Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Preliminary reference Earth model

The Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) is a one-dimensional, spherically symmetric representation of Earth's average internal structure, providing radial profiles of key physical properties such as compressional-wave velocity (VP), shear-wave velocity (VS), (ρ), and quality factor (Q) as functions of depth from the surface to the center of the planet. Developed in 1981 by seismologists Adam M. Dziewonski and Don L. Anderson, PREM was constructed to serve as a standardized reference for interpreting global seismic data and facilitating comparisons across geophysical studies. It incorporates (azimuthal ) in the uppermost 220 km of to account for observed discrepancies in Love and dispersion, while assuming in the deeper , outer core, and inner core. PREM's development relied on an extensive dataset, including approximately 1,000 normal-mode periods, 500 body-wave travel time summaries, 100 normal-mode Q values, as well as constraints from Earth's total mass and moment of inertia. This was supplemented by over 1.75 million P and S wave travel times from 12 years of International Seismological Centre (ISC) bulletins, enabling a least-squares inversion that fits the data with high precision—typically within 2-4% for upper-mantle velocities. The model divides Earth into distinct layers: an averaged crust approximately 35 km thick (with a discontinuity at 10 km depth), lithosphere (to ~220 km), low-velocity zone (80-220 km), upper mantle transition zone (410-660 km with discontinuities at 410 km and 660 km), lower mantle (to 2,891 km), liquid outer core (2,891-5,150 km), and solid inner core (to 6,371 km). Notably, it features a nearly constant velocity gradient in the lowermost mantle (D'' layer) and a core-mantle boundary at 2,891 km depth, reconciling observations from free oscillations and surface waves. Since its publication, PREM has become the most widely adopted one-dimensional model in , underpinning research in , , and due to its excellent agreement with global travel-time curves (e.g., for epicentral distances of 22°-90°) and its parametric formulation using low-order polynomials for smooth radial variations. It includes frequency-dependent anelastic , allowing velocities to vary slightly with (e.g., 1 Hz reference), and has been instrumental in resolving long-standing debates, such as the of the inner (approximately 1,221 km). Despite refinements in later models like AK135 or IASP91, PREM remains a for forward modeling of propagation and inversion of Earth's heterogeneity.

History and Development

Origins and Motivation

Prior to the development of the Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM), Earth models such as the Jeffreys-Bullen (JB) model from 1940 relied on limited seismic data collected between 1930 and 1939 from sparse global seismometer networks, resulting in travel-time tables that were found to be 2-4 seconds slow compared to more accurate observations. These early models struggled to accommodate the growing volume of high-quality seismic data emerging in the post-World War II era, particularly after the establishment of the World Wide Standardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN) in the , which provided unprecedented coverage and enabled detailed studies of 's interior. By the and , advances in computational led to a proliferation of incompatible radial Earth models, with researchers often mixing properties from different sources, such as Bullen's profiles or Herrin et al.'s travel-time revisions, creating inconsistencies that hindered unified geophysical interpretations. The motivation for PREM arose from the need for a comprehensive, standardized one-dimensional (1D) radial model to integrate diverse observations, including periods, body-wave travel times, (Q values), , and , amid the expansion of global seismic networks and computational capabilities. This unification was essential for consistent applications in , , and astronomy, where discrepancies in prior models complicated the analysis of Earth's elastic properties and density distribution. The model addressed key limitations of isotropic assumptions by incorporating in the upper mantle and anelastic dispersion, providing a to reconcile global data sets and facilitate comparisons across studies. Development of PREM was initiated in the mid-1970s through international collaboration, primarily at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Harvard University, driven by key figures Don L. Anderson and Adam M. Dziewonski. The effort stemmed from a 1971 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) symposium in Moscow on Earth tides, where a Standard Earth Model Committee was formed under K.E. Bullen to establish an internationally adopted reference. Subsequent milestones included the 1973 International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior (IASPEI) meeting in Lima, which renamed it a "reference model" and formed sub-committees; the 1975 IUGG in Grenoble, emphasizing Q values; the 1977 IASPEI in Durham reviewing proposals; the 1978 Caracas meeting presenting an initial Anderson-Dziewonski model using International Seismological Centre (ISC) data; and the 1979 IUGG in Canberra, where an interim model was shared, culminating in the final PREM publication in 1981. As a "preliminary" model, PREM was explicitly designed as an accessible for ongoing refinements, encouraging future iterations based on emerging data while standardizing calculations in geophysical research.

