SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Moon;
  • volcanism;
  • domes

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters
  5. 3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome
  6. 4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes
  7. 5. Summary of Rheological Parameters
  8. 6. Eruption Rate Estimates
  9. 7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes
  10. 8. Discussion and Conclusions
  11. Acknowledgments
  12. References
  13. Supporting Information

[1] The lunar steep-sided Gruithuisen and Mairan domes are morphologically and spectrally distinctive structures and appear similar to terrestrial extrusive volcanic features characterized by viscous magma. We use the basic morphologic and morphometric characteristics of the domes to estimate the yield strengths (∼105 Pa), plastic viscosities (∼109 Pa s), and effusion rates (∼50 m3/s) of the magmas which formed them. These values are similar to those of terrestrial rhyolites, dacites, and basaltic andesites and support the hypothesis that these domes are an unusual variation of typical highlands and mare compositions. The dikes which formed them are predicted to have had widths of ∼50 m and lengths of about 15 km. The magma rise speed implied by this geometry is very low, ∼7 × 10−5 m/s, and the Reynolds number of the motion is ∼2 × 10−8, implying a completely laminar flow regime. Estimates of emplacement duration range from one to several decades. These new calculations confirm the unusual nature of these features and support previous qualitative suggestions that they were formed from magmas with significantly higher viscosity than those typical of mare basalts.

1. Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters
  5. 3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome
  6. 4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes
  7. 5. Summary of Rheological Parameters
  8. 6. Eruption Rate Estimates
  9. 7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes
  10. 8. Discussion and Conclusions
  11. Acknowledgments
  12. References
  13. Supporting Information

[2] The Gruithuisen and Mairan domes, located in northern Oceanus Procellarum (Figure 1), represent examples of topographically, morphologically and spectrally distinctive structures on the Moon [Malin, 1974; Head and McCord, 1978; Chevrel et al., 1999; Head and Wilson, 1992, and references therein] that appear to be candidates for the sites of extrusion of very viscous magma about 3.7–3.85 Gyr ago [Wagner et al., 2002]. In this analysis, we use the basic morphologic and morphometric characteristics of the domes as a basis for estimation of their yield strength, plastic viscosity, eruption rates, dike feeder geometry (e.g., dike width and length), and eruption duration. We then compare these values with those characterizing terrestrial environments and compositions.

image

Figure 1. Location of the Gruithuisen and Mairan domes (black) and their geologic setting in northeastern Oceanus Procellarum and northwestern Mare Imbrium. The small dome to the northwest of Gruithuisen γ is the Gruithuisen Northwest (NW) dome. Traces of the location of the rings of the Imbrium multiringed basin are marked A and B, and the rim of the younger Iridum crater is marked C. Obliquely lined regions are highland material dominated by Iridum ejecta deposits. The line marked D denotes the change from radially textured ejecta toward Iridum to regions of secondary craters away from it. The mare units (plain pattern) flood and embay the uplands, and are mostly Imbrian in age. Eratosthenian mare units surrounding the Mairan domes are indicated in gray. Other impact craters have a stippled pattern. One degree of latitude equals about 30 km.

Download figure to PowerPoint

2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters
  5. 3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome
  6. 4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes
  7. 5. Summary of Rheological Parameters
  8. 6. Eruption Rate Estimates
  9. 7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes
  10. 8. Discussion and Conclusions
  11. Acknowledgments
  12. References
  13. Supporting Information

[3] The Gruithuisen and Mairan domes are sufficiently symmetrical that it is more appropriate to regard them as being the result of the extrusion of magma onto a flat plane, across which it spreads in all directions from the vent, than onto an inclined surface down which it flows in one main direction. Available treatments of such dome-forming eruptions are those of Huppert [1982], Huppert et al. [1982], Blake [1990], Fink and Griffiths [1990], and Sakimoto and Zuber [1995]. Huppert [1982] and Huppert et al. [1982] treated aspects of the motion of a Newtonian magma of constant viscosity and did not consider how cooling of the flow surface would limit the motion of such a flow. Fink and Griffiths [1990] considered cooling mainly in so far as it affected the development of surface textures on a flow rather than the rheology of the flow interior. Sakimoto and Zuber [1995] treated a Newtonian fluid with time-variable viscosity and showed that a sufficiently large increase in viscosity could effectively cause motion to cease; however their numerical treatment does not lend itself easily to modeling the dimensions of a dome produced by a given effusion rate. The most suitable model in this respect is that of Blake [1990], which treats the cooling magma as a Bingham plastic characterized by a yield strength, τ, and plastic viscosity, η. The yield strength is given by

