4.7 Article

High pressure and temperature fabric transitions in olivine and variations in upper mantle seismic anisotropy

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 304, 期 1-2, 页码 55-63

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.01.015

关键词

crystallographic preferred orientation; olivine; deformation; fabric transition; seismic anisotropy

资金

  1. Ehime University
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23740393, 22340161, 20244086, 21740382, 22740346] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of pressure on crystallographic preferred orientation (CPO) of olivine aggregates were investigated through simple-shear deformation experiments at pressures between 2.1 and 7.6 GPa and temperatures of 1493-1673 K under dry conditions using a deformation-DIA apparatus, and the variations in seismic anisotropy were evaluated under the Earth's upper mantle conditions. We found that the monotonic decrease in seismic anisotropy with depth is caused by the pressure-dependency of the seismic properties of A-type (developed by the (010)[100] slip system) olivine fabric, while the rapid decrease is caused by the fabric transition from A-type to B/C-type (by the (hk0)[001] slip systems) at 7.6 GPa and 1673 K. Moreover, an alternative transition, from A-type fabric to B-type-like fabric (by the (010)[001] slip system), occurs at 7.6 GPa and lower temperature. These two temperature-dependent fabric transitions occurring at 7.6 GPa result in low seismic anisotropy with V-SH/V-SV (the ratio of horizontally and vertically polarized shear waves)> 1 at low temperatures (i.e., old-continental mantle conditions) and V-SH/V-SV < 1 at high temperatures (i.e., oceanic mantle conditions) at greater depths, consistent with seismological observations. Thus, the variations of CPO with pressure and temperature in olivine under dry conditions can explain the seismic anisotropy signatures observed in the upper mantle, without invoking other mechanisms. (C) 2011 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