Home

Footer

DeepDyve Logo
FacebookTwitter

Features

  • Search and discover articles on DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar
  • Read the full-text of open access and premium content
  • Organize articles with folders and bookmarks
  • Collaborate on and share articles and folders

Info

  • Pricing
  • Enterprise Plans
  • Browse Journals & Topics
  • About DeepDyve

Help

  • Help
  • Publishers
  • Contact Us

Popular Topics

  • COVID-19
  • Climate Change
  • Biopharmaceuticals
Terms |
Privacy |
Security |
Help |
Enterprise Plans |
Contact Us

Select data courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

© 2023 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.

Geophysical Journal International

Subject:
Geochemistry and Petrology
Publisher:
The Royal Astronomical Society —
Oxford University Press
ISSN:
0956-540X
Scimago Journal Rank:
180

2023

Volume 235
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Sep)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 234
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Mar)
Volume 233
Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

2022

Volume 234
Issue 1 (Dec)
Volume 233
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Dec)
Volume 232
Issue 3 (Nov)Issue 2 (Sep)Issue 1 (Aug)
Volume 231
Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (May)
Volume 230
Issue 3 (Apr)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Feb)
Volume 229
Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

2021

Volume Advance Article
JuneMay
Volume 229
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Nov)
Volume 228
Issue 3 (Nov)Issue 2 (Sep)Issue 1 (Aug)
Volume 227
Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Jul)Issue 1 (Aug)
Volume 226
Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Mar)
Volume 225
Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)
Volume 224
Issue 3 (Jan)

2020

Volume Advance Article
SeptemberAugustJulyJuneApril
Volume 2020
SeptemberJuneMayMarchJanuaryIssue 2007 (Jul)Issue 2005 (May)Issue 2003 (Mar)
Volume 226
Issue 1 (Nov)
Volume 225
Issue 3 (Nov)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Dec)
Volume 224
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Nov)
Volume 223
Issue 3 (Oct)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 222
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 221
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 220
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)

2019

Volume Advance Article
DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary
Volume 2019
DecemberSeptemberIssue 1907 (Jul)Issue 1904 (Apr)Issue 1903 (Mar)Issue 1902 (Feb)
Volume 220
Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 219
Supplement 1 (Oct)Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 218
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 217
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 216
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2018

Volume Advance Article
DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchIssue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jun)
Volume 2018
Issue 1810 (Oct)Issue 1803 (Mar)
Volume 215
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Jul)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 214
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 213
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 212
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2017

Volume Advance Article
November
Volume 2020
Issue 1801 (Dec)
Volume 211
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 210
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 209
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 208
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2016

Volume 208
Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 207
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 206
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 205
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Feb)
Volume 204
Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

2015

Volume 204
Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Nov)
Volume 203
Issue 3 (Oct)Issue 2 (Sep)Issue 1 (Aug)
Volume 202
Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (May)
Volume 201
Issue 3 (Apr)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Feb)
Volume 200
Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

2014

Volume 200
Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Nov)
Volume 199
Issue 3 (Oct)Issue 2 (Sep)Issue 1 (Aug)
Volume 198
Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (May)
Volume 197
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 196
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2013

Volume 195
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 194
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 193
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 192
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2012

Volume Advance Article
April
Volume 191
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 190
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 189
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 188
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2011

Volume Advance Article
April
Volume 187
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 186
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 185
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 184
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2010

Volume 183
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 182
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 181
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 180
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2009

Volume 179
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 178
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 177
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 176
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2008

Volume 2008
September
Volume 175
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 174
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 173
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 172
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2007

Volume 171
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 170
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 169
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 168
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2006

Volume 167
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 166
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 165
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 164
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2005

Volume 163
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 162
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 161
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 160
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2004

Volume 2004
February
Volume 159
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 158
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 157
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 156
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2003

Volume Advance Article
March
Volume 155
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 154
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 153
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 152
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2002

Volume 2002
August
Volume 151
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 150
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 149
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 148
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2001

Volume 147
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Sep)
Volume 146
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 145
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 144
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2000

Volume 143
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 142
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 141
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 140
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1999

Volume 139
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 138
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 137
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 136
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1998

Volume 135
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 134
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 133
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 132
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1997

Volume 131
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 130
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 129
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 128
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1996

Volume 127
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 126
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 125
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 124
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1995

Volume 123
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 122
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Sep)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 121
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 120
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1994

Volume 119
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 118
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 117
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 116
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1993