Data Sources and Fitting Process

The construction of the Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) relied on a comprehensive empirical compiled from seismological observations and geophysical constraints. Primary data included approximately 1000 normal-mode periods, which provided insights into Earth's eigenfrequencies across various degrees and orders, derived from free-oscillation analyses following major earthquakes. Additionally, around 500 summary travel-time observations for P and S body waves were incorporated, aggregating phase picks from extensive catalogs such as those from the International Seismological Centre (ISC), encompassing roughly 1.75 × 10^6 individual P and S wave arrivals over 12 years. About 100 normal-mode Q values were used to model attenuation properties, ensuring the model captured anelastic effects in seismic wave propagation. These seismological inputs were supplemented by fundamental geophysical constraints, including Earth's total mass of 5.973 × 10^{24} kg and of 0.3307 MR^2, which anchored the density profile to observed gravitational and rotational properties. The data were primarily sourced from observations of large earthquakes in the and , such as those summarized in travel-time studies by Herrin et al. (1968) and Hales et al. (1968), which utilized events like the 1960 earthquake and subsequent shocks to build robust averages of wave propagation. These summaries focused on body-wave arrivals and surface-wave dispersions, with baseline corrections applied to account for source and receiver effects, enabling a representation of radial . The fitting process employed a least-squares inversion that integrated forward modeling of normal-mode frequencies and body-wave travel times to derive radial profiles of , P-wave (V_P), S-wave (V_S), and (). Iterative adjustments were made to low-order parameterizations of these properties within layers, minimizing residuals between observed and predicted through successive refinements that balanced trade-offs among , , and . Although PREM is fundamentally a radial model, transverse was parameterized up to 220 km depth in the . This methodology ensured a data-driven fit without overparameterization, yielding root-mean-square residuals on the order of a few percent for key observables.

Model Structure

Layering and Discontinuities

The Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) divides the radially into seven primary layers based on seismic observations of and contrasts, extending from the center to the surface at a mean of 6371 . These layers reflect major structural and compositional transitions inferred from seismic , with discontinuities marking sharp changes in physical properties. The model assumes radial symmetry and incorporates an averaged crustal structure rather than distinct or crusts, with a conventional crustal thickness of 24.4 , representing an average adjusted to fit seismic and gravitational , without separate (typically ~7 thick over two-thirds of the surface) or (~35 thick) profiles. The innermost layer is the solid inner core, spanning from the center (0 km) to a radius of 1221.5 km, bounded by the inner-outer core discontinuity where shear wave velocities emerge due to solidification. This boundary, at a depth of approximately 5149.5 km from the surface, signifies a transition from liquid to solid iron-nickel alloy. Adjacent to it lies the liquid outer core, extending from 1221.5 km to 3480 km radius (depth 2891 km), characterized by the absence of shear waves and dominated by . The core-mantle boundary (CMB) at 3480 km radius represents a profound discontinuity, separating the metallic core from the , with significant jumps in and seismic velocities observed in reflected and converted waves. Above the CMB, the lower mantle occupies the region from 3480 km to 5701 km radius (depths 670 km to 2891 km), comprising predominantly bridgmanite and ferropericlase under high pressure. This layer transitions into the mantle transition zone at the 670 km discontinuity (radius 5701 km), a major boundary linked to the ringwoodite to bridgmanite + ferropericlase phase transformation (with possible dehydration effects), causing velocity increases for both P- and S-waves. The transition zone itself spans 5701 km to 5971 km radius (depths 400 km to 670 km), featuring a prominent discontinuity at 400 km depth (radius 5971 km) associated with the olivine to wadsleyite phase transformation, which sharpens P-wave velocities more than S-waves. Further upward, from 5971 km to 6151 km radius (depths 220 km to 400 km), lies a zone of relatively smooth gradients, often considered part of the upper mantle. The uppermost mantle includes the from 6151 km to 6291 km radius (depths approximately 80 km to 220 km), where or anisotropy leads to reduced velocities, though PREM models this with continuous polynomials rather than a sharp break. The follows from 6291 km to 6346.6 km radius (depth about 24.4 km to 80 km), representing the rigid upper layer. Finally, the crust is modeled as a thin explicit layer from 6346.6 km to 6371 km radius (0 to 24.4 km depth), averaging (about 7 km thick, covering two-thirds of the surface) and (about 35 km thick) contributions to yield a global mean of 24.4 km, without separate oceanic or continental profiles. This crustal representation simplifies lateral variations for a , focusing on radial averages. The 220 km discontinuity at radius 6151 km (depth 220 km) marks the base of the and top of the , with PREM incorporating in this region to fit data.
LayerRadius Range (km)Depth Range (km)Key Discontinuity
Inner Core0–1221.55149.5–6371Inner-outer core boundary (1221.5 km radius)
Outer Core1221.5–34802891–5149.5Core-mantle boundary (3480 km radius)
Lower Mantle3480–5701670–2891670 km discontinuity (5701 km radius)
Transition Zone5701–5971400–670400 km discontinuity (5971 km radius)
Upper Mantle (LVZ to Lithosphere)5971–6346.624.4–400220 km discontinuity (6151 km radius)
Crust6346.6–63710–24.4Moho (averaged at 24.4 km depth)

