Heat Transfer as a Key

Process in Earth’s Mantle:

New Measurements, New
Theory

Anne M. Hofmeister
 Collaborators
• Janet Bowey (U. College London)
• Bob Criss (Washington U.)
• Paul Giesting (Notre Dame)
• Gabriel Gwanmesia (U. Delaware)
• Brad Jolliff (Washington U.)
• Andrew Locock (Notre Dame)
• Angela Speck (U. Missouri Columbia)
• Brigitte Wopenka (Washington U.)
• Tomo Yanagawa (Kyushu U.)
• Dave Yuen (U. Minnesota)
 Outline
n Background
n Heat transfer via vibrations
n A model for klat
n Laser – flash data on klat (T)
n Implications for magma genesis, Transition Zone
n Heat transfer via radiation
n A model incorporating grain size
n Does radiation or rheology have more impact?
n Implications for the Lower Mantle
n Merging Geological & Geophysical
Constraints
n Mantle convection is multiply layered.
n The global power is low with no secular delay
 Important Principles

Heat = Light
dk
dT < 0 is destabilizing
dk
> 0 is stabilizing
dT

Macedonio Melloni (1843) Dubuffett et al.(2002)

Photo Credit: www.Corbis.com

 What drives convection?

buoyancy heat diffusion viscous damping

vs. &

which is more important?

Baal Jehovah

Rheology Thermal Conductivity

Momentum Eq. Temperature Equation
Elliptic Eq. Quasi hyperbolic nonlinear
Parabolic Equation

Credit: D. Yuen
Thermal conductivity is most important
property because it controls the
temperature, which then determines
the other physical properties.

k(T) temperature

heat capacity
thermal expansivity viscosity
density
 To model convection we need:

k0 (ambient temperature and pressure)

k lat klat k rad

P T T
 Why is a model for k needed?
olivine (001)
6 and polycrystals

Chai et al. Kanamori et al.

(1996) (1968)
5 Beck
et al. (1978)
because of
Scharmeli (1982)
crummy data!
k 4
tot
W/m-K
Kobayashi (1974)
3 Fa 8

Fa 13 Katsura (1995)

peridotite
Tommassi et al. (2001)
2 Schatz & Simmons (1972)
polycrystalline forsterite

400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Temperature, K
Heat Transfer via Vibrations (phonons)

Debye (1914) used Claussius’

kinetic theory of gases to
relate the thermal conductivity
of a solid to the collisions
within its phonon gas:
1
k  ci u i  i
3 vib. modes
2

where ci is the heat capacity of the ith mode

ui is the group velocity
i is the mean free lifetime between collisions
The formula was not very useful because
the vibrations were treated as harmonic
oscillators (i.e., non-interacting).

Instead the vibrations interact through damping !

 The Lorentz Model

X = Ae(-t)cos (t)
A damped
Amplitude harmonic oscillator
0
has a lifetime:

1


-A
Time (t)
Examples of vibrations

underdamped damped
Heat Transfer via Vibrations (phonons)

mean free gas theory damped harmonic oscillator model

gives

 2 1
k0  CV u
3MZ 
(Hofmeister, 1999; 2001)

where is obtained from IR reflectivity data

IR Spectrometer
 Lifetimes ( = 1/)
are obtained from IR peak widths
1 100
-Mg2SiO4
0.8 80

0.6 60
Reflectivity  Dielectric
Function
0.4 2 40


0.2 2 20
FWHM
0 0
200 400 600 800 1000
-1
Frequency, cm
Let’s test the model against reliable
data
 Compositional dependence of klat
60
MgO
Oxides
50

40
stishovite Al O
Calculated k SiO
2
2 3
(W/m-K) 30 Osako & Yutatake &
Kobayashi Shimada
1979 1976
20
CaO
10
TiO
2
MgSiO -PV
3
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Measured k (W/m-K)
Compositional dependence of klat
 Pressure dependence of klat

0.3 NaCl Pressure de

1  4 Th
  ln klat 
Calculated
 3
(ave. of 6
d (ln k)/dP, studies)

GPa
-1
NaClO
P KT
0.2 3
d (ln k)/dP =
olivine (ptgs)
Chai et al. (1996)

