Thanks Walter, I think I'll stick to using an average for now. I'll run the model with a couple of different values in order to determine how great of a control changing that hydrostatic term is going to have on the results, hopefully not too too much.<br>
<br>I imagine if we modified the term to handle multiple layers I would run into the issue of having the defined height for each layer/boundary becoming incorrect as extension/compression proceeds?<br><br>Cheers,<br>Aaron Tyler<br>
University of Sydney<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Walter Landry <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:walter@geodynamics.org">walter@geodynamics.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">"<a href="mailto:atyl0789@uni.sydney.edu.au">atyl0789@uni.sydney.edu.au</a>" <<a href="mailto:atyl0789@uni.sydney.edu.au">atyl0789@uni.sydney.edu.au</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>> In my extension model I would like to divide my brittle crust into a<br>
> number of different layers and assign each a different density in<br>
> order to have an increasing density profile with depth. What would<br>
> be the best approach for getting an accurate result with the<br>
> hydrostatic term in such a case? Would I be best off just taking an<br>
> average of all the density values for the upper crust?<br>
<br>
Yes, an average would probably be best, especially if the densities do<br>
not change too much. If it becomes a problem, you can modify<br>
HydrostaticTerm to handle multiple layers.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
Cheers,<br>
Walter Landry<br>
<a href="mailto:walter@geodynamics.org">walter@geodynamics.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>