Key Physical Parameters

The Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) provides radial profiles for the primary properties of Earth's interior, including \rho(r), compressional-wave V_p(r), and shear-wave V_s(r), which are parameterized as functions of r from Earth's . These profiles are derived from inversions of seismic travel times, data, and moment tensor solutions, yielding a spherically symmetric model that captures the average structure across major layers. Derived quantities such as P(r), g(r), and K(r) are computed by integrating the primary parameters using equations of and elastic theory, ensuring consistency with observed free-oscillation frequencies. Density \rho(r) exhibits a monotonic increase with depth, reflecting the compression and compositional stratification of Earth's layers, ranging from approximately 13.0 g/cm³ in the inner to 2.9 g/cm³ in the upper crust and 1.0 g/cm³ in the oceans. In the mantle, density rises gradually from about 3.3 g/cm³ in the to 5.6 g/cm³ at the -mantle boundary (CMB), with a sharp discontinuity at the CMB where it jumps to 9.9 g/cm³ in the outer ; within the , it peaks at 12.2 g/cm³ near the inner boundary before stabilizing in the solid inner . V_p(r) shows a similar deepening trend but with notable decreases at fluid- boundaries, starting at 11.0 km/s in the inner , dipping to 8.0 km/s at the top of the outer , and reaching maxima of 13.7 km/s in the lower mantle and 7.8 km/s in the . V_s(r) is zero throughout the liquid outer , approximately 3.5 km/s in the inner , and varies from 4.5 km/s in the to 7.3 km/s in the lower mantle, highlighting the of solid regions. PREM's derived parameters further elucidate the model's physical realism: pressure P(r) accumulates to about 136 GPa at the CMB and 364 GPa at the center, driven by overlying mass; gravity g(r) decreases from 9.8 m/s² at the surface to near zero at the center, with subtle inflections at discontinuities; and bulk modulus K(r) increases from around 100 GPa in the upper mantle to over 300 GPa in the core, indicating rising incompressibility with depth. A distinctive feature of PREM is its inclusion of attenuation profiles, with quality factors Q_\kappa (bulk) averaging 1000–3000 in the mantle and much higher (up to 10,000) in the core, while Q_\mu (shear) is lower at 80–600 in the mantle to account for anelastic dissipation, assuming implicitly adiabatic gradients through the elastic parameterization. These parameters are tabulated at 29 discrete depths, enabling interpolation for radial variations, and exhibit abrupt changes at key boundaries like the CMB, where density jumps by over 4 g/cm³ and V_s drops to zero, underscoring the model's representation of phase transitions and compositional contrasts.
LayerDepth Range (km)\rho (g/cm³)V_p (km/s)V_s (km/s)
Upper Crust0–152.65.83.2
Lower Crust15–24.42.96.83.9
24.4–2203.4–3.57.8–8.14.5–4.7
Transition Zone220–6703.6–4.08.9–10.04.8–5.5
670–28914.4–5.610.2–13.75.8–7.3
Outer Core2891–51539.9–12.28.0–10.40
Inner Core5153–637112.8–13.011.03.5
This table summarizes representative midpoint values for each layer, illustrating the progressive stiffening and densification toward the center.

