Difference between revisions of "CVM Improvement"
(Created page with 'There is interest in whether CVM-S and CVM-H models are converging through full 3D tomography work of Chen and Tape. To look into this issue, we propose a plan to compare the mo…') |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | To investigate whether CVM-S and CVM-H models are converging through the full 3D tomography [[F3DT]] work of Chen and Tape, we will compare a southern California region down to 100km depth (see kml file below for exact coordinates) using both models, because both models provide Vp, Vs, and density (rho) for this region. At 1km spacing, with the area approximately 200km x 300km x 100km = 6,000,000 mesh points. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
We will use UCVM software to extract low resolutions (1km) meshes using CVM-S4 and CVM-SI9. | We will use UCVM software to extract low resolutions (1km) meshes using CVM-S4 and CVM-SI9. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 5: | ||
For each parameter Vp, Vs, and density, we will create difference meshes, then plot slices and possibly volumes. | For each parameter Vp, Vs, and density, we will create difference meshes, then plot slices and possibly volumes. | ||
| − | + | The CVM-H release notes say that version 5.5 (Sept 2008) was the last version of CVM-H without Carl Tape inversion results. It also says that CVM-H 6.0 was the first with Tape inversion results. We propose to use these two versions (if we can find a distribution of them) of CVM-H as the starting and improved models. This assumes we only want to examine inversion improvements. CVM-H has also recently added a basin based on a Graves paper. This is a CVM-H improvement, but not based on tomographic results. | |
| − | We also make a difference meshes between CVM-S4 and CVM-H 5.5 starting models and CVM-SI9 and CVM-H 6.0 improved models. If the overall difference between CVM-S and CVM-H is | + | We also make a difference meshes between CVM-S4 and CVM-H 5.5 starting models and CVM-SI9 and CVM-H 6.0 improved models. If the overall difference between CVM-S and CVM-H is higher for original models than for the improved models, this provides evidence that the models are converging. |
== UCVM Regions KML File == | == UCVM Regions KML File == | ||
Revision as of 21:55, 20 December 2011
To investigate whether CVM-S and CVM-H models are converging through the full 3D tomography F3DT work of Chen and Tape, we will compare a southern California region down to 100km depth (see kml file below for exact coordinates) using both models, because both models provide Vp, Vs, and density (rho) for this region. At 1km spacing, with the area approximately 200km x 300km x 100km = 6,000,000 mesh points.
We will use UCVM software to extract low resolutions (1km) meshes using CVM-S4 and CVM-SI9.
For each parameter Vp, Vs, and density, we will create difference meshes, then plot slices and possibly volumes.
The CVM-H release notes say that version 5.5 (Sept 2008) was the last version of CVM-H without Carl Tape inversion results. It also says that CVM-H 6.0 was the first with Tape inversion results. We propose to use these two versions (if we can find a distribution of them) of CVM-H as the starting and improved models. This assumes we only want to examine inversion improvements. CVM-H has also recently added a basin based on a Graves paper. This is a CVM-H improvement, but not based on tomographic results.
We also make a difference meshes between CVM-S4 and CVM-H 5.5 starting models and CVM-SI9 and CVM-H 6.0 improved models. If the overall difference between CVM-S and CVM-H is higher for original models than for the improved models, this provides evidence that the models are converging.
UCVM Regions KML File