Volume 115
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 114
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 113
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 112
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1992

Volume 111
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 110
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 109
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 108
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1991

Volume 107
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 106
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 105
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 104
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1990

Volume 103
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 102
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 101
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 100
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1989

Volume 99
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 98
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 97
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 96
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1988

Volume 95
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 94
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 93
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 92
Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1987

Volume 91
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 90
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 89
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 88
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1986

Volume 87
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 86
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 85
Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 84
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1985

Volume 83
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 82
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 81
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 80
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1984

Volume 79
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 78
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 77
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 76
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1983

Volume 75
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 74
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 73
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 72
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1982

Volume 71
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 70
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 69
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 68
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1981

Volume 66
Issue 3 (Sep)
Volume 65
Issue 3 (Jun)
Volume 64
Issue 3 (Mar)

1980

Volume 63
Issue 3 (Dec)
Volume 62
Issue 3 (Sep)
Volume 61
Issue 3 (Jun)
Volume 60
Issue 3 (Mar)

1979

Volume 59
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 58
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 57
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 56
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1978

Volume 55
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 54
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 53
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 52
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1977

Volume 51
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 50
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 49
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 48
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1976

Volume 47
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 46
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 45
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 44
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1975

Volume 43
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 42
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 41
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 40
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1974

Volume 39
Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 38
Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 37
Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Apr)
Volume 36
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1973

Volume 35
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 1-3 (Dec)
Volume 34
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Nov)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 33
Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jul)
Volume 32
Issue 4 (Jun)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Mar)
Volume 31
Issue 4 (Mar)

1972

Volume 31
Issue 1-3 (Dec)
Volume 30
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Nov)
Volume 29
Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Aug)
Volume 28
Issue 5 (Jun)Issue 4 (Jun)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (May)
Volume 27
Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (May)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (May)
Volume 26
Issue 5 (Apr)

1971

Volume 26
Issue 1-4 (Dec)
Volume 25
Issue 5 (Dec)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 1-3 (Dec)
Volume 24
Issue 5 (Dec)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Nov)Issue 2 (Oct)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 23
Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Sep)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jun)
Volume 22
Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1970

Volume 21
Issue 5 (Dec)Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Oct)
Volume 20
Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Sep)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (Aug)Issue 1 (Jun)
Volume 19
Issue 5 (Jun)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1969

Volume 18
Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Nov)Issue 2 (Oct)Issue 1 (Sep)
Volume 17
Issue 5 (Jul)Issue 4 (May)Issue 3 (Apr)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

1968

Volume 16
Issue 5 (Dec)Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Oct)Issue 2 (Oct)Issue 1 (Sep)
Volume 15
Issue 5 (Aug)Issue 4 (Jun)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 1-2 (Jun)

1967

Volume 14
Issue 1-4 (Nov)
Volume 13
Issue 4 (Sep)
Volume 12
Issue 5 (Jun)Issue 2 (Jan)

1966

Volume 12
Issue 1 (Nov)
Volume 11
Issue 3 (Nov)Issue 1 (Sep)

1965

Volume 9
Issue 2-3 (Feb)

1963

Volume 8
Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Sep)
Volume 7
Issue 4 (May)Issue 3 (Feb)

1962

Volume 7
Issue 1 (Sep)
Volume 6
Issue 4 (May)Issue 3 (Apr)Issue 2 (Feb)

1961

Volume 6
Issue 1 (Dec)
Volume 5
Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (Jul)Issue 1 (Jun)
Volume 4
Supplement 1 (Dec)

1960

Volume 3
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1959

Volume 2
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1958

Volume 1
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

0033

Volume Advance Article
February

0032

Volume Advance Article
February

0031

Volume Advance Article
February

0028

Volume Advance Article
February

0020

Volume Advance Article
February

0019

Volume 0019
January

0011

Volume Advance Article
February
journal article
LitStream Collection
High-resolution resistivity imaging of marine gas hydrate structures by combined inversion of CSEM towed and ocean-bottom receiver data

Attias, Eric;Weitemeyer, Karen;Hölz, Sebastian;Naif, Samer;Minshull, Tim A;Best, Angus I;Haroon, Amir;Jegen-Kulcsar, Marion;Berndt, Christian