Mathematical Formulation

Polynomial Parameterization

The Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) employs a piecewise polynomial parameterization to represent the radial profiles of density (ρ), compressional-wave velocity (Vp), and shear-wave velocity (Vs) throughout the Earth's interior. This approach fits each physical property with polynomials of degree up to 5 within individual layers, using the normalized radius x = r / R where R = 6371 km is the Earth's mean radius. The polynomials ensure smooth continuity at layer boundaries except at major discontinuities, such as the core-mantle boundary, allowing for a compact and computationally efficient description of the model. In a given layer spanning normalized radii from x_1 to x_2, a property Q(x) (where Q denotes ρ in g/cm³, Vp or Vs in km/s) is expressed as: Q(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{5} a_k x^k The coefficients a_k are determined empirically to best fit seismological and other geophysical data, with the polynomial degree selected per segment to achieve adequate resolution without overfitting. This formulation applies separately to each of the three primary parameters across the Earth's layered structure, resulting in 29 distinct polynomial segments in total—for instance, higher-degree fits in the mantle to capture gradient variations, and simpler forms in the core. Exact coefficients for all segments are provided in auxiliary tables of the original PREM publication, enabling precise reproduction of the model profiles. This polynomial representation facilitates analytical evaluation of integrals essential for seismological calculations, such as travel times of seismic waves and eigenfrequencies of normal modes, offering advantages over purely tabulated models by reducing numerical errors and improving computational speed. The fitting process draws from a comprehensive of body-wave arrivals, surface-wave , and free-oscillation spectra, as detailed in the model's development.

Derived Quantities and Equations

The profile in the Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) is derived from the equation of , which balances the gravitational force with the : \frac{dP}{dr} = -\rho(r) g(r), where P is , \rho(r) is , and g(r) is at radius r. This is integrated outward from the Earth's center to the surface, yielding P(r) = \int_r^{R_E} \rho(r') g(r') \, dr', where R_E is the Earth's , using the primary profile \rho(r) from PREM's parameterization. The profile g(r) is computed from the cumulative distribution within r, given by g(r) = \frac{[G](/page/G) M(r)}{r^2}, where G is the and M(r) = \int_0^r 4\pi \rho(s) s^2 \, ds is the enclosed by r. This is evaluated layer by layer using PREM's discontinuities and fits, ensuring the total matches the observed value of $5.972 \times 10^{24} kg. The bulk sound velocity V_\phi(r) in PREM represents the speed of compressional waves in a fluid-like medium and is derived from the elastic moduli obtained via seismic velocities: V_\phi(r) = \sqrt{V_p^2(r) - \frac{4}{3} V_s^2(r)}, where V_p(r) and V_s(r) are the P- and S-wave velocities, respectively. Equivalently, V_\phi(r) = \sqrt{\frac{K(r)}{\rho(r)}}, with K(r) = \rho(r) [V_p^2(r) - \frac{4}{3} V_s^2(r)] and \mu(r) = \rho(r) V_s^2(r). PREM incorporates the Adams-Williamson equation to relate gradients to seismic and gravitational parameters under the assumption of hydrostatic and adiabatic equilibrium in chemically homogeneous layers. The equation is \frac{d \ln \rho}{dr} = -\frac{g(r)}{V_\phi^2(r)} \eta, where \eta is the Bullen parameter accounting for deviations from adiabatic compression. In the mantle, PREM assumes a layer condition with \eta = 1, implying the observed gradient follows purely from self-compression without significant compositional variations up to the 670 km discontinuity. To achieve consistency with astronomical observations, PREM adjusts core densities such that the model's I / (M R_E^2) = 0.3307, matching the value derived from and geodetic data within 0.1%. This constraint is enforced during the inversion process by iteratively refining the density profiles in the inner and outer while satisfying and seismic constraints.