0.1 MgO
quartz predict :
opx olivine and forsterite   ln klat 
stishovite  2.5% /GPa
0
coesite
P
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Measured d (ln k)/dP, GPa
-1 for MgSi perovskite
To understand Earth processes,
we need to make measurements at high T

k (T )
D(T ) 
 CP

http://www.math.montana.edu
A laser-flash apparatus
near-IR furnace
detector

Sample
under
cap cap

support
CO2 laser
cabinet
 How a laser flash apparatus works

L2
fayalite at 1000o C D  0.139
CO2 laser t half
pulse
fit detector
Signal

emissions
t half detector
output Sample
in furnace

CO2 laser

Time, ms
 Advantages of LFA
6

• Rapid and 5
Basalt
accurate 4

Signal
3

Heat transfer
• Contact free:

Signal/V
2

by phonons
no power 1

500oC
losses from
0

10

-1

cracks
9-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time /ms

• Phonon
7

component is 5
Obsidian
Signal/V
signal

separated
4

3 phonons
from radiative 2

photons
transfer
1

0 500oC
effects -1
-200 -100 0 100 200
Time /ms
300 400 500 600 700

time
 Thermal diffusivity from lattice vibrations only
SrTiO -
3 MgO ceramic
perovskite
2.5

D
2
mm /sec (Mg,Fe)Al O
2 4
spinel
1.5
Diopside
Mantle
Olivine
Mantle
0.5 garnet
400 800 1200 1600 2000

Temperature, K

Once Dlat/T = 0, Dlat no longer effects convection.

 More laser-flash results:
glass has low thermal diffusivity
1.4
Albite
1.2

D 1
2 microcline
mm /sec
0.8

sanidine
0.6

0.4
Albite glass Obsidian
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Temperature, K
 Transient
1
melting experiments
Anthill garnet
0.9
D
2 0.8 Change
mm /s
upon
0.7 melting
Hawaii basalt
0.6

0.5
Iceland
part glass
glassy Hawaii
0.4
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Temperature, K
Results from laser-flash measurements
• The thermal diffusivity of melts or
glasses is lower than that of minerals or
rocks
• Thus, runaway melting is a possible
mechanism for magma generation in
the upper mantle
• D and klat (of minerals, rocks, and
glasses) are independent of T at high T
• Thus, radiative transfer is the key
process inside Earths’ mantle
Implications for Earth’s Mantle
 Velocities in the Transition Zone
cannot be explained by adiabatic gradients or
by steep conductive temperature gradients
(super-adiabatic).
Velocity (km/sec)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0

Upper Deepest
Mantle Samples

Depth (km)
500
Lower Transition Zone
Mantle
Upper
Lower Mantle
Mantle 1000
Transition V V
s p
Zone

1500

2000
PREM (Anderson, 1989)
 k (W/m-K)
o
0 2 4 6 8 10
0

U.M.
Olivine or Opx or Cpx Temperature (K)
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
500 Majorite T.Z.
Silicate
Depth (km)

Garnet Spinel adiabatic

U.M.

Depth (km)
L.M. 500 metastable
T.Z. extension sub-adiabatic
1000 Silcate
Perovskite
L.M.
1000
1500
Temp. is equivocal adiabatic
because the phase
trans. has dT/dP~0
1500
2000

k0 for mantle minerals

2000

Low thermal conductivity is expected for the TZ, as it is rich in

garnet (e.g., Vacher et al. 1998). But, low k suggests a super-
adiabatic T gradient, which is not supported by seismic velocities.
 Temperature (K)
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0

U.M.
adiabatic Also, nearly constant
Depth (km)

500 metastable
temperatures suggest
T.Z. sub-adiabatic
extension buoyancy/ instability of
L.M.
the Transition Zone:
1000

Temp. is equivocal adiabatic Mantle avalanche ???

because the phase
trans. has dT/dP~0
1500

2000

Alternatively, a chemical gradient exists across

the transition zone (Sinogeikin and Bass, 2002).
Then, the temperature gradient is unconstrained.
Layered mantle convection is implied.
 Radiative Transfer