2018 Geophysical Journal International

doi: 10.1093/gji/ggy227

Summary We present high-resolution resistivity imaging of gas hydrate pipe-like structures, as derived from marine controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) inversions that combine towed and ocean-bottom electric field receiver data, acquired from the Nyegga region, offshore Norway. Two-dimensional CSEM inversions applied to the towed receiver data detected four new prominent vertical resistive features that are likely gas hydrate structures, located in proximity to a major gas hydrate pipe-like structure, known as the CNE03 pockmark. The resistivity model resulting from the CSEM data inversion resolved the CNE03 hydrate structure in high resolution, as inferred by comparison to seismically constrained inversions. Our results indicate that shallow gas hydrate vertical features can be delineated effectively by inverting both ocean-bottom and towed receiver CSEM data simultaneously. The approach applied here can be utilised to map and monitor seafloor mineralisation, freshwater reservoirs, CO2 sequestration sites and near-surface geothermal systems. CSEM, Gas and hydrate systems, Simultaneous inversion, Tomography © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Mach wave properties in the presence of source and medium heterogeneity

Vyas, J C;Mai, P M;Galis, M;Dunham, Eric M;Imperatori, W

2018 Geophysical Journal International

doi: 10.1093/gji/ggy219

Summary We investigate Mach wave coherence for kinematic supershear ruptures with spatially heterogeneous source parameters, embedded in 3D scattering media. We assess Mach wave coherence considering: 1) source heterogeneities in terms of variations in slip, rise time and rupture speed; 2) small-scale heterogeneities in Earth structure, parameterized from combinations of three correlation lengths and two standard deviations (assuming von Karman power spectral density with fixed Hurst exponent); and 3) joint effects of source and medium heterogeneities. Ground-motion simulations are conducted using a generalized finite-difference method, choosing a parameterization such that the highest resolved frequency is ∼5 Hz. We discover that Mach wave coherence is slightly diminished at near fault distances (< 10 km) due to spatially variable slip and rise time; beyond this distance the Mach wave coherence is more strongly reduced by wavefield scattering due to small-scale heterogeneities in Earth structure. Based on our numerical simulations and theoretical considerations we demonstrate that the standard deviation of medium heterogeneities controls the wavefield scattering, rather than the correlation length. In addition, we find that peak ground accelerations in the case of combined source and medium heterogeneities are consistent with empirical ground motion prediction equations for all distances, suggesting that in nature ground shaking amplitudes for supershear ruptures may not be elevated due to complexities in the rupture process and seismic wave-scattering. Mach wave, Kinematic rupture, 3D scattering media, Ground motion prediction equations © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Directly Estimating Earthquake Rupture Area using Second Moments to Reduce the Uncertainty in Stress Drop

McGuire, Jeffrey J;Kaneko, Yoshihiro

2018 Geophysical Journal International

doi: 10.1093/gji/ggy201

Abstract The key kinematic earthquake source parameters: rupture velocity, duration and area, shed light on earthquake dynamics, provide direct constraints on stress-drop, and have implications for seismic hazard. However, for moderate and small earthquakes, these parameters are usually poorly constrained due to limitations of the standard analysis methods. Numerical experiments by Kaneko and Shearer [2014,2015] demonstrated that standard spectral fitting techniques can lead to roughly 1 order of magnitude variation in stress-drop estimates that do not reflect the actual rupture properties even for simple crack models. We utilize these models to explore an alternative approach where we estimate the rupture area directly. For the suite of models, the area averaged static stress drop is nearly constant for models with the same underlying friction law, yet corner frequency based stress-drop estimates vary by a factor of 5-10 even for noise free data. Alternatively, we simulated inversions for the rupture area as parameterized by the second moments of the slip distribution. A natural estimate for the rupture area derived from the second moments is A=πLcWc, where Lc and Wc are the characteristic rupture length and width. This definition yields estimates of stress drop that vary by only 10% between the models but are slightly larger than the true area-averaged values. We simulate inversions for the second moments for the various models and find that the area can be estimated well when there are at least 15 available measurements of apparent duration at a variety of take-off angles. The improvement compared to azimuthally-averaged corner-frequency based approaches results from the second moments accounting for directivity and removing the assumption of a circular rupture area, both of which bias the standard approach. We also develop a new method that determines the minimum and maximum values of rupture area that are consistent with a particular dataset at the 95% confidence level. For the Kaneko and Shearer models with 20+ randomly distributed observations and ∼10% noise levels, we find that the maximum and minimum bounds on rupture area typically vary by a factor of two and that the minimum stress drop is often more tightly constrained than the maximum. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)
journal article
LitStream Collection
S-wave attenuation of the shallow sediments in the North China basin based on borehole seismograms of local earthquakes

