Conclusions…
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 43

Conclusions… Challenge: PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 73 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Conclusions… Challenge: Seismic waves are affected by variations in temperature, pressure, composition, mineralogy, structure (layering, scales and distribution of multiphase materials, texture, fabric, grain size, etc.) and water content. Conclusions… Challenge:

Download Presentation

Conclusions… Challenge:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Conclusions challenge

Conclusions…

Challenge:

Seismic waves are affected by variations in temperature, pressure, composition, mineralogy, structure (layering, scales and distribution of multiphase materials, texture, fabric, grain size, etc.) and water content.


Conclusions challenge

Conclusions…

Challenge:

Seismic waves are affected by variations in temperature, pressure, composition, mineralogy, structure (layering, scales and distribution of multiphase materials, texture, fabric, grain size, etc.) and water content.

2) There are differences depending upon whether the water is in the form of hydrous melts, hydrous phases, or incorporated into the crystal structure of nominally anhydrous minerals.


Conclusions challenge

Solution: There are ways to distinguish between them

Ex/ Increase in Water vs. Temperature

S VelocityDECREASEDECREASE

P VelocitydecreaseDECREASE

AttenuationINCREASEincrease


Conclusions challenge

Solution: There are ways to distinguish between them

Ex/ Increase in Water vs. Temperature

S VelocityDECREASEDECREASE

P VelocitydecreaseDECREASE

AttenuationINCREASEincrease

(Amounts vary GREATLY depending upon compositions and values of temperature and pressure)


Conclusions challenge

Solution: There are ways to distinguish between them

Ex/ Increase in Water vs. Temperature

S VelocityDECREASEDECREASE

P VelocitydecreaseDECREASE

AttenuationINCREASEincrease

(Water increase in ringwoodite of 1% would lower S velocities by about 5.4% and P velocities by about 1.5% [Jacobsen et al., 2004; Jacobsen and Smyth, 2006; Karato, 2006];----> Water increases P-to-S velocity ratio)


Conclusions challenge

Solution: There are ways to distinguish between them

Ex/ Increase in Water vs. Temperature

S VelocityDECREASEDECREASE

P VelocitydecreaseDECREASE

AttenuationINCREASEincrease

(Temperature affects on attenuation are greater at higher temperatures and lower pressures)


Conclusions challenge

Solution: There are ways to distinguish between them

Ex/ Increase in Water vs. Temperature

S VelocityDECREASEDECREASE

P VelocitydecreaseDECREASE

AttenuationINCREASEincrease

410 Heightelevatedepress

660 Heightdepresselevate

TZ Widthincreasedecrease


Conclusions challenge

Solution: There are ways to distinguish between them

Ex/ Increase in Water vs. Temperature

S VelocityDECREASEDECREASE

P VelocitydecreaseDECREASE

AttenuationINCREASEincrease

410 Heightelevatedepress

660 Heightdepresselevate

TZ Widthincreasedecrease

(Water increase could elevate 410 by 10-30 km, depress the 660 by up to 4 km, and so increase TZ Width [Smyth and Frost, 2002; Hirschmann et al., 2005; Higo et al., 2001])


Conclusions challenge

Solution: There are ways to distinguish between them

Ex/ Increase in Water vs. Temperature

S VelocityDECREASEDECREASE

P VelocitydecreaseDECREASE

AttenuationINCREASEincrease

410 Heightelevatedepress

660 Heightdepresselevate

TZ Widthincreasedecrease

(Temperature increase of 400ºC could depress 410 by 30-50 km, elevate the 660 by 7-40 km, so greatly reduce TZ Width [Litasov et al., 2006])


Conclusions challenge

Solution: There are ways to distinguish between them

Ex/ Increase in Water vs. Temperature

S VelocityDECREASEDECREASE

P VelocitydecreaseDECREASE

AttenuationINCREASEincrease

410 Heightelevatedepress

660 Heightdepresselevate

TZ Widthincreasedecrease

410 Thicknessbroadensharpen

660 Thicknessbroaden sharpen


Conclusions challenge

Solution: There are ways to distinguish between them

Ex/ Increase in Water vs. Temperature

S VelocityDECREASEDECREASE

P VelocitydecreaseDECREASE

AttenuationINCREASEincrease

410 Heightelevatedepress

660 Heightdepresselevate

TZ Widthincreasedecrease

410 Thicknessbroadensharpen

660 Thicknessbroaden sharpen

(Wet mantle --> broaden 410 by up to 40 km, broaden 660 by up to 8 km [Smyth and Frost, 2002; Hirschmann et al., 2005; Higo et al., 2001])