Hot Gas
Cool Dust

Shells in the Egg Nebula

Credit: R. Thompson (U. Arizona) et al., NICMOS, HST, NASA
 The two types of radiative transfer
diffusive cold

hot
direct

Earth: diffusive Laboratory: direct

990 K ~1 km 1000 K recorder heater

298 K ~ 5 mm 800K
 Diffusive Radiative Transfer

• Earth’s mantle is internally heated and consists of grains

which scatter and partially absorb light

• Because the grains cannot be opaque,
they cannot be blackbodies
• The light emitted =
the emissivity x the blackbody spectrum d
• Emissivity = absorptivity (Kirchhoff, ca. 1869).
We measure absorption with a spectrometer.
2 
4dn (1  e  dA ) [ I BB ( ν, T )]
k rad ,dif (T ) 
3 0 (1  dA) ν 2 T dν
 Diffusive radiative transfer is calculated from
 spectra from the near-IR through the ultraviolet,
accounting for scattering losses at grain boundaries:
visible UV

Blackbody intensity, 10 W/cm /cm

50 2.5
True absorption coefficient, 1/cm

Fa
10
40 2
2000

30
2500 K 1.5
1400
20 1
BB

6
10 1500 K 2000 K 0.5

2
0 0
5000 15000 -1
25000
Wavenumbers, cm

Visible region from Taran and Langer (2001)

Ullrich et al. (2002)
interface reflectivity
 krad depends strongly and non-linearly
on grain-size (d) due to competing
effects:
1) small grains scatter light
repeatedly, providing a short mean
free path, which suppresses krad
2) small grains absorb light weakly,
providing a large mean free path,
which inhances krad
3) small grains emit weakly which
suppresses krad
 UM
Lithosphere TZ Lower Mantle
5 50
k perovksite (using k for MgSiO )
0 3
lat
silicates 4 d = 0.1 cm 40
(lower mantle)

3 olivine 30
k
k lat
rad,dif MgO
W/m-K 2 20
1 cm
5 cm 0.5 cm

1 10 cm MgO 10

0.01 cm
0 0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Temperature, K
for ~0.1% interface reflectivity
Radiative transfer is large in
the lower mantle, which
promotes stability

But in the transition zone, the

negative T gradient of radiative
transfer is destabilizing for large
grain sizes
Does radiative transfer or viscosity
affect convection more?

work in progress by Tomo Yanagawa,

Dave Yuen, and Masao Nakada
 Vertical viscosity contrast is e ~ 107

k=1 k = 1 + 4T3

represents upper mantle credit: Tomo Yanagawa

 Vertical viscosity contrast is e ~ 103
k contrast is 5

credit: Tomo Yanagawa represents Lower Mantle

 Implications
Radiative transport exerts greater control
over convection than viscosity

n Blob-like convection in Upper Mantle

n An almost stagnant Lower Mantle

Is there evidence ?
Tomography
shows that
the middle of
the lower mantle
is less
heterogeneous
than the rest

Masters et al.
(2000)
 Possible stratigraphies for layered
convection (categorized by different
modes of heat transport)
Upper Mantle
Transition Zone slab

Lower

Mantle
 Equatorial Section
N

Lower mantle
L= 2 flow
Polar
Section
 Does the Earth’s engine lack
sufficient vigor to produce whole
mantle convection?

Strong radiative transfer in the lower mantle

limits strong convection.

The current model for the global heat

flux assumed constant k and thus
overestimated power:
 Global Power
140 70

Oceanic Flux
2
Binned heat flux, mW/m

120 Half-space cooling model 60

-1/2 -1/2
J = 501 t = k T (t)
0 m
100 50
Global
32 TW from Power,
80 Curve Fitting 40

J = 134 t -0.19 TW

60 30

Binned Data
Pollack et al. (1993)
40
0 40 80
6
120 160
20
31 TW at mid-ocean
Age, 10 yr

Half-space cooling model with constant k gives 44 TW.

Analysis of the raw data gives 31 TW
 Geologic evidence for weak
convection
n A global power of 31 TW is consistent with
an enstatite chondrite model of the Earth,
which also explains its O isotopes and
huge Fe core (Lodders, Javoy).
n The long-standing existence of basaltic
volcanism of the oceanic crust implies
near steady-state heat expulsion.
n MORB and hot-spot melting is runaway,
requires little excess heating.
n Layered (weak) convection may address
different styles of upper and lower mantle
 Conclusions
n Variable thermal conductivity exerts great
control over convection, more than viscosity
n Mantle convection is multiply layered
n Global power and estimated bulk
compositions agreeing implies that Earth
cools as radioactivity decreases
n Radiative transport is a key process in the
Earth, as is surmised for the Universe