4.7 Article

Radiogenic heat production in the lithosphere of Sulu ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic belt

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 277, 期 3-4, 页码 525-538

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2008.11.022

关键词

radiogenic heat production; CCSD; Sulu UHPM belt; thermal structure

资金

  1. National Key Basic RD Program 973 [2003CB716505]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Chinese Continental Scientific Drilling (CCSD) project is located at the Sulu ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic (UHPM) belt. It offers a unique opportunity for studying the radiogenic heat production of both shallower and deeper rocks. Based on the concentrations of radiogenic elements U, Th and K on 349 samples from main hole of CCSD (CCSD MH), pilot holes and exposures, we determined radiogenic heat productions of all major rock types in the Sulu UHPM belt. Results show the mean values of orthogneiss and paragneiss are respectively 1.65 +/- 0.81 and 1.24 +/- 0.61 mu W m(-3). Due to different composition and grade of retrogressive metamorphism, the eclogites display significant scatter in radiogenic heat production, ranging from 0.01 to 2.85 mu W m(-3), with a mean of 0.44 +/- 0.55 mu W m(-3). The radiogenic heat production in ultramafic rocks also varies within a large range of 0.02 to 1.76 mu W m(-3), and the average turns out to be 0.18 +/- 0.31 mu W m(-3). Based on the measurements and crustal petrologic model, the vertical distribution model of heat production in Sulu crust is established. The resulting mean heat production (0.76 mu W m(-3)) contributes 24 mW m(-2) to the surface heat flow. 1-D thermal model indicates that the temperature at the Moho reaches above 750 degrees C, and the thermal thickness of the lithosphere is similar to 75 km, in good agreement with the geophysical results. The high teat flow (similar to 75 mW m(-2)) together with thin lithosphere presents strong support for the extension events during the late Cretaceous and Cenozoic. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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