2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0040-1951(01)00188-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Composition and density model of the continental crust at an active continental margin—the Central Andes between 21° and 27°S

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
99
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 151 publications
(111 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
11
99
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The fit represents a reasonable approximation to the findings by Lucassen et al (2001) and Kösters (1999) as well as the 1s upper bound of the data from Equation 3.…”
Section: Crustsupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The fit represents a reasonable approximation to the findings by Lucassen et al (2001) and Kösters (1999) as well as the 1s upper bound of the data from Equation 3.…”
Section: Crustsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…In order to convert the 3D mechanical data for parameterization of the solid mechanics to the 2D axisymmetric models, we use a third-order polynomial fit to the density data calculated in Equation 3, the mineralogically derived densities presented in Lucassen et al (2001), and the density model reported in Kösters (1999). The resultant fit (Fig.…”
Section: Crustmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The upper crust is constructed of Mesozoic igneous and marine sedimentary rocks, Cretaceous continental volcaniclastic rocks and Miocene-to-Holocene volcanic rocks (Lucassen et al 2001). Feeley and Hacker (1995) have suggested that the upper 20 km of crust are dominated by granitoid plutons that intrude Mesozoic sedimentary rocks and that these plutons are likely to be comagmatic with the recent volcanism in the CVZ.…”
Section: Central Volcanic Zonementioning
confidence: 99%
“…7(d). Although the differences range from −32 m to +52 m, larger differences occur only in isolated locations (maximum values in the Andes region), which is also documented by the rather low RMS-fit of ±3.6 m. The reason for the regional geoid anomaly in the Andes can be explained by sudden geoid height changes due to the presence of three different mass layers at three different depth levels that combine to produce the total regional geoid anomaly (Bowin, 2000;Lucassen et al, 2001;Tassara et al, 2006). Based on the constant density assumption for this particular layer, it was not possible to model this geoid anomaly properly, although the modelled mass elements reach the maximum user-defined thickness of 100 kilometres in this area.…”
Section: The Optimised Segmmentioning
confidence: 94%