4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Further constraints on the African superplume structure

期刊

PHYSICS OF THE EARTH AND PLANETARY INTERIORS
卷 140, 期 1-3, 页码 243-251

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.pepi.2003.07.011

关键词

African superplume; ULVZ; chemical heterogeneity; thermal anomaly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is well established that there is a large-scale low velocity structure in the lowermost mantle beneath Africa, extending from the Southeastern Atlantic Ocean to the Southwestern Indian Ocean with a volume greater than 10 billion km(3) (>7000 km long, 1000 km across and 1200 km high) [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 206 (2003) 119]. This low velocity structure is often called the African superplume. Various studies also require sharp boundaries for the plume. However, as for its height and shear velocity reduction, there has been some controversy, especially concerning the velocities at the core-mantle-boundary (CMB). Here, we present an assortment of phases involving S-diff, SKS, S and ScS with both vertical and horizontal paths sampling a 2D corridor through the structure. Travel time and waveform modeling of these seismic phases argues for a model with shear velocity reduction of approximately 3% within the superplume (which is basically a 200 km thick layer low velocity layer beneath the Southern Atlantic Ocean, and a 1200 km high structure beneath South Africa), and against a model of a substantially reduced low velocity layer (up to 10%, 300 km) beneath the superplume. We also analyzed P-diff and the differential times of P,,P-P and compared them with Sdiff and ScS-S observations along the same great circle paths. The P-velocity is not very anomalous, at most -0.5%, much smaller than -1% as expected from a thermal anomaly with -3% lower S-velocity [Geophys. Res. Lett. 27 (2000) 421], thus again arguing for a chemical origin which was suggested from the modeling of African superplume sharp sides [Science 296 (2002) 1850]. (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.4
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