Applications and Usage

Seismological Interpretations

The Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) serves as a foundational for analysis in , where it predicts eigenfrequencies for both spheroidal and modes based on its radial parameterization of elastic properties and density. These predictions, derived from inverting approximately 1000 observed periods, enable the computation of residuals between theoretical and observed eigenfrequencies for modes up to angular degree 20, which are then used to invert for lateral heterogeneity, revealing aspherical features such as velocity perturbations on the order of 1-2% in the upper and . In travel time tomography, PREM facilitates the generation of synthetic P- and S-wave travel times through ray tracing algorithms, providing a reference against which global datasets—comprising hundreds of thousands of teleseismic residuals—are compared to map velocity anomalies, such as high-velocity structures near the core-mantle boundary and low-velocity zones in the . For instance, perturbations relative to PREM highlight lateral variations up to 1.5% in P-velocity near the 670 km discontinuity, informing models of and subducting slabs. PREM's integrated Q profiles, obtained from inverting about 100 normal mode quality factors, allow for the modeling of anelastic effects in propagation, particularly influencing the and amplitude decay of body waves and surface waves across frequencies from 0.004 to 1 Hz. These profiles, which show increasing Q with depth in (e.g., Qμ ≈ 112 in the uppermost 400 km), are applied to correct observed waveforms for intrinsic , enabling isolation of lateral variations in that correlate with or compositional anomalies. A key application of PREM lies in interpreting deep earthquakes and slab subduction dynamics through waveform fitting, where synthetic seismograms computed in the PREM structure are matched to observed broadband records to constrain source parameters and rupture properties. For example, in the Hindu Kush region, PREM-based synthetics in the cut-and-paste method reveal focal depths around 210-215 km and slab deformation rates of 10 cm/yr, linking recurring large events (M>7) to sinking slab necking and internal stresses. Similarly, modeling of Pacific slab events uses PREM to delineate fast-velocity cores (∼5% above PREM) with surrounding low-velocity envelopes, elucidating pathways and seismic efficiency at depths exceeding 400 km.