Conclusions challenge

Solution: There are ways to distinguish between them

Ex/ Increase in Water vs. Temperature

S VelocityDECREASEDECREASE

P VelocitydecreaseDECREASE

AttenuationINCREASEincrease

410 Heightelevatedepress

660 Heightdepresselevate

TZ Widthincreasedecrease

410 Thicknessbroadensharpen

660 Thicknessbroaden sharpen

(Hot mantle --> sharpen 410 and 660 by by around 5 km (Helffrich and Bina, 1994)


Conclusions challenge

Most Seismically-Observed Mantle Water is in Subduction Zones (not surprisingly!)


Conclusions challenge

Petro-thermo-mechanical models can now predict what kinds of features we would expect to see seismically

Gerya et al. [2006]


Conclusions challenge

Flow and Temperature…

Gerya et al. [2006]


Conclusions challenge

P Velocity…

Gerya et al. [2006]


Conclusions challenge

S Velocity…

Presence of cold, wet plumes predict >20% Poisson ratio variations, as opposed to ~2% variations due to only temperatures

Gerya et al. [2006]


Conclusions challenge

Inability of thermal models to explain seismic parameters is seen in subduction zone tomography observations:

Wiens et al. [2008]


Conclusions challenge

Thermal Model Predictions Tonga Observations

Wiens et al. [2008]


Conclusions challenge

Thermal Model Predictions Tonga Observations

Wiens et al. [2008]


Conclusions challenge

Velocity Tomography away from subduction zones also show features that may be associated with water.

van der Lee et al. [2008]


Conclusions challenge

van der Lee et al. [2008]


Conclusions challenge

1

2

3

4

5

van der Lee et al. [2008]


Conclusions challenge

“Reciever Functions” of P-to-S converted phases find LZVs in forearc mantles interpreted as serpentinization from slab-expelled water

Tibi et al. [2008]


Conclusions challenge

LVZ S-velocities as low as 3.6 km/s suggest serpentinization of 30-50%, corresponding to chemically bound water contents of 4-6 wt%

Tibi et al. [2008]


Conclusions challenge

Kawakatsu and Watada [2008]


Conclusions challenge

Kawakatsu and Watada [2008]


Conclusions challenge

Percentages show S-velocity reductions relative to slab velocities; parentheses show suggested water content in wt%)

Kawakatsu and Watada [2008]


Conclusions challenge

The presence of water can determine the magnitude and orientation of seismic anisotropy in olivine


Conclusions challenge

Seismic shear-wave splitting results from Nakajima and Hasegawa [2004]


Conclusions challenge

Geodynamic models suggest the possibility of water just above the 410 discontinuity….

Leahy and Bercovici [2007]


Conclusions challenge

Leahy and Bercovici [2007]


Conclusions challenge

Mantle reverberations show discontinuity depth and impedance

Courier and Revenaugh [2007]


Conclusions challenge

Discontinuity depths…..

Courier and Revenaugh [2007]


Conclusions challenge

Reflection Coefficients…

Results show a LVZ above the 410 with reduced 410 impedance attributed to partial melt from volatile-induced melting.

Courier and Revenaugh [2007]


Conclusions challenge

Seismic Arrays (in this case RISTRA) can identify layer velocities from traveltime moveouts.

Gao et al. [2007]


Conclusions challenge

Triplication patterns reveal vertical velocity structures

Gao et al. [2007]


Conclusions challenge

LVZ above 410 is interpreted as partial melting due to water released from the Transition Zone

Water on Top of Transition Zone?

Gao et al. [2007]


Conclusions challenge

Water causes increased Seismic Attenuation

Stein and Wysession [2003]


Conclusions challenge

Large High-Attenuation region 700-1200 km deep (Q < 100 !!!) with only slightly negative velocities

Lawrence and Wysession [2006]


Conclusions challenge

Depth = 1000 km

A Vertical Cross-Section through Earth’s mantle at 1000 km depth shows the high-attenuation region above circum-Pacific subducted lithosphere

Lawrence and Wysession [2006]


Conclusions challenge

Shieh et al. [1998]


Conclusions challenge

Lawrence and Wysession [2006]


  • Login