4.5 Article

Flow strength of highly hydrated Mg- and Na-sulfate hydrate salts, pure and in mixtures with water ice, with application to Europa

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2005JE002475

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We selected two Europan-ice-shell candidate highly hydrated sulfate salts for a laboratory survey of ductile flow properties: MgSO4 center dot 7H(2)O (epsomite) and Na2SO4 center dot 10H(2)O (mirabilite), called MS7 and NS10, respectively. Polycrystalline samples in pure form and in mixtures with water ice I were tested using our cryogenic high-pressure creep apparatus at temperatures 232 <= T <= 294 K, confining pressures P = 50 and 100 MPa, and strain rates 4 x 10(-8) <= (epsilon)over dot <= 7 x 10(-5) s(-1). Grain size of NS10 samples was >100 mu m. The flow strength sigma of pure MS7 was over 100 times that of polycrystalline ice I at comparable conditions; that of pure NS10 over 20 times that of ice. In terms of the creep law (epsilon)over dot = A sigma(n) e(-Q/RT,) where R is the gas constant, we determine parameter values of A = 10(12.1) MPa-n s(-1), n = 5.4, and Q = 128 kJ/mol for pure NS10. Composites of ice I and NS10 of volume fraction phi(NS10) have flow strength sigma(c) = [phi(NS10)sigma(J)(NS10) + (1 - phi(NS10))sigma(J)(iceI)](1/J) where J approximate to -0.5, making the effect on the flow of ice with low volume fractions of NS10 much like that of virtually undeformable hard rock inclusions. Being much stronger and denser than ice, massive sulfate inclusions in the warmer, ductile layer of the Europan ice shell are less likely to be entrained in convective ice flow and more likely to be drawn to the base of the ice shell by gravitational forces and eventually expelled. With only smaller, dispersed sulfate inclusions, at probable sulfate phi < 0.2, the shell may be treated rheologically as pure, polycrystalline ice, with boundary conditions perhaps influenced by the high density and low thermal conductivity of the hydrated salts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据