Transition from Pervasive to Segregated Fluid Flow in

  • Slides: 17
Download presentation
Transition from Pervasive to Segregated Fluid Flow in Ductile Rocks James Connolly and Yuri

Transition from Pervasive to Segregated Fluid Flow in Ductile Rocks James Connolly and Yuri Podladchikov, ETH Zurich A transition between “Darcy” and Stokes regimes • • Geological scenario Review of steady flow instabilities => porosity waves • Analysis of conditions for disaggregation

lithosphere

lithosphere

1 D Flow Instability, Small f (<<1 -f) Formulation, Initial Conditions t=0 8 f

1 D Flow Instability, Small f (<<1 -f) Formulation, Initial Conditions t=0 8 f = f , disaggregation condition d f 6 4 2 -250 -200 -150 z -100 -50 0 1 p 0. 5 0 -0. 5 -1 -250 z 1 p 0. 5 0 -0. 5 -1 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 f 3 1 D Movie? (b 1 d) 3. 5 4 4. 5 5

t = 70 5 4 f 1 D Final 3 2 1 -350 -300

t = 70 5 4 f 1 D Final 3 2 1 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 z 1 p 0. 5 0 -0. 5 -1 -350 -300 -250 -200 z 1 p 0. 5 0 -0. 5 -1 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 3. 5 4 f • Solitary vs periodic solutions • Solitary wave amplitude close to source amplitude • Transient effects lead to mass loss 4. 5 5

2 D Instability

2 D Instability

Birth of the Blob Bad news for Blob fans: • Stringent nucleation conditions •

Birth of the Blob Bad news for Blob fans: • Stringent nucleation conditions • Small amplification, low velocities • Dissipative transient effects

Is the blob model stupid? A differential compaction model Dike Movie? (z 2 d)

Is the blob model stupid? A differential compaction model Dike Movie? (z 2 d)

The details of dike-like waves Comparison movie (y 2 d 2)

The details of dike-like waves Comparison movie (y 2 d 2)

Final comparison • Dike-like waves nucleate from essentially nothing • They suck melt out

Final comparison • Dike-like waves nucleate from essentially nothing • They suck melt out of the matrix • They are bigger and faster • Spacing dc, width dd But are they solitary waves?

Velocity and Amplitude Blob model 5. 2 Dike model 40 amplitude velocity 5 35

Velocity and Amplitude Blob model 5. 2 Dike model 40 amplitude velocity 5 35 4. 8 30 4. 6 25 4. 4 20 4. 2 15 4 10 3. 8 5 3. 6 3. 4 0 5 10 15 20 time / t 25 30 35 0 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 time / t 2. 5 3 3. 5

1 D Quasi-Stationary State 35 30 Horizontal Section 35 Pressure, Porosity 30 25 20

1 D Quasi-Stationary State 35 30 Horizontal Section 35 Pressure, Porosity 30 25 20 20 15 15 Phase Portrait Pressure, Porosity 6 4 10 10 5 5 0 0 -5 -5 f 1 2 p 25 Vertical Section f 1 0 -2 -4 -6 -10 4. 5 5 x/d 5. 5 -10 -60 -40 -20 0 0 y/d • Essentially 1 D lateral pressure profile • Waves grow by sucking melt from the matrix • The waves establish a new “background”” porosity • Not a true stationary state 10 20 f 30 40

So dike-like waves are the ultimate in porosity-wave fashion: They nucleate out of essentially

So dike-like waves are the ultimate in porosity-wave fashion: They nucleate out of essentially nothing They suck melt out of the matrix They seem to grow inexorably toward disaggregation But Do they really grow inexorably, what about 1 -f? Can we predict the conditions (fluxes) for disaggregation? Simple 1 D analysis

Mathematical Formulation • Incompressible viscous fluid and solid components • Darcy’s law with k

Mathematical Formulation • Incompressible viscous fluid and solid components • Darcy’s law with k = f(f), Eirik’s talk • Viscous bulk rheology with (geological formulations ala Mc. Kenzie have • 1 D stationary states traveling with phase velocity w )

Balancing ball

Balancing ball

H(omega)

H(omega)

Phase diagram

Phase diagram

Sensitivity to Constituitive Relationships

Sensitivity to Constituitive Relationships