  • equation image

where ρ is the lava density (we initially adopt 2000 kg/m3 and discuss the reason for, and significance of, this later), g the acceleration due to gravity (1.63 m/s2), rm the radius of the dome and dtot its maximum height. Table 1 gives the measured values of rm and dtot: we treat the Gruithuisen domes γ and NW and all three of the Mairan domes as being circular for this purpose and give the radial extent (i.e. the half-width) at right-angles to the long axis for the elongate dome Gruithuisen δ. Table 1 also gives the inferred values of τ. They are of order 3 × 105 Pa for the Gruithuisen domes and 1.0 × 105 Pa for the Mairan features, all larger than the values found for the distinctive festoon structure on Venus [Head et al., 1992; Pavri et al., 1992; Moore et al., 1992; Head and Hess, 1996], mainly due to the greater thickness of the domes on the Moon.

Table 1. Measured Values of the Maximum Radial Extent rm and Total Thickness dtot for All of the Domes Studied, and of the Implied Yield Strength τ and Plastic Viscosity, η, of the Material Forming the Domes
Dome Namerm/mdtot/mτ/Paη/(Pa s)
Gruithuisen γ1000012001.5 × 1051.6 × 109
Gruithuisen δ650015503.9 × 10515.6 × 109
Gruithuisen NW400011003.2 × 1059.7 × 109
Mairan T650090013.1 × 10411.5 × 108
Mairan “middle”55006006.9 × 1042.5 × 108
Mairan “south”50005005.3 × 1041.3 × 108

[4] Next we use an empirical formula given by Moore and Ackerman [1989] to relate the plastic viscosity, η, to the yield strength, τ:

  • equation image

where Q = 6 × 10−4 when η is expressed in Pa s and τ is in Pa. On this basis (see Table 1), the most likely value of η for the Gruithuisen domes is ∼ 1 × 1010 Pa s and for the Mairan domes is within a factor of about two of 5 × 108 Pa s. The above analysis is oversimplified, however, in that all of the Gruithuisen domes show evidence for having been formed from more than a single flow unit. The δ and NW domes have very small secondary domes on top of the main dome and the γ dome has three flow lobes descending from near its summit [Head et al., 1978] (Figure 2). We therefore analyze each of the major Gruithuisen domes in more detail in the following sections.

image

Figure 2. Top: Lunar Orbiter image of the Gruithuisen domes region (see Figure 1 for locations and context for domes). Portion of Lunar Orbiter IV 145 H1. Bottom: Geologic sketch map of the Gruithuisen domes [from Head et al., 1978].

Download figure to PowerPoint

3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters
  5. 3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome
  6. 4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes
  7. 5. Summary of Rheological Parameters
  8. 6. Eruption Rate Estimates
  9. 7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes
  10. 8. Discussion and Conclusions
  11. Acknowledgments
  12. References
  13. Supporting Information

[5] We treat this feature (Figure 1) as an underlying symmetric dome of radius rm = 10 km and unknown thickness dm on which are superimposed three flow lobes; we assume that these merge toward the summit where they have a common thickness dc. The observed apparent height of the dome, dtot = 1200 m, is then the sum of dm and dc. The two flows which can be mapped in most detail (those to the southwest and south of the summit) both have total widths, wt, of about 5 km where they descend the steeper parts of the dome slope. We treat both the underlying dome and the flows as Bingham plastics with the same rheological properties. Equation (1) still applies for the dome except that dm (= dtot − dc) now has an unknown value less than 1200 m. Hulme [1974] showed that the center-line thickness, dc, of a Bingham plastic flow lobe is given by

  • equation image

and is independent of the slope on which it is emplaced. We can rearrange this expression for the yield strength of the flow as τ = (ρ g dc2)/wt and equate it to the value of τ for the dome given by equation (1) to obtain a quadratic equation in dc which has the solution

  • equation image

where α is the value of [rm/(0.323 wt)]. The measured values of rm = 10 km and wt = 5000 m lead to α = 6.192, and so with dtot = 1200 m we find dc = 344 m. This means that dm = 1200 − 344 = 856 m and equation (1) then implies τ = 7.7 × 104 Pa. Equation (2) then gives η = 3.2 × 108 Pa s. These values are, as expected, significantly less than the first approximations given in Table 1 which ignored the detailed morphology of the dome.