Wang, Sheng;Li, Zhiwei

2018 Geophysical Journal International

doi: 10.1093/gji/ggy223

Summary S-wave velocity and attenuation structures of shallow sediments play important roles in accurate prediction of strong ground motion. However, it is more difficult to investigate the attenuation than velocity structures. In this study, we developed a new approach for estimating frequency-dependent S-wave attenuation ($$Q_S^{ - 1}$$) structures of shallow sediments based on multiple time window analysis of borehole seismograms from local earthquakes. Multiple time windows for separating direct and surface-reflected S-waves in local earthquake waveforms at borehole stations are selected with a global optimization scheme. With respect to different time windows, the transfer functions between direct and surface-reflected S-waves are achieved with a weighted averaging scheme, based on which frequency dependent $$Q_S^{ - 1}$$ values are obtained. Synthetic tests suggest that the proposed method can restore robust and reliable$$Q_S^{ - 1}$$ values, especially when the dataset of local earthquakes is not abundant. We utilize this method for local earthquake waveforms at 14 borehole seismic stations in the North China basin, and obtain $$Q_S^{ - 1}$$ values in 2 ∼ 10 Hz frequency band, as well as average $${V_P}$$, $${V_S}$$ and $${V_P}/{\rm{\;}}{V_S}$$ ratio for shallow sediments deep to a few hundred meters. Results suggest that $$Q_S^{ - 1}$$ values are to 0.01∼0.06, and generally decrease with frequency. The average attenuation structure of shallow sediments within the depth of a few hundred meters beneath 14 borehole stations in the North China basin can be modeled as $$Q_S^{ - 1} = 0.056{f^{ - 0.61}}$$. It is generally consistent with the attenuation structure of sedimentary basins in other areas, such as Mississippi Embayment sediments in the United States and Sendai basin in Japan. Seismic attenuation, Earthquake ground motions, Sedimentary basin processes, Time series analysis © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Focal mechanism determination for induced seismicity using the neighbourhood algorithm

Tan, Yuyang;Zhang, Haijiang;Li, Junlun;Yin, Chen;Wu, Furong

2018 Geophysical Journal International

doi: 10.1093/gji/ggy224

Summary Induced seismicity is widely detected during hydraulic fracture stimulation. To better understand the fracturing process, a thorough knowledge of the source mechanism is required. In this study, we develop a new method to determine the focal mechanism for induced seismicity. Three misfit functions are used in our method to measure the differences between observed and modeled data from different aspects, including the waveform, P wave polarity and S/P amplitude ratio. We minimize these misfit functions simultaneously using the neighbourhood algorithm. Through synthetic data tests, we show the ability of our method to yield reliable focal mechanism solutions and study the effect of velocity inaccuracy and location error on the solutions. To mitigate the impact of the uncertainties, we develop a joint inversion method to find the optimal source depth and focal mechanism simultaneously. Using the proposed method, we determine the focal mechanisms of 40 stimulation induced seismic events in an oil/gas field in Oman. By investigating the results, we find that the reactivation of pre-existing faults is the main cause of the induced seismicity in the monitored area. Other observations obtained from the focal mechanism solutions are also consistent with earlier studies in the same area. Induced seismicity, Downhole method, Waveform inversion © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Gravity interpretation to image the geologic structures of the coastal zone in Al Qunfudhah area, southwest Saudi Arabia

Sulaiman, Aseem;Elawadi, Eslam;Mogren, Saad

2018 Geophysical Journal International

doi: 10.1093/gji/ggy220

Abstract This study provides interpretation and modeling of gravity survey data to map the subsurface basement relief and controlling structures of a coastal area in the southwestern part of Saudi Arabia as an aid to groundwater potential assessment. The gravity survey data were filtered and analyzed using different edge detection and depth estimation techniques and concluded by 2-D modeling conducted along representative profiles to obtain the topography and depth variations of the basement surface in the area. The basement rocks are exposed in the eastern part of the area but dip westward beneath a sedimentary cover to depths of up to 2200 m in the west, while showing repeated topographic expressions related to a tilted fault-block structure that is dominant in the Red Sea rift zone. Two fault systems were recognized in the area. The first is a normal fault system trending in the NNW–SSE direction that is related to the Red Sea rift, and the second is a cross-cutting oblique fault system trending in the NE–SW direction. The interaction between these two fault systems resulted in the formation of a set of closed basins elongated in the NNW–SSE direction and terminated by the NE–SW fault system. The geomorphology and sedimentary sequences of these basins qualify them as potential regions of groundwater accumulation. Numerical modelling, Gravity anomalies and Earth structure, Structure of the Earth © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Wave propagation modelling of induced earthquakes at the Groningen gas production site