Broader Geophysical Contexts

The Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) provides essential density profiles that underpin geodynamic simulations of , enabling researchers to model the dynamics of thermal plumes and the driving forces behind . In these simulations, PREM's radial density variations serve as a baseline for initializing models, allowing for the incorporation of mineralogical transitions and contrasts that influence convective vigor and slab . For instance, petrological geodynamic models integrate PREM-derived densities to validate pyrolitic compositions against observed seismic structures, demonstrating how buoyancy forces from heterogeneities drive large-scale circulation patterns. In mineral physics, PREM imposes critical constraints on the equations of state (EoS) for dominant lower mantle phases, such as (Mg,Fe)SiO3 perovskite (bridgmanite), by requiring that high-pressure and high-temperature experimental data reproduce the model's density and velocity profiles. Through in situ X-ray diffraction experiments up to 29 GPa and 2000 K, the EoS parameters for MgSiO3 perovskite indicate that the lower mantle's iron content must be approximately 11% (Fe/(Mg+Fe)) to match PREM, with perovskite comprising 67-75% of the mineral assemblage alongside magnesiowüstite. These constraints, derived from Birch-Murnaghan EoS fittings, highlight incompatibilities with iron-poor or iron-rich compositions, guiding interpretations of mantle mineralogy from laboratory data. PREM also extends to planetary science as a terrestrial baseline for constructing interior models of other bodies, including the and Mars, and informing structures. Seismic inversions from Apollo lunar data have produced velocity models compared to PREM-like Earth structures, indicating a in the potentially due to . Mars interior models, informed by PREM as a reference, account for its iron-rich and thinner to predict seismic velocities with ~2% uncertainty, aiding interpretations of core-mantle boundaries; InSight mission data (2018-2022) have yielded 1D seismic models aligning with PREM expectations, refining the core radius to ~1810 km and showing velocities ~5-10% lower than PREM. In modeling, PREM is adjusted for varying masses and solar abundances to predict iron-nickel cores comprising ~30% of rocky planet masses, providing a framework for assessments despite compositional uncertainties. A key application involves perturbing PREM densities to compute anomalies and gravity fields, as validated against satellite observations. Co-seismic modeling of events like the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman uses PREM in compressible, self-gravitating frameworks to predict perturbations up to +2.57 mm and gravity changes of ~19 μGal from volume adjustments, with data confirming asymmetry coefficients around 0.88-2.03 for source depths of 14-18 km. These perturbations, incorporating crustal discontinuities and sea-level feedback, refine dynamic estimates and link internal density variations to surface observables.

Comparisons and Limitations

Relations to Other Reference Models

The International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior (IASPEI) adopted IASP91 in 1991 as a optimized for body-wave travel times, incorporating over 6 million phase arrivals from global data to improve upon earlier models like the Jeffreys-Bullen tables. Unlike PREM, which includes a controversial discontinuity at 220 km depth and radial in the , IASP91 features smoother velocity gradients in the transition zone (with discontinuities at 410 km and 660 km) and lacks the 220 km feature, resulting in better fits to later compilations of travel-time data for location and phase identification. However, PREM remains superior for normal-mode predictions due to its direct fitting to approximately 1000 eigenfrequencies from long-period data, making it preferable for studies involving whole-Earth oscillations. AK135, introduced in 1995, represents a refinement of IASP91 by integrating additional broadband waveform data and differential travel times for core phases like PKP, yielding sharper discontinuities at 410 km and 660 km without the 220 km feature present in PREM. This model provides enhanced resolution in the and , with velocities slightly higher than PREM in the mid-outer core, but it maintains an isotropic structure throughout, contrasting with PREM's anisotropic . PREM's profile, derived via the Adams-Williamson and constrained by the Earth's , continues to serve as the standard for such parameters, even as AK135 excels in body-wave travel-time predictions. As a "preliminary" model from , PREM exhibits key differences from these later refinements, such as differences in shear-wave () in the relative to AK135, reflecting its reliance on long-period data rather than observations. Despite these evolutionary improvements in IASP91 and AK135 for travel-time accuracy and discontinuity sharpness, PREM retains dominance in software packages like Mineos for normal-mode calculations due to its comprehensive inclusion of and . approaches often combine PREM's with AK135's profiles to leverage the strengths of both in geophysical modeling.