4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters
  5. 3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome
  6. 4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes
  7. 5. Summary of Rheological Parameters
  8. 6. Eruption Rate Estimates
  9. 7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes
  10. 8. Discussion and Conclusions
  11. Acknowledgments
  12. References
  13. Supporting Information

[6] Each of these features (Figure 1) consists of a large dome on which is superimposed one (in the case of NW) or two (in the case of δ) smaller domes (Figure 2). Let the maximum radial extents of the larger, lower dome and the smaller, upper dome be rml and rmu, respectively, and let their maximum thicknesses be correspondingly dml and dmu. In the case of NW the radial distances are true radii since both upper and lower domes are essentially circular. In the case of δ, the underlying dome is strongly elongate and the two superimposed domes are less strongly elongate but with the same orientations: in these cases the “radial distances” are the half-widths measured at right angles to the long axis. The measured values are given in Table 2. For the lower dome in each case we can write the equivalent of equation (1):

  • equation image

and for the upper dome

  • equation image

where we assume, as before, that both domes are made of material with the same rheological properties. The sum of dml and dmu is the total measured height of the composite dome, dtot, and so we can use the above expression for dml and dmu to give

  • equation image

where β is defined by

  • equation image

and it follows that

  • equation image
Table 2. Measured Values of the Maximum Radial Extents, rml and rmu, of the Lower and Upper Components, Respectively, of Two of the Gruithuisen Domesa
Dome Namerml/mrmu/mβ/mτ/Padml/mdmu/mη/(Pa s)
  • a

    See text for discussion. Also given are the value of β deduced from equation (7); the implied value of the yield strength τ from equation (8); the thicknesses, dml and dmu, of the lower and upper domes implied by equation (9); and the plastic viscosity η deduced from τ via equation (2).

Gruithuisen δ (NW minor dome)65004000116.112.2 × 1048696819.7 × 108
Gruithuisen δ (SE minor dome)65002750135.714.2 × 10493961113.9 × 108
Gruithuisen NW40001500116.412.3 × 1046824189.9 × 108

[7] Table 2 shows the values of β found for each pair of domes by inserting the total thickness dtot (from Table 1) and the measured values of rml and rmu into equation (7). Also given are the implied values of τ from equation (8) and the corresponding values of dml and dmu from equation (9) and the plastic viscosity η implied by equation (2). As was the case for the Gruithuisen γ dome, the values found for the rheological parameters are smaller than the first approximations given in Table 1.

5. Summary of Rheological Parameters

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters
  5. 3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome
  6. 4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes
  7. 5. Summary of Rheological Parameters
  8. 6. Eruption Rate Estimates
  9. 7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes
  10. 8. Discussion and Conclusions
  11. Acknowledgments
  12. References
  13. Supporting Information

[8] In Table 3 we show the values found for τ and η by the various methods of analysis employed so far. Given the resolution of the images used and the consequent difficulties in mapping and measuring features, it might be argued that all of these measurements represent a single Bingham plastic magma for which τ = (10 ± 3) × 104 Pa and η = (6 ± 4) × 108 Pa s. Alternatively we could separate the two groups of domes and characterize the Gruithuisen dome magma by τ = (12 ± 3) × 104 Pa, η = (10 ± 5) × 108 Pa s and the Mairan dome magma by the slightly smaller values τ = (8 ± 4) × 104 Pa, η = (5 ± 4) × 108 Pa s.

