covered in Section 3.04.3.6, and Section 3.04.3.7 covers Earth rotation and polar motion effects. Section 3.04.3.8 deals with tectonics, and Section 3.04.3.9 considers the problem of the calibration/validation of gravity satellite data with SG ground observations. Finally, Section 3.04.3.10 suggests new projects, especially using SGs in regional arrays. 3.04.3.2 Seismic and Subseismic Signals Investigation with SGs of the seismic normal modes excited by large earthquakes has led to some new and impressive results, due primarily to the low noise levels of SGs at periods longer than 500 s, as indicated in Figure 17 (Rosat et al., 2003a). At periods longer than 1000 s, the best SGs have lower noise than the worldwide seismometer limit NLNM (new low noise model, Peterson, 1993); noisier SG stations cross the NLNM at longer periods (4.2 h for the station Be, for instance). This extensive compilation of all the GGP stations extends earlier results from just a few SG stations but which already were convincing in terms of low noise (Banka and Crossley, 1999; Van Camp, 1999). In addition, metrological comparisons between SGs and broadband seismometers (Freybourger et al., 1997; Hinderer et al., 2002b), as well as between AGs and SGs over a large spectral range (Crossley et al., 2001; Francis et al., 2004), have demonstrated the excellent characteristics of SGs. Of recent large earthquakes, the 2001 Peru event of magnitude M ¼ 8.4 strongly excited the long-period seismic modes, and significant observations were made by the GGP network. In particular, the fully split 0 S 2 multiplet (with five individual singlets), which has been rarely visible on a single instrument, could be fully analyzed from the Strasbourg C026 instrument (Rosat et al., 2003a) but was also present at other SG stations. The most important new result was the detection of the overtone 2 S 1 (see Figure 18), which is an elastic mode, unlike the Slichter triplet 1 S 1 whose PSD relative to 1 (m s –2 ) 2 Hz –1 –130 –140 –150 –160 –170 –180 –190 –200 –210 –220 –230 10 –5 NLNM subseismic seismic 1–6h 1000 s 10 –4 10 –3 Hz Be Bo Br Ca Cb Es Ky Mo Ma Mb Me Po St Su Sy Vi Wu Ba We 10 –2 (CD029) We (T103) Figure 17 Noise levels of the SGs from the GGP network. Reproduced from Rosat S, Hinderer J, Crossley D, and Rivera L (2003a) The search for the Slichter Mode: Comparison of noise levels of superconducting gravimeters and investigation of a stacking method. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 140: 183–202, with permission from Elsevier.
Superconducting Gravity Meters 101 Normalized amplitude (nm s –2 ) 0.10 0.09 2S1 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.30 0.35 0.40 mHz 0S2 0T2 period is determined primarily by a gravitational restoring force. The eigenfunctions of the two modes share some similarities (Rosat et al., 2003b). The detection of this mode strongly benefited from the stacking method proposed by Courtier et al. (2000), also used by Guo et al. (2006), that is applicable to all degree 1 modes with their associated surface gravity changes. The M w ¼ 9.3 Sumatra huge earthquake on 26 December 2004 even more strongly excited the lowfrequency seismic modes and provided a unique opportunity to improve the determination of the period and Q of the gravest seismic modes. An example of the strong signal-to-noise ratio is shown in Figure 19, where all singlets of the spheroidal mode 0 S 3 are visible on the Strasbourg SG (Rosat et al., 2005). We also show the background normal modes of the Earth (frequently referred to as the ‘hum’) that were first discovered in the Syowa, Antarctica, SG record (Nawa et al., 1998), and later seen on other SG records (Nawa et al., 2000; Rosat et al., 2003b; Widmer-Schnidrig, 2003). Figure 20 shows the power spectral density in the frequency band 1.5–5.5 mHz of the gravity data observed in Strasbourg during the period 1997–2001 