Flexural Rigidity / Elastic thickness calculation for topographic load

[nholz]

Hi,
I was wondering if this might be an interesting feature, as harmonica also offers Airy isostatic calculation which is a special case of the flexural rigidity calculation.

Actually, GMT has it already implemented as grdflexure. Input is topographic load, densities of load and mantle and the elastic thickness / flexural rigidity at compensation depth, which controls how the subsurface reacts on the load. SImplest case would be an elastic thickness of 0, which would bring up the Airy isostatic case.
grdflexure is described as follows:
grdflexure computes the flexural response to loads using a range of user-selectable rheologies. User may select from elastic, viscoelastic, or firmoviscous (with one or two viscous layers).

Are you willing to help implement and maintain this feature? Yes

[welcome]

👋 Thanks for opening your first issue here! Please make sure you filled out the template with as much detail as possible.

You might also want to take a look at our Contributing Guide and Code of Conduct.

[leouieda]

@nholz that would be great to have! It would probably be best to start with a single rheology to get the interface established and figure out how to test this. Then we can add more on top of that. If you're willing, please submit a pull request for that. No need to wait to have a finished product to open the PR. It's actually nice to open early so you have a place to discuss and ask for help.

[nholz]

Hi,
I would like to implement this. At the moment, I am not able to start this due to the current situation, but will work on that asap.

[santisoler]

No hurries @nholz. We all are in the same situation and it's better to keep low expectations regarding our productivity. There's no rush to implement this, so feel free to tackle it whenever you feel ready to do so.

[nholz]

Hi,
I would like to start the implementation now. However, I was wondering if it is better to set up everything new or re-use GMT code. It's written in C, but of course it is already developed and tested since decades. Is there any experience from you side what's best to do ?
Cheers

[santisoler]

Just saw this 🙈 while reviewing every open issue in Harmonica.

We are trying to avoid to include code that needs compilations in Fatiando in order to prevent installation issues on different platforms. If we would need to implement any code that should be efficiently run, we choose to use Numba instead. We are already using it on forward models (tesseroids, prisms, point sources) and for Equivalent Layers.