the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Models of buoyancy-driven dykes using continuum plasticity and fracture mechanics: a comparison
Abstract. Magmatic dykes are thought to play an important role in the thermomechanics of tectonic rifting of the lithosphere. Our understanding of this role is limited by the lack of models that consistently capture the interaction between magmatism, including dyking, and tectonic deformation. While linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) has provided a basis for understanding the mechanics of dykes, it is difficult to consistently incorporate LEFM into geodynamic models. Here we further develop a continuum theory that represents dykes as plastic tensile failure in a two-phase, Stokes–Darcy model with a poro- viscoelastic–viscoplastic (poro-VEVP) rheological law (Li et al., 2023). We validate this approach by making quantitative comparison with LEFM, enabled by a novel poro-LEFM formulation. The comparison shows that dykes in our continuum theory propagate slowly—a consequence of Darcian drag on the magma. Moreover, dissipation of mechanical energy in the poro-VEVP model implies a high critical stress intensity in LEFM. We improve the poro-VEVP model by reformulating the compaction stress and incorporating anisotropic permeability in regions of plastic failure.
- Preprint
(861 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 30 Jan 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3504', Giacomo Medici, 11 Dec 2024
reply
General comments
Very good multidisciplinary research with a focus on dykes, I definitely enjoyed reading it. The amount of literature on the hydraulic properties of fractured rocks at such a large scale is not large. Please, see my specific comments to improve the manuscript.
Specific comments
Lines 62-70. Porosity. Total or effective porosity? When I think to the porosity of fractured rocks, I tend to consider this concept. Think if you need to specify something
Lines 10, 71-76. Permeability anisotropy. Vertical or horizontal? You need to explain this point in the abstract.
Line 73. Permeability tensor. Are you thinking to apply this concept at which observation scale?
Line 73. Permeability tensor. If you think that is a good idea to discuss the observation scale, please provide details on the depth and lateral extension.
Lines 74-75 “Anisotropic permeability can arise from anisotropic stresses and aligned pores or fractures”. Please, insert recent and relevant literature on the anisotropic permeabilities due to either anisotropic stress and orientation of fractures:
- Medici G, Ling F, Shang J 2023. Review of discrete fracture network characterization for geothermal energy extraction. Frontiers in Earth Science, 11, 1328397.
- Lei, Q., Latham, J.P. and Tsang, C.F., 2017. The use of discrete fracture networks for modelling coupled geomechanical and hydrological behaviour of fractured rocks. Computers and Geotechnics, 85, 151-176.
Lines 174. You reference multiple times Snow 1979. Do you need to discuss the hydraulic / mechanical aperture of the joints. What about the cubic law?
Figures and tables
Figure 1. Do you need to insert a spatial scale in your conceptual model?
Figure 3a. The figure describes the porosity and solid deformation field at t = 2 kyr. This is an important figure and if the reader wants to catch the details need to zoom in a lot. Please, enlarge the size
Figure 3a. Can this figure be separated from the others?
Figure F1. This is a very important figure from a conceptual point of view. Indeed, the image shows physical variations as a function of the depth. If you introduce this figure in the main body
of the manuscript, you would rise either the readability or the impact of your research.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3504-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Yuan Li, 13 Jan 2025
reply
We thank the reviewer for this feedback. Below, we address each specific comment in turn, with our responses indicated by R:.
* Lines 62-70. Porosity. Total or effective porosity? When I think to the porosity of fractured rocks, I tend to consider this concept. Think if you need to specify something.
R: In this manuscript, we assume total and effective porosity are equivalent, implying that all voids within the grain matrix are interconnected and fully saturated with liquid. We acknowledge that a distinction between these porosities exists and is important in some contexts. However, for partially molten rock in the asthenosphere, the pore structure is controlled by textural equilibrium, which results in a highly connected pore network. Therefore, equating the total and effective porosity is common practice in the geodynamic modelling community for the scales and processes considered. Thus, further elaboration is not included here.