Table 3. Summary of the Values of Yield Strength τ and Plastic Viscosity η Found for the Domes Studied Using Various Methods
Dome NameMethod Usedτ/Paη/(Pa s)
Gruithuisen γflows superposed on dome7.7 × 1043.2 × 108
Gruithuisen δ (NW)two superposed domes12.2 × 1049.7 × 108
Gruithuisen δ (SE)two superposed domes14.2 × 10413.9 × 108
Gruithuisen NWtwo superposed domes12.3 × 1049.9 × 108
Mairan Tsingle dome13.1 × 10411.5 × 108
Mairan “middle”single dome6.9 × 1042.5 × 108
Mairan “south”single dome5.3 × 1041.3 × 108

6. Eruption Rate Estimates

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters
  5. 3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome
  6. 4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes
  7. 5. Summary of Rheological Parameters
  8. 6. Eruption Rate Estimates
  9. 7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes
  10. 8. Discussion and Conclusions
  11. Acknowledgments
  12. References
  13. Supporting Information

[9] We now turn to the estimation of the eruption rates of the magmas forming the various dome units. To do this we assume that the advance of the flow front of each flow unit or dome-forming episode was limited by cooling. Pinkerton and Wilson [1994] show that a variety of types of lava flows cease to move when the Grätz number, a dimensionless measure of the depth of penetration into the flow of the cooled boundary layer, has decreased from its initially very high value to a critical value of about 300. This is shown to correspond to assuming that the flow has been moving for a time T such that

  • equation image

where κ is the thermal diffusivity of the lava (∼10−6 m2/s) and df is the thickness of the flow near its front.

[10] Blake's [1990] model of Bingham plastic domes shows that the radius of the dome, r, grows as a function of time, t, given by

  • equation image

where E is the volume eruption rate. For a symmetrical dome, it is not trivial to define the thickness df which corresponds to the distal thickness of a lava flow lobe. We assume that a reasonable approximation is to take the thickness of the dome halfway between its center and its edge. The parabolic dome profiles implied by Blake's [1990, equation (23)] model are such that df defined in this way is equal to ∼0.7dm. Substituting this relationship and equation (10) into equation (11) we obtain an expression relating the radius of the dome when it ceases spreading (i.e. rm) to its maximum thickness at this time, dm, and the effusion rate feeding it:

  • equation image

Eliminating τ from this equation using equation (1) and rearranging:

  • equation image

Table 4 summarizes the values of rm and dm for all of the dome components and the values of effusion rate that they imply. It must be pointed out that the assumption that flow lobes are cooling-limited always leads to effusion rate estimates that are lower bounds. This is because any flow unit assumed to be cooling-limited may in fact have been volume-limited (i.e. ceased to flow simply because the magma supply was exhausted), implying that it had the potential to travel further than the observed distance and therefore had a higher effusion rate than that deduced. For each of the Gruithuisen domes (Figures 1 and 2) we have either a second smaller dome or a flow lobe superimposed on a larger, earlier dome. It is very tempting to assume that the second unit in each case is a break-out at the vent caused by the magma supply continuing after the first unit has reached its cooling-limited length. This automatically implies that the effusion rates deduced from the large dome geometries (∼48, 24 and 119 m3/s for Gruithuisen δ, NW and γ, respectively) are the realistic estimates and that the rates found from the smaller units are underestimates. For the Mairan domes we are not able to resolve multiple lobe structures and must regard the (as it happens remarkably similar) effusion rates of ∼50 m3/s as lower limits on the true rates.

Table 4. Summary of the Radii, rm, and Thicknesses, dm, of the Various Dome Components and the Implied Volume Eruption Rates, E, of Magma if the Flow Units Are Cooling Limited
Dome Namerm/mdm/mE/(m3/s)
Gruithuisen γ10000856119.3
Gruithuisen δ (NW lower dome)650086949.7
Gruithuisen δ (NW upper dome)400068124.0
Gruithuisen δ (SE lower dome)650093946.0
Gruithuisen δ (SE upper dome)275061112.6
Gruithuisen NW (lower dome)400068224.0
Gruithuisen NW (upper dome)15004185.5
Mairan T650090048.0
Mairan “middle”550060051.5
Mairan “south”500050051.1

[11] It is possible to obtain useful information by considering the motion of the flow lobes on the flanks of Gruithuisen γ. The relevant theory is outlined by Hulme [1974]: a Bingham plastic flow with total width wt emplaced on a plane inclined at an angle ϑ to the horizontal has stationary margin levees of width wb such that

