Plate tectonics generated by nonlinear rheology in mantle
Shared by: HC120310052524
-
Stats
- views:
- 12
- posted:
- 3/9/2012
- language:
- pages:
- 75
Document Sample


Plate tectonics generated
by nonlinear rheology in
mantle convection
models & application to
thermo-chemical
evolution
Paul J. Tackley, UCLA
(some parts from Shunxing Xie,
Stephane Labrosse)
Plan
Review ‘plate problem’ and rheology
3D simulations of mantle convection show
how pseudo-plastic yielding leads to plate-
like behavior
Other important effects
Strain weakening
Viscosity stratification (asthenosphere)
Application to planetary evolution
From Published Papers
EPSL 157, 9-22, 1998
Geochem., Geophys. Geosystems 2000
(2 papers)
AGU Plate Motions Monograph 121, 2000
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A., in press 2002
Viscosity (T) : how much?
exp(E/kT) where E~400 kJ/mol
T from 1600 -> 300 K
=>4x1056 variation
=> RIGID LID!
Expect rigid lid: Earth
unusual ?
Mars: rigid lid
Had plate tectonics early?
Venus: rigid lid
Plate tectonics->rigid lid?
Episodic overturn?
Plates and mantle
‘Traditional’ approach
2 separate systems
plates ‘drive’ mantle (plate tectonicists)
mantle ‘drives’ plates (geodynamicists)
Self-consistent approach
one system
same rheology applies everywhere:
h(T,p,e,C,d,history)
Rheology
Typical mantle convection models:
temperature-dependent
è or è3
Realistic:
as above plus:
highly nonlinear @ high stress (yielding)
history-dependent (e.g., strain weakening)
dependent on grain-size, composition, volatile content...
elasticity and brittle failure
Too complicated: what is most important?
Yield strength of
rocks
Increases with confining
pressure (depth) then
saturates
Strength profile of oceanic
lithosphere
Lithospheric deformation
Brittle faults: upper part (10-20km?),
velocity weakening (rate&state-dependent
friction)
Ductile shear zones: semi-brittle or plastic
flow, strain weakening
Distributed viscous creep (mantle)
*The strongest part of the lithosphere is
in a ductile creep regime*
Model
100% internally-heated, RaH=106.
8x8x1 periodic domain
Boussinesq
Newtonian temperature-dependent viscosity
(≤factor 105)
visco-plastic yield stress:
either constant with depth (‘ductile’)
proportional to depth (‘brittle’/’Bylerlee')
composite (both of the above)
(later) strain-weakening or strain-rate weakening
(no elasticity)
Equations
Boussinesq, infinite Prandtl number
h i , j v j,i P Ra.Tz
v ˆ
yield
h
heff min (T),
2e
Ý
T
v 0 T v .T
2
t
34 MPa
70 MPa
86 MPa
120 MPa
168 MPa
200 MPa
340 MPa
Surface Strain Rate and V
RaH=2e7; YS=50 MPa (2e4)
QuickTime™ and a
Anima tion d ecompressor
are neede d to see this picture.
RaH=2e7; YS=150 MPa (6e4)
QuickTime™ and a
Anima tion d ecompressor
are neede d to see this picture.
By S. Labrosse
Mixed
internal+basal
heating
Shows episodic
merging of QuickTime™ an d a
decompressor
downwellings are need ed to see this picture.
Core heat flow
driven by upper
boundary layer
Characterizing plate
tectonics
'Plateness': Most deformation focused in
narrow zones ~15% of surface area
(Stein)
Significant toroidal motion
Spreading centers: passive, symmetric
Subduction: single-sided
Strike-slip boundaries
Earth’s Tor/Pol
ratio ~0.3-0.5
(excluding net
rotation)
Time-Dependence
Yield stress
increases top to
bottom
Scaling of plate diagnostics
with Yield Stress
Does low viscosity beneath the
lithosphere help?
‘Asthenosphere’
Decouples piecewise continuous plate motion
from distributed mantle deformation ?
Want to add in such a way that viscosity is
unchanged elsewhere
Define ‘solidus’ T=T0+A*depth, decrease h by
factor 10 when T reaches solidus
(in reality getting close to solidus is sufficient)
Varying yield
strength
Time
evolution
Greatly improves plate quality
So far…instantaneous rheology
Isn’t history dependence
important? i.e., Strain
weakening, and healing
Strain weakening?
Observed in laboratory
Expected in theory
Evidenced in the field
Mechanisms:
Dynamic recrystallization => small grains
Volatile infiltration + reactions
Viscous dissipation
Provides positive feedback leading to strain
localization and narrow shear zones
Mantle shear zone in Greenland
X-section thru
shear zone
Simplified 'Damage' evolution
dD
A : e R(T)D
Ý
dt
h h undam aged(1 D)
e.g., R(T) 1/ h (T)
h hT,z, e,history
Ý
If A and R very large => strain-rate weakening
Comparison of
various
rheologies
Forms lithospheric shear zones
…works
with more
realistic
viscosity
profile
Instantaneous
flow with
strain rate
weakening.
