Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ASIMOW, P. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Petrology | Volume 43 | Number 9 | Pages 1707-1724 | 2002
© Oxford University Press 2002

Steady-state Mantle–Melt Interactions in One Dimension: II. Thermal Interactions and Irreversible Terms

P. D. ASIMOW*

DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL AND PLANETARY SCIENCES, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PASADENA, CA 91125, USA

Progress in development of thermodynamically based models of silicate equilibria with explicit entropy budgets has motivated a reexamination of the conclusion of McKenzie (Journal of Petrology 25, 713–765, 1984) that isentropic upwelling suffices as a model of mantle melting. An entropy budget equation for fractional melting with melt migration in an upwelling two-phase continuum is presented. The energetically self-consistent melt production model predicted by MELTS is used to evaluate numerically the magnitudes of differences between fractional melting (with melt migration) and equilibrium melting (without relative movement) that can be bounded in one dimension: chemical advection by out-of-equilibrium melt; thermal disequilibrium between migrating liquid and residue; frictional dissipation of gravitational potential; dissipation as a result of solid compaction. Like the familiar isobaric case in which fractional melting is significantly less productive than equilibrium melting, chemical isolation of the escaping melts from the residue reduces the oceanic crustal thickness by ~1 km. Allowing escaping melts to move on their own adiabats and ascend at higher temperature than the residue further suppresses melting but yields only ~100 m less crustal thickness. Extra crustal thickness as a result of gravitational dissipation is ~100 m, much smaller than the effect of chemical isolation. Viscous dissipation as a result of compaction is negligible.

KEY WORDS: isentropic melting; melt migration; dissipation; porous flow; mantle adiabat


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J PetrologyHome page
I. Baziotis, E. Mposkos, and P. D. Asimow
Petrogenesis of Ultramafic Rocks from the Ultrahigh-pressure Metamorphic Kimi Complex in Eastern Rhodope (NE Greece)
J. Petrology, May 1, 2008; 49(5): 885 - 909.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ajsHome page
E. Stolper and P. Asimow
Insights into mantle melting from graphical analysis of one-component systems
Am J Sci, October 1, 2007; 307(8): 1051 - 1139.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J PetrologyHome page
B. K. HOLTZMAN, D. L. KOHLSTEDT, and J. P. MORGAN
Viscous Energy Dissipation and Strain Partitioning in Partially Molten Rocks
J. Petrology, December 1, 2005; 46(12): 2569 - 2592.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.