Marine geophysical survey in the southwestern Barents Sea

Eldholm, Olav; Ewing, John

doi:10.1029/jb076i017p03832

Cited by 51 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…South of 74.5øN the corresponding equation is V= 1.95 + 0.30z (N = 108). A similar low velocity gradient on the Barents Sea margin has also been noticed byEldholm and Ewing [1971] andHoutz and Windisch [1977].These observations north of 74.5øN indicate that both the sediments overlying oceanic crust and those landward of the…”

supporting

confidence: 80%

Sedimentary and crustal velocities in the Norwegian‐Greenland Sea

Myhre¹,

Eldholm²

1981

J. Geophys. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Refraction and wide‐angle reflection velocities from the oceanic crust and the overlying sediments in the Norwegian‐Greenland Sea have been analyzed. There is a relatively rapid increase in velocity with depth in the uppermost sediments, whereas a low constant gradient is representative of the main sediment sequence. Two regions, the northeastern Greenland Sea and the oldest parts of the basins, have particularly high velocity gradients, 0.71 and 0.85 s−1 respectively. The high gradient in the northeastern Greenland Sea is associated with the shear‐rifted margin off Svalbard. Relatively high sea floor sediment sound velocities are typical of the Norwegian‐Greenland Sea. The crustal velocities fit the Houtz‐Ewing model which divides layer 2 into layers 2A, 2B and 2C. Average velocities in the Norwegian‐Greenland Sea are: 3.88(2A), 5.18(2B), 6.05(2C), 6.66(3), and 7.80(4) km/s. Layer 2A is age dependent and has not been observed on crust older than 36 m.y. The model is not representative of the uppermost crust near the active spreading axis where one has to introduce additional layers or assume continuous velocity changes with depth.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 80%

Sedimentary and crustal velocities in the Norwegian‐Greenland Sea

Myhre¹,

Eldholm²

1981

J. Geophys. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data from about 50 sonobuoys and detailed structure sections from the Barents Sea have already been published [Eldholm and Talwani, 1977;Houtz and Windisch, 1977;Eldholm and Ewing, 1971]. The records used in those studies have been repicked in the present work to yield seafloor head waves and multiple reflections at critical incidence so that the two types of solution can be compared on a one-to-one basis.…”

Section: Critical Reflection Dependence On Frequencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Seafloor and near‐surface sound velocities from Barents Sea sonobuoy data

Houtz¹

1980

J. Geophys. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The uppermost identifiable head waves from the vicinity of the seafloor andgroup velocities developed from multiples of critical reflections are utilized to contour sound velocities from near the floor of the Barents Sea, an area with divergent velocity structures. Where the low‐velocity sediments are 30 to 80 m thick and cap relatively high‐velocity materials, the seafloor sound velocities determined from critical reflections are strongly dependent on frequency. Multiple reflections from thick‐layered sediments, without major velocity discontinuities, are not affected by passbands that vary from 15–40 up to 100–200 Hz. Certain sonobuoy records are compared with wave equation solutions at fluid/solid and solid/solid interfaces modeled from the Barents Sea data. Results indicate that the presence of quite thin sediments (∼30 m), not otherwise detectable, may be required to account for the behavior of p waves from apparently high‐velocity seafloors. Under the fairly restrictive conditions of a fluid/solid interface, shear wave velocities can be estimated from the pattern of reflected p wave energy.

show abstract

“…A large amount of seismic data has been collected for the Vøring margin (Eldholm and Ewing, 1971;Bukovics and Ziegler, 1985;Eldholm and Mutter, 1986;Skogseid and Eldholm, 1989;Planke et al, 1991;Skogseid et al, 1992;Digranes et al, 1996;Brekke, 2000), and several studies have modeled the tectonic evolution of the margin (Skogseid et al, 1992(Skogseid et al, , 2000Reemst and Cloetingh, 2000;Kuznir et al, 2005;Fernandez et al, 2005;Gernigon et al, 2006). It is not straightforward to compare different models of the tectonic evolution of the Vøring margin, because they are based on different assumptions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%