Simple 2-lyr
model
Same with
bigger box
Simple yielding
doesn’t produce
plate-like motion
Add SW to time-dep models
…but
doesn’t
have a large
effect on
diagnostics
Divergence:
Poloidal field
Vorticity:
Toroidal field
Surface Strain rate
Divergence Vorticity
Pol- & Toroidal with depth
Continents aid 1-sided
subduction, but add time-depn
Summary
Successes and failures
Robust successes:
Linear 'subduction'
Linear passive spreading centers+rifts
Less Robust successes:
Toroidal:Poloidal ratio realistic (sometimes)
1-sided subduction (sometimes)
Failures:
No focused pure strike-slip margins
Things that 'help'
Buoyant continents (toroidal flow, 1-sided
subduction)
'melting' (focuses MOR)
Mantle viscosity stratification (?)
Future directions
Greater realism
Actual rheologies instead of idealized (but not well
known)
Higher convective vigor
Spherical geometry
Use to study planetary thermal and chemical
evolution
Direct simulation and
Calibrate/determine scaling for parameterized
models
Mantle convection models and
geochemistry
Paul J. Tackley and Shunxing Xie
ESS and IGPP, UCLA
Integrating Geodynamic and Geochemical
Models of Mantle Evolution and Plate
Tectonics
Motivation
Gechemistry and dynamics inextricably linked:
Composition affects density, rheology, heating rate
Dynamics affects melting, differentiation, mixing
Test hypothesized chemical models and
processes in a self-consistent manner
What works?
What model(s) produce results that satisfy both
chemical and physical observational constraints?
Approach
Add tracking of trace & major element chemistry
to a numerical convection-plate tectonics code
TEST cartoon models: which ones “work” both
geophysically and geochemically?
Chemical model
Major elements:
2-components: ‘crust’ (basalt/eclogite)<-> ‘residue’ (harzburgite).
Melts when T reaches solidus (Herzberg et al 2000; Zerr et al 1998) melt
instantly removed to form surface crust.
Chemical density variation constant with depth except for basalt->eclogite (2.5%
in presented models)
Trace elements:
207Pb, 206Pb, 204Pb, 143Nd, 144Nd, 147Sm, 235U, 238U, 3He, 4He 36Ar, 40Ar, 40K, 232Th
Initial concentrations represent mantle after extraction of CC 3.6 Ga ago.
Radioactive decay
Partitioning between crust + residue on melting. Coefficients from
(Hiyagon+Ozima 86) and (Hofmann 88).
Noble gases outgas on melting (99% in presented models)
Physical model
Compressible anelastic
Cylindrical geometry (2-D)
Viscosity dependent on:
Temperature (factor 106)
Depth (factor 10, exponential)
Stress (yielding gives different lid
behaviors including “plate-like”)
Mixed basal and internal heating
Geochemical evolution:
Focus on 2 cases
Differing initial conditions:
Chemically homogeneous
Chemically layered
50% of isotopes concentrated into lower 20% of mantle
3He concentration calculated to give 8 or 35 times atmospheric today
Not yet Earth-like but display some of proposed processes so
useful to analyze
Convective vigor too low (V~0.3 cm/yr, flux~30mW/m2)
Viscosity too high, rheology less T-dependent that Earth (mantle gets
too hot, too much melting+differentiation)
Homogeneous start: after 1
and 2 Gyr
1 Gyr 2 Gyr
C
T
QuickTime™ and a
Anima tion d ecompressor
are neede d to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
Anima tion d ecompressor
are neede d to see this picture.
Homogeneous start
(after 3.6 Gyr)
Layered start: after 200 Myr
and 2.5 Gyr
QuickTime™ and a
Anima tion d ecompressor
are neede d to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
Anima tion d ecompressor
are neede d to see this picture.
Layered start: present day
(3.6 Gyr)
Noble gas outgassing: too much(?)
Ratios in melted material
(last 150 Myr)
3He/4He
Pb ratios in melted material
Thermal evolution strongly affected by
magmatism: simple example
Calculation takes into account decay of
radiogenic elements and cooling of the
core
Boussinesq, constant viscosity, but:
Viscosity is strongly dependent on mean
temperature, realistic activation energy
Isochemical case
QuickTime™ and a
Anima tion de compressor
are neede d to se e this picture.
Core cooling reduces it to nearly
internally-heated convection
with
differentiation
QuickTime™ and a
Anima tion de compressor
are neede d to se e this picture.
Hot layer
forms at base
Core cooling
much reduced
QuickTime™ and a
Anima tion de compressor
are neede d to se e this picture.
Heat flow is almost constant
Temperature varies much less
THE END
Yielding generates “plate tectonics”
a low-
viscosity
zone
(asthenosp
here) helps
greatly
YS~100
MPa is
needed
Goals
‘Complete’ understanding of mantle:plate
tectonic system
Apply to specific events on Earth
Understand evolution of Earth, Venus,
Mars, e.g.,
Early plate tectonics on Mars?
Episodic plate tectonics on Venus?
Pre-plate-tectonics regime on Earth?
Rheological Model
Strongly temperature-dependent viscosity (many orders
of magnitude)
+depth-dependent yield stress (brittle)
+constant yield stress (ductile)
+strain weakening & healing ('damage')
No elasticity!
Get documents about "