2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.tecto.2009.06.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Magnetic field modelling and interpretation of the Himalayan–Tibetan Plateau and adjoining north Indian Plains

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The area west of the Lancangjiang fault (F 2 ) in western Yunnan Province is part of the Himalayan high geothermal zone, and it belongs to the subduction zone of the Myanmar-Andaman plate. It has the characteristics of an arc-type high geothermal zone and is a modern volcanic geothermal region with very active geological tectonics (Hemant and Mitchell 2009). In particular, the Tengchong area, which has the most intense new tectonic movement, is also one of the regions with modern volcanic activity in China.…”
Section: Research Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The area west of the Lancangjiang fault (F 2 ) in western Yunnan Province is part of the Himalayan high geothermal zone, and it belongs to the subduction zone of the Myanmar-Andaman plate. It has the characteristics of an arc-type high geothermal zone and is a modern volcanic geothermal region with very active geological tectonics (Hemant and Mitchell 2009). In particular, the Tengchong area, which has the most intense new tectonic movement, is also one of the regions with modern volcanic activity in China.…”
Section: Research Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lesur and Gubbins (2000) attempted to use geomagnetic secular variation to separate remanent magnetization from induced magnetization, but they failed to achieve a satisfactory separation. As such, remanent magnetization is usually ignored in the continental crust (Hemant and Maus 2005a, b;Maule et al 2005;Hemant and Mitchell 2009). Along this line, the crustal magnetic field in our study region (i.e., west Himalayan syntaxis and its adjacent area) is well assumed to be dominated by induced magnetisation.…”
Section: Crustal Magnetic Anomalymentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Lesur and Gubbins (2000) attempted to use geomagnetic secular variation to separate remanent magnetization from induced magnetization, but they failed to achieve a satisfactory separation. As such, remanent magnetization is usually ignored in the continental crust (Hemant and Maus, 2005;Hemant and Mitchell, 2009). Along this line, the crustal magnetic field in our study region (i.e., Ordos block and its adjacent area) is well assumed to be dominated by induced magnetisation.…”
Section: Crustal Magnetic Anomalymentioning
confidence: 99%