  • equation image

The width of the channel within which lava moves is then wc = wt − 2wb. This channel width can be related to the other variables, including the effusion rate E, by

  • equation image

which is a slight simplification of Hulme's original formula suggested by Wilson and Head [1983]. Table 5 gives examples of the solution of equations (14) and (15) using our estimate of 5 km for wt and a range of plausible values of sin ϑ. The range is chosen to encompass the mean slope of the flanks of the underlying dome which, for the shallow angles involved, is of order sin ϑ ≅ tan ϑ ≅ (856 m/10 km) ≅ 0.085. The analysis clearly suggests that E is ∼400 m3/s, which is not greatly at variance with the 119 m3/s deduced by applying the cooling-limited criterion to the underlying dome. However, because of the strong dependence of E on the values used for sin ϑ and wc, this estimate must be regarded as very inaccurate: if 6 km were adopted for wt instead of the 5 km used above, the estimate of E would increase by a factor of more than three.

Table 5. Values of the Total Levee Width, (2 wb), the Width of the Channel in Which Lava Flowed, wc, and the Implied Volume Eruption Rate of Magma, E, for the Southwest Flow Lobe on the Flank of Gruithuisen γ, Calculated for a Series of Assumed Values of sin ϑ for the Flank Slope
sin ϑ(2 wb)/mwc/mE/(m3/s)
0.125151234885407
0.100236226381795
0.09029162084801
0.08532691731441
0.08036911309187
0.075419980144

7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters
  5. 3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome
  6. 4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes
  7. 5. Summary of Rheological Parameters
  8. 6. Eruption Rate Estimates
  9. 7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes
  10. 8. Discussion and Conclusions
  11. Acknowledgments
  12. References
  13. Supporting Information

[12] To explore the conditions under which the magmas erupted we assume that in each case the melt reached the surface from a source region at least as deep as the base of the mainly anorthositic crust. Assuming a mean crustal density ρc = 2800 kg/m3 and recalling the assumed magma density of ρ = 2000 kg/m3, the pressure gradient driving the magma rise is ∼[g (ρc − ρ)] = ∼130 Pa m−1. The magma rise speed is found by balancing the driving pressure gradient against the wall friction which, allowing for the need to overcome the yield strength, leads to [Wilson and Head, 1981; Johnson and Pollard, 1973]

  • equation image

The rise speed, dike geometry and volume eruption rate are related by

  • equation image

but horizontal length L and width W of the dike are not independent; their ratio is a function of the elastic and plastic properties of the crustal rocks and also of the viscosity of the magma. Rubin [1993] showed that for magmas with the relatively high viscosity found here, and assuming a mean viscosity of ∼1018 Pa s for the hot lower crustal rocks through which the dike passes, the ratio L/W probably lies within a factor of 2 of 200. Using this value and combining the above expressions, we have

  • equation image

from which W can be obtained recursively from any initial estimate.

[13] Using the mean rheological properties for all of the domes, τ = 10 × 104 Pa and η = 6 × 108 Pa s, together with an eruption rate of 50 m3/s (typical of the majority of the values in Table 4), we find W = 154 m and so L = 31 km. The magma rise speed implied by this geometry is very small, 11 × 10−6 m/s, and the Reynolds number of the motion is ∼10−8, implying a completely laminar flow regime. At first sight the implied fissure length of ∼30 km seems large judged against the facts that (i) the δ dome is elongate with its main vents ∼12 km apart and (ii) the γ and NW domes together could be regarded as defining an underlying fissure about 18 km long (Figures 1 and 2). However, it is common on Earth for eruptions to localize so that only part of an initial fissure remain active throughout an eruption [Richter et al., 1970; Wolfe et al., 1988; Wilson and Head, 1988].

[14] We have repeated the solution of equation (18) with a range of magma densities. Increasing the magma density (i.e. reducing the buoyancy) makes U smaller and W and L larger. Table 6 shows the results of using ρ = 2400, 2000 and 1600 kg m−3. The solutions W = 103 m and L = ∼21 km, found for the very small magma density of 1600 kg m−3, imply a dike length close to that evidenced by the observations. Thus, one possible explanation for the unusual properties of the magma involved in building these domes is that it is an extremely vesicular foam.