Paap, Bob;Kraaijpoel, Dirk;Bakker, Marcel;Gharti, Hom Nath

2018 Geophysical Journal International

doi: 10.1093/gji/ggy225

Summary Gas extraction from the Groningen natural gas field, situated in the Netherlands, frequently induces earthquakes in the reservoir that cause damage to buildings and pose a safety hazard and a nuisance to the local population. Due to the dependence of the national heating infrastructure on Groningen gas, the short-term mitigation measures are mostly limited to a combination of spatiotemporal redistribution of gas production and strengthening measures for buildings. All options become more effective with a better understanding of both source processes and seismic wave propagation. Detailed wave propagation simulations improve both the inference of source processes from observed ground motions and the forecast of ground motions as input for hazard studies and seismic network design. The velocity structure at the Groningen site is relatively complex, including both deep high-velocity and shallow low-velocity deposits showing significant thickness variations over relatively small spatial extents. We performed a detailed three-dimensional wave propagation modelling study for an induced earthquake in the Groningen natural gas field using the spectral-element method. We considered an earthquake that nucleated along a normal fault with local magnitude of $${{\rm{M}}_{\rm{L}}} = 3$$. We created a dense mesh with element size varying from 12 to 96 m, and used a source frequency of 7 Hz, such that frequencies generated during the simulation were accurately sampled up to 10 Hz. The velocity/density model is constructed using a three-dimensional geological model of the area, including both deep high-velocity salt deposits overlying the source region and shallow low-velocity sediments present in a deep but narrow tunnel valley. The results show that the three-dimensional density/velocity model in the Groningen area clearly play a large role in the wave propagation and resulting surface ground motions. The 3d structure results in significant lateral variations in site response. The high-velocity salt deposits have a dispersive effect on the radiated wavefield, reducing the seismic energy reaching the surface near the epicentre. In turn, the presence of low-velocity tunnel valley deposits can locally cause a significant increase in peak ground acceleration. Here we study induced seismicity on a local scale and use SPECFEM3D to conduct full waveform simulations and show how local velocity variations can affect seismic records. Computational seismology, Wave propagation, Induced seismicity, numerical modelling © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Decimetric-resolution stochastic inversion of shallow marine seismic reflection data; dedicated strategy and application to a geohazard case study

Provenzano, Giuseppe;Vardy, Mark E;Henstock, Timothy J

2018 Geophysical Journal International

doi: 10.1093/gji/ggy221

Summary Characterisation of the top 10-50 m of the subseabed is key for landslide hazard assessment, offshore structure engineering design and underground gas-storage monitoring. In this paper, we present a methodology for the stochastic inversion of ultra-high-frequency (UHF, 0.2-4.0 kHz) pre-stack seismic reflection waveforms, designed to obtain a decimetric-resolution remote elastic characterisation of the shallow sediments with minimal pre-processing and little a-priori information. We use a genetic algorithm in which the space of possible solutions is sampled by explicitly decoupling the short and long wavelengths of the P-wave velocity model. This approach, combined with an objective function robust to cycle skipping, outperforms a conventional model parametrisation when the ground-truth is offset from the centre of the search domain. The robust P-wave velocity model is used to precondition the width of the search range of the multi-parameter elastic inversion, thereby improving the efficiency in high dimensional parametrizations. Multiple independent runs provide a set of independent results from which the reproducibility of the solution can be estimated. In a real dataset acquired in Finneidfjord, Norway, we also demonstrate the sensitivity of UHF seismic inversion to shallow subseabed anomalies that play a role in submarine slope stability. Thus, the methodology has the potential to become an important practical tool for marine ground model building in spatially heterogeneous areas, reducing the reliance on expensive and time-consuming coring campaigns for geohazard mitigation in marine areas. Inverse theory, Controlled source seismology, Acoustic properties, Geomechanics © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)
Browse All Journals

Related Journals:

Geochimica et Cosmochimica ActaReviews in Mineralogy and GeochemistryBulletin of VolcanologyMineralogical MagazineClay MineralsGeochemical TransactionsPetrologyCarbonates and EvaporitesActa Geochimica