* Lines 10, 71-76. Permeability anisotropy. Vertical or horizontal? You need to explain this point in the abstract.
R: To clarify, we will revise the sentence in line 73 as follows:
Original: ``We resolve this discrepancy by introducing an anisotropic permeability tensor into the poro-VEVP model...”
Revised: ``We resolve this discrepancy by introducing an anisotropic permeability tensor into the two-dimensional poro-VEVP model...”
This revision makes clear that the anisotropic permeability is implemented within a 2D model, which is later described as occupying a vertical plane.
* Line 73. Permeability tensor. Are you thinking to apply this concept at which observation scale?
R: The ``observation scale" is not a defined quantity in the context of our mathematical model. We define anisotropic permeability at the subgrid scale, where it is described by the tensor. Hence the anisotropy is uniform within a grid cell; anisotropy at larger scales emerges as part of the numerical solution. This large scale structure might be compared with observations.
* Line 73. Permeability tensor. If you think that is a good idea to discuss the observation scale, please provide details on the depth and lateral extension.
R: Thank you for the suggestion. However, we opt not to discuss this topic, as it is less relevant to the manuscript’s main focus.
* Lines 74-75 “Anisotropic permeability can arise from anisotropic stresses and aligned pores or fractures”. Please, insert recent and relevant literature on the anisotropic permeabilities due to either anisotropic stress and orientation of fractures:
- Medici G, Ling F, Shang J 2023. Review of discrete fracture network characterization for geothermal energy extraction. Frontiers in Earth Science, 11, 1328397.
- Lei, Q., Latham, J.P. and Tsang, C.F., 2017. The use of discrete fracture networks for modelling coupled geomechanical and hydrological behaviour of fractured rocks. Computers and Geotechnics, 85, 151-176.
R: Thank you for suggesting these relevant studies. We will include them in the references of the revised manuscript.
* Lines 174. You reference multiple times Snow 1979. Do you need to discuss the hydraulic / mechanical aperture of the joints. What about the cubic law?
R: We do not need to discuss the hydraulic aperture of the joints and its effect on permeability models as Snow (1979) did. This is a subgrid feature that we cannot resolve. Such a detailed discussion lies beyond the scope of this manuscript, which focuses on comparing the continuum (poro-VEVP) and discrete (LEFM) models given the same constitutive laws.
* Figure 1. Do you need to insert a spatial scale in your conceptual model?
R: We appreciate the suggestion but believe a spatial scale is unnecessary for this figure. The schematic is designed to highlight differences between the classical LEFM model and the proposed poro-LEFM model. For such a conceptual diagram, it is not necessary to either show dimensional sizes or the relative size ratio, such as the head size to the far-field aperture. A similar sketch is commonly used in LEFM studies, for example Figure 1 in Roper and Lister (2007).
- Roper, S. M. and Lister, J. R., 2007. Buoyancy-Driven Crack Propagation: The Limit of Large Fracture Toughness, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 580, 359–380.
* Figure 3a. The figure describes the porosity and solid deformation field at t = 2 kyr. This is an important figure and if the reader wants to catch the details need to zoom in a lot. Please, enlarge the size.
Figure 3a. Can this figure be separated from the others?
R: Thank you for this suggestion to improve the presentation of results. We will separate Figure 3a from other panels to make it bigger.
* Figure F1. This is a very important figure from a conceptual point of view. Indeed, the image shows physical variations as a function of the depth. If you introduce this figure in the main body of the manuscript, you would rise either the readability or the impact of your research.
R: We appreciate this suggestion. However, after careful consideration, we believe it is more appropriate to leave Figure F1 in the Appendix. This figure highlights a complex difference that, while interesting, has limited impact on the main conclusions and is not yet fully understood. As such, we include it as supplementary material for specialist readers without diverting focus from the primary objectives of the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3504-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Yuan Li, 13 Jan 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
124 | 32 | 6 | 162 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 124
- PDF: 32
- XML: 6
- Total: 162
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1