2015
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggv040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Melt-band instabilities with two-phase damage

Abstract: S U M M A R YDeformation experiments on partially molten rocks in simple shear form melt bands at 20• to the shear plane instead of at the expected 45• principal compressive stress direction. These melt bands may play an important role in melt focusing in mid-ocean ridges. Such shallow bands are known to form for two-phase media under shear if strongly non-Newtonian power-law creep is employed for the solid phase, or anisotropy imposed. However laboratory experiments show that shallow bands occur regardless of… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Linear stability analysis shows that melt bands are expected to initially grow at a rate proportional to a weakening factor α=normaldlogηfalse/normaldϕ (Spiegelman, ; Stevenson, ), which is plotted as a function of porosity for the rheologies considered here in Figure . Modeling work on this instability (e.g., Bercovici & Rudge, ; Katz et al, ; Rudge & Bercovici, ; Takei & Katz, ) has typically used an empirical rheological law of the form ηexpfalse(αϕfalse), with constant α ∼− 26, based on a fit to experimental data by Mei et al (). As pointed out by Takei and Holtzman () for Coble creep, the microscale calculations predict a weakening factor α which varies with porosity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Linear stability analysis shows that melt bands are expected to initially grow at a rate proportional to a weakening factor α=normaldlogηfalse/normaldϕ (Spiegelman, ; Stevenson, ), which is plotted as a function of porosity for the rheologies considered here in Figure . Modeling work on this instability (e.g., Bercovici & Rudge, ; Katz et al, ; Rudge & Bercovici, ; Takei & Katz, ) has typically used an empirical rheological law of the form ηexpfalse(αϕfalse), with constant α ∼− 26, based on a fit to experimental data by Mei et al (). As pointed out by Takei and Holtzman () for Coble creep, the microscale calculations predict a weakening factor α which varies with porosity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This behavior, along with the fact that melt bands form for a larger (α,R) parameter space away from the inclusion than near it, are indications that in our models the pressure shadows around the inclusion are dominant over any bands that form in simulations with random heterogeneities. Several recent studies investigate alternative constitutive relations [ Takei and Katz , ; Katz and Takei , ; Rudge and Bercovici , ] that could potentially affect the balance of pressure shadows and melt‐rich band formation near the inclusion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This raises the question of whether the strain rate field, through its influence on viscosity and grain size, can explain melt focusing in the full model. Various studies have shown that if there is an instantaneous balance of the rates of grain growth and reduction on the right‐hand side of equation , then the mean grain size is given by a power law of the strain rate (Barr & McKinnon, ; Rozel et al, ; Rudge & Bercovici, ). This can be substituted into equation for shear viscosity, and hence, the grain‐size dependence can be combined with the strain rate dependence into a single power law with an exponent ne=[n(p+1)+m]/(pm+1).…”
Section: Model Sensitivitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beyond the question of the active deformation mechanism(s), these differences in n e arise from uncertainities in the grain growth exponent p and grain rheology exponent m . Hence, it is appropriate to consider the dynamics across a range of values of the effective stress dependence (e.g., Rudge & Bercovici, ).…”
Section: Model Sensitivitymentioning
confidence: 99%