Known Shortcomings and Refinements

The globally averaged crustal structure in PREM leads to significant errors in shallow , as it fails to resolve regional variations in and thickness that are critical for accurate modeling of near-surface wave propagation. Similarly, PREM's parameterization of the assumes a smooth minimum without sufficient sharpness at its boundaries, underrepresenting the abrupt transitions observed in high-resolution body-wave . Additionally, PREM exhibits a slight mismatch with modern estimates, particularly in Q values derived from free-oscillation spectra, where updated datasets indicate higher anelasticity in the than PREM's predictions. Refinements to address PREM's isotropic assumptions have included extensions like the anisotropic model developed by Kustowski et al. (2008), which incorporates depth-dependent angular variations in shear-wave velocities to better fit surface-wave dispersion data. For the , parameters such as ξ (the squared ratio of horizontal to vertical shear-wave velocity) and Φ (the squared ratio of horizontal compressional- to vertical shear-wave velocity) have been integrated into updated reference models, allowing more precise representation of radial in the upper 400 km. Specific limitations persist in PREM's depiction of inner core anisotropy, which relies on an overly simplistic uniform cylindrical alignment, ignoring hemispherical variations and longitudinal changes in elastic properties inferred from PKP wave data. Furthermore, as a static snapshot of Earth's interior, PREM does not incorporate density perturbations from , which can modify crustal thicknesses and densities by up to several kilometers in deglaciated regions like and . Looking ahead, refinements emphasize hybrid approaches that integrate PREM's radial profiles with 3D tomographic inversions, such as the SEMUCB-WM1 model, to develop laterally heterogeneous reference Earth models capable of capturing global velocity undulations. Persistent challenges include reconciling PREM's elevated inner density (around 12.2 g/cm³ at the center) with mineral physics constraints, fueling debates on light-element compositions like (∼6 wt%) or (∼0.2–1 wt%) needed to match the observed seismic velocities and density deficit relative to pure iron-nickel alloys.