with SG C026. The spectral peaks of the fundamental spheroidal modes are clearly visible. Rather than selecting periods without earthquakes above a specific magnitude, we used a statistical approach by computing the quartiles of all available gravity data in period of study. The discovery of the hum has generated numerous studies in observational seismology and also led 0S3 0.45 0.50 Figure 18 Normalized amplitude spectrum (in nm s 2 )in the frequency band 0.3–0.5 mHz after the M w ¼ 8.4 Peru event exhibiting the triplet of the 2 S 1 mode. Reproduced from Rosat S, Rogister Y, Crossley D, and Hinderer J (2006) A search for the Slichter triplet with superconducting gravimeters: Impact on the density jump at the inner core boundary. Journal of Geodynamics 41: 296–306, with permission from Elsevier. Amplitude (nm s –2 ) 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 Strasbourg, SG C026 (888 h, 1 min) 0 S 3 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 1 nano Gal 0.00 0.450 0.455 0.460 0.465 0.470 0.475 0.480 0.485 Frequency (mHz) Figure 19 Observation of the well-resolved singlets of 0 S 3 at Strasbourg using 888 h of data after the 2004 Sumatra earthquake of magnitude M ¼ 9.3. The singlet m ¼ 0 was not excited at Strasbourg. Reproduced from Rosat S, Sato T, Imanishi Y, et al. (2005) High-resolution analysis of the gravest seismic normal modes after the 2004 M w ¼ 9 Sumatra earthquake using superconducting gravimeter data. Geophysical Research Letters 32: L13304 (doi:10.1029/2005GL023128), with permission from Elsevier. to theoretical arguments suggesting that the preferred excitation mechanism is not earthquakes, but rather the atmosphere (Lognonné et al., 1998; Kobayashi and Nishida, 1998; Nishida and Kobayashi, 1999; Nishida et al., 2000, 2002; Suda et al., 1998; Tanimoto et al., 1998; Tanimoto and Um, 1999; Roult and Crawford, 2000). Two recent array-based studies in seismology, however, suggest an alternative explanation in terms of interactions between the atmosphere, the oceans, and the seafloor in case of stormy weather (Rhie and Romanowitz, 2004; Tanimoto, 2005). One major goal of GGP was to detect the translational motion of the solid inner core (the Slichter triplet 1 S 1 ), because knowing its period(s) would bring a new constraint on the density contrast at the ICB (Rosat et al., 2006) and possibly also on viscosity just above the ICB (Smylie et al., 2001). We do not review here previous studies and controversies on the theoretical issues in modeling this eigenmode, nor different claims for detection and counter studies; instead, we refer the reader to the review in Hinderer et al. (1995). It is, however, worth showing the current status of the search. For example, in Figure 21 (Rosat et al., 2004), we see that there is obviously no clear observational evidence in this stacking of SG data of any of the theoretically predicted triplets. Evidently, many spectral peaks may emerge slightly above the background level of 0.01 nm s 2 , but as pointed out by
Page 1 and 2: 3.04 Gravimetric Methods - Supercon
Page 3 and 4: Superconducting Gravity Meters 67 a
Page 5 and 6: Superconducting Gravity Meters 69 F
Page 7 and 8: Superconducting Gravity Meters 71 a
Page 9 and 10: Superconducting Gravity Meters 73 p
Page 11 and 12: Superconducting Gravity Meters 75 T
Page 13 and 14: Superconducting Gravity Meters 77 G
Page 17 and 18: Superconducting Gravity Meters 81 A
Page 21 and 22: Superconducting Gravity Meters 85 (
Page 25 and 26: Superconducting Gravity Meters 89 3
Page 27 and 28: Superconducting Gravity Meters 91 c
Page 29 and 30: Superconducting Gravity Meters 93 t
Page 33 and 34: Superconducting Gravity Meters 97 t
Page 35: Superconducting Gravity Meters 99 t
Page 39 and 40: Superconducting Gravity Meters 103

3.04 Gravimetric Methods – Superconducting Gravity Meters

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?