the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dislocation creep near the frictional-viscous transition in blueschist: experimental constraints
Abstract. Mafic oceanic crustal rocks at blueschist facies conditions are an important rheological component of subducting slabs and the interface at subduction plate boundaries. However, the mechanical properties and deformation mechanisms of glaucophane, a rheologically-controlling sodic amphibole in blueschists, are poorly constrained. To investigate its mechanical and microstructural properties, we conducted general shear constant rate and strain rate stepping experiments on glaucophane aggregates using a Griggs apparatus at temperatures of 700–750 °C, shear strain rates of ~3x10-6 to 9x10-5 s-1, varying grain sizes, and a confining pressure of ~1.0 GPa. The constant rate experiments show an initial stage of grain-size-dependent strain hardening followed by weakening associated with brittle slip along cleavage planes, kink-band development, cataclasis resulting in a fine-grained matrix, and dislocation glide. These experiments evolved to a steady-state stress that did not depend on starting grain size, showing evidence for subgrain development and dynamic recrystallization by bulge nucleation, interpreted to reflect dislocation creep with limited recovery by climb. The mechanical behavior and microstructures of glaucophane in our experiments are consistent with experiments on other low-symmetry minerals as well as microstructural observations from natural blueschists. The strain rate stepping experiments were used to develop a dislocation creep flow law for glaucophane with values of A = 2.23 x 105 MPa-n s-1, n = 3, and Q = 341 ± 37 kJ/mol. A deformation mechanism map comparing our dislocation creep flow law to an existing flow law for blueschist diffusion creep indicates dislocation creep should activate at lower temperatures, higher stresses and larger diffusion lengthscales. Viscosities predicted by our flow law for a typical subduction strain rate of 1 x 10-12 s-1 lie between quartz and eclogite dislocation creep for the blueschist stability field, implying that mafic oceanic crustal rocks remain strong relative to quartz-rich metasediments all along the subduction interface.
- Preprint
(35211 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(27170 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 31 Jul 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1507', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Jun 2024
reply
As main component in blueschist-facies mafic oceanic crust, the quantification of glaucophane’s mechanical behaviour at high-pressure, high-temperature conditions has been the centre of the present study by Hufford et al. To understand its deformation behaviour, the authors conducted several hydrostatic experiments in addition to a series of deformation tests using a Griggs-deformation apparatus. The microstructures of the recovered samples were carefully studied using analytical techniques such as polarised light microscopy and electron-backscatter diffraction. The experimental and microstructural data are all of high quality and support the interpretation proposed by the authors. Furthermore, the well written and structured text makes it easy to follow the authors’ reasoning. I enjoyed reading the manuscript, acknowledge the amount of experimental work presented, and find that the present study is a valuable contribution, which will be of interest to a broad geoscientific community. Therefore, I am highly supportive of this work and suggest publication in EGUsphere after minor revision.
A few minor comments:
Influence of grain size/porosity
The observed relation between grain size of the starting material and peak stress is very interesting (Fig. 2b). Could it, however, be that this apparent relation is only indirectly caused by grain size but rather a product of differences in porosity? As you started with powders, I assume that there is some initial porosity present in the starting material. This initial porosity could depend on grain size or rather the grain size distribution in the sample and influence the peak stress of the samples (e.g., Hirth & Tullis, 1991). Renner et al. (2007) experimentally showed that the measured strength of their quartz-calcite mixtures mainly depended on the amount of quartz, which itself positively correlates with porosity (Figs. 2; 6 in Renner et al., 2007). Even if the authors find no such relation between porosity and strength in their sets of experiments, it would be informative to provide measured/estimated porosities present in the starting material. Related to this comment, I find the statement in line 380-385 a bit too provocative as it does not include any discussion on other aspects that may influence rock strength such as existing textures that could act as planes of weakness.
Hydrostatic tests
It would be good to know whether or not the selected durations for hydrostatic pressing are somewhat related with the duration of deformation or rather with the duration of hot-isostatic pressing (HIP) prior to the onset of deformation. As noted in the manuscript, the hot-pressed powders are important to have an idea about the initial sample thickness, grain size, initial microstructure, etc., with which I fully agree. However, no explanation is given, why different run durations were chosen and it would be interesting to know on which basis you decided to run the hydrostatic tests for 24-88 h. Furthermore, the HIP runs were only conducted at 700 ˚C, although the deformation tests were run at 725 and 750 ˚ C as well. In the supplementary material, it is written that glaucophane becomes unstable at temperatures higher than 725 ˚C and that the run durations were chosen accordingly to avoid an impact of glaucophane breakdown on the mechanical data. I agree that this information belongs to the supplementary material. However, I find that the authors should explain in a bit more detail why they chose these hot-pressing durations/conditions in the main text.
Other comments:
Lines 197-199 and Fig. 2c: I agree that the reproducibility is very good for the 750 ˚C test (shear stress at 1st and 4th step), but for the other runs conducted at 700 and 725 ˚C, the reproducibility is far less striking. Please add some more explanation on how you decided that the sample reached steady state.
Lines 250-253: It would be helpful if you could be more specific and provide information on the experimental conditions and the type of material used in the studies by AveLallemant (1978) and Reynard et al. (1989).
Lines 272-275: Just a suggestion: The word ductile can be confusing as I have the impression that this term means different things in different geoscientific communities. Perhaps use: “transition from localized to distributed deformation”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1507-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
214 | 42 | 12 | 268 | 12 | 6 | 7 |
- HTML: 214
- PDF: 42
- XML: 12
- Total: 268
- Supplement: 12
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1