References

  1. [1]
    Preliminary reference Earth model - ScienceDirect.com
    The Preliminary Reference Earth Model, PREM, and auxiliary tables showing fits to the data are presented.
  2. [2]
    [PDF] The PREM model - SOEST Hawaii
    For many years the most widely used 1-D model of Earth's seismic velocities has been the Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) of Dziewonski and Anderson ( ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Topic Global 1-D Earth models 1 PREM Model - GFZpublic
    For many years the most widely used 1-D model of seismic velocities in the Earth has been the Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) of Dziewonski and ...
  4. [4]
    On the different flavours of 1D seismic reference models
    Jul 16, 2016 · Developed in response to the request by an international committee of IUGG to build a standard 1D model for the Earth, the Preliminary Earth ...Missing: motivation | Show results with:motivation
  5. [5]
    [PDF] 50years of global seismology - USGS.gov
    Funded by the Defense Advanced. Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the. WWSSN was envisioned as a network of. 120 standardized seismograph stations in more than ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Preliminary reference Earth model * - Harvard University
    A large data set consisting of about 1000 normal mode periods, 500 summary travel time observations, 100 normal mode Qvalues, mass and moment of inertia ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] The PREM Model
    For many years the most widely used 1-D model of Earth's seismic velocities has been the Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) of Dziewonski and Anderson.
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Structure and Composition of the Mantle
    Bullen (1936, 1940) first used the above procedure to obtain a six-layer Earth model, consisting of the crust (layer A), from the Earth's surface to the Moho ( ...
  9. [9]
  10. [10]
    The relative amplitudes of mantle heterogeneity in P velocity, S ...
    In this study they are used to constrain the values of the ratios d ln α/d ln β and d ln ρ/d ln α for the lower mantle. ... The constraints on density structure ...
  11. [11]
    Mapping the lower mantle: Determination of lateral heterogeneity in ...
    Jul 10, 1984 · Some 500,000 travel time residuals for teleseismic distances from 5000 earthquakes are used in an iterative procedure to derive the coefficients ...
  12. [12]
    Global models of surface wave attenuation - Dalton - AGU Journals
    May 31, 2006 · A large data set of fundamental mode Rayleigh wave amplitudes is analyzed to derive global models of surface wave attenuation (1/Q).
  13. [13]
    Recurring large deep earthquakes in Hindu Kush driven by a ...
    Jul 4, 2016 · Synthetic waveforms are computed using the PREM model. We then grid-search depths and focal mechanisms by best fitting the waveforms. Figure 2a ...
  14. [14]
    Imaging subducted slab structure beneath the Sea of Okhotsk with ...
    Here, we model these waveform patterns for a portion of the Kuril subduction zone. The best fitting slab models have relatively fast cores (∼5%) with smooth ...
  15. [15]
    Modeling petrological geodynamics in the Earth's mantle
    Apr 23, 2009 · Dziewonski, A. M., and D. L. Anderson (1981), Preliminary reference Earth model, Phys. ... dynamics of convection in the deep mantle, Philos.
  16. [16]
    Layered mantle convection: A model for geoid and topography
    However, the relationship of long-wavelength topography to mantle circulation has been a puzzling problem in geodynamics. ... Preliminary reference Earth model.
  17. [17]
    Chemical composition of the lower mantle inferred from the equation ...
    Chemical composition of the lower mantle inferred from the equation of state of MgSiO3 perovskite ... (PREM). Assuming that the lower mantle consists of ... PREM ...
  18. [18]
    Compositional constraints on the equation of state and thermal ...
    By extrapolating the lower mantle equation of state (EoS) to P=0, T=290 K, we determine the EoS parameters that are compatible with a mixture of (Mg, Fe)SiO3 ...
  19. [19]
    A new seismic velocity model for the Moon from a Monte Carlo ...
    Jun 1, 2000 · from the "PREM" and "iasp91" model of the Earth's mantle. A ... the present state of the lunar interior, Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci ...
  20. [20]
    Interior structure of terrestrial planets: Modeling Mars' mantle and its ...
    Apr 13, 2005 · The values of PREM are determined with an error of the order of a few tenths of a percent. For the Moon, the spatial distribution of the ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Pre-mission InSights on the Interior of Mars
    In this section we will present a reference thermal model for the interior of Mars ... Velocity zone) based on the PREM model (Dziewonski and Anderson 1981). This ...
  22. [22]
    Earth-like planets have Earth-like interiors - NASA Science
    Feb 9, 2014 · ... Model (PREM), which is the standard model for Earth's interior. They adjusted it to accommodate different masses and compositions, and ...
  23. [23]
    GRACE gravity data help constraining seismic models of the 2004 ...
    Oct 8, 2011 · For S-PREM, we obtain maximum and minimum geoid anomalies of +2.57 mm and −2.28 mm, respectively, and the asymmetry coefficient is AS = 0.88.
  24. [24]
    One‐dimensional physical reference models for the upper mantle ...
    Jan 20, 2005 · The resulting seismic profiles are very similar and, compared to PREM or AK135, have lower velocities above 400 km, larger jumps near “410,” ...
  25. [25]
    Inferring the thermochemical structure of the upper mantle from ...
    Owing to the absence of the 220 km discontinuity, VS at 250 km is significantly lower than in PREM and the velocity gradient between 250 and 350 km is much ...
  26. [26]
    CSRM‐1.0: A China Seismological Reference Model - Xiao - 2024
    Sep 19, 2024 · CSRM-1.0 improvements include accurate estimation of shallow seismic structure, increased spatial resolution and improved model accuracy.
  27. [27]
    Low Velocity Zone - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    The low-velocity zone (LVZ) in the upper mantle is characterized by low seismic wave velocities, high seismic energy attenuation, and high electrical ...
  28. [28]
    Quantifying the Relationship Between Short‐Wavelength Dynamic ...
    Jul 6, 2020 · A component of this mismatch is likely to be related to the effect of anelasticity on shear wave velocity at seismic frequencies. At low ...
  29. [29]
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Radial anisotropy in seismic reference models of the mantle - UCLA
    Sep 14, 2005 · At other depths, no significant departure from PREM is required by the data, but dρ is not quite as well resolved in the depth ranges 220-400 km.<|control11|><|separator|>
  31. [31]
    Hemispherical anisotropic patterns of the Earth's inner core - PNAS
    It has been shown that the Earth's inner core has an axisymmetric anisotropic structure with seismic waves traveling ∼3% faster along polar paths than along ...Missing: overly simplistic
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Post-Glacial Isostatic Adjustment and Global Warming in Subarctic ...
    Nov 23, 2009 · The elastic and density model is taken from the so-called Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) derived from seismic constraints (Dziewonski ...<|separator|>
  33. [33]
    Inner core composition paradox revealed by sound velocities of Fe ...
    Feb 1, 2022 · Throughout the Earth's inner core, the density of Fe and Fe-8.6Si are ~5.3% higher and ~4.6% lower than the PREM values, respectively.