Table 6. Values of Mean Dike Width, W, Horizontal Dike Length, L, Magma Rise Speed, U, and Reynolds Number of Magma Motion, Re, as a Function of Magma Density, ρ, for Magma Feeding Dome Eruptions at a Fixed Volume Flux of 50 m3 s−1
ρ/(kg m−3)W/mL/kmU/(m s−1)Re
2400307613 × 10−60.5 × 10−8
20001543311 × 10−61.0 × 10−9
16001032124 × 10−61.6 × 10−9

[15] In order to see if a better fit to the inferred dike geometries can be found, we give in Table 7 the individual best estimates of τ, η and E for each of the domes, the corresponding calculated values of W and L using the original magma density estimate of 2000 kg/m3, and for comparison the estimates of active fissure length Le based on the morphology and arrangement of the domes. Examination of this table confirms that it is plausible to assume that Gruithuisen NW and Gruithuisen γ are fed by the same dike. It also seems likely that Mairan “middle” and Mairan “south” share a common feeder. However, Mairan T appears to be anomalous in respect of the geometry of the dike needed to supply it. Indeed, Mairan T appears to be significantly different from Mairan “middle” and Mairan “south” in terms of its rheological properties, largely as a result of its large thickness to diameter ratio, and it seems likely that it, like the Gruithuisen domes, is a composite feature. If Mairan T consists of two phases of extrusion which produced domes with radii 6500 (the mapped radius) and 3000 m (an arbitrary but plausible value), the superposed dome treatment used earlier would yield β = 44.2 m, τ = 4.7 × 104 Pa and η = 1.0 × 108 Pa s; the implied effusion rate for the main phase would be 81 m3/s, and the width and length of the feeding dike would be 72 m and 14 km, respectively. This value of the dike length is much more consistent with the observed geometry of this dome.

Table 7. Values of the Best Estimates of Yield Strength, τ, Plastic Viscosity, η, and Volume Eruption Rate, E, for Each of the Domes and of the Corresponding Values Calculated for the Width, W, and Length, L, of the Underlying Feeder Dikea
Featureτ/Paη/(Pa s)E/(m3/s)W/mL/kmLe/km
  • a

    An estimate of the dike length, Le, obtained from the interpretation of the images is included for comparison.

Gruithuisen γ7.7 × 1043.2 × 108119119245–10
Gruithuisen δ13.2 × 10411.8 × 108482034112–15
Gruithuisen NW12.3 × 1049.9 × 10824189382–3
Gruithuisen NW and γ combined10.0 × 1046.0 × 1081431543118–20
Mairan T13.1 × 10411.5 × 10824201401–2
Mairan “middle”6.9 × 1042.5 × 10852106212–3
Mairan “south”5.3 × 1041.3 × 108518216∼1
Mairan “middle” and “south” combined6.1 × 1041.8 × 1085294198–10

8. Discussion and Conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters
  5. 3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome
  6. 4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes
  7. 5. Summary of Rheological Parameters
  8. 6. Eruption Rate Estimates
  9. 7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes
  10. 8. Discussion and Conclusions
  11. Acknowledgments
  12. References
  13. Supporting Information

[16] In summary, we find typical values of yield strength, τ, of order 105 Pa, plastic viscosity, η, of order 109 Pa s, and effusion rate, E, of order 50 m3/s. What do these values mean? Values of τ ∼ 3 × 105 occur with terrestrial rhyolites, dacites and basaltic andesites [see Blake, 1990, Table 3]. Effusion rate values of up to 10 m3/s for the Mt. St. Helens dacite dome lobes [Anderson and Fink, 1992], and about 5 m3/s for the Soufriere basaltic andesite [Blake, 1990; Huppert et al., 1982] have been documented.

[17] Typical dike geometries are predicted to be of width ∼100–200 m and length about 20–40 km. The magma rise speed implied by this geometry is very low, ∼10−5 m/s, and the Reynolds number of the motion is ∼10−8, implying a completely laminar flow regime. If the viscosity/yield strength relationship is unreliable, the W and L values will not be very reliable (though W depends on η raised to a power close to one quarter so this will not change the values dramatically). Total duration of formation of the domes can be estimated by using the data on effusion rates and volumes (Table 8). The range of formation times is estimated to be ∼10 to 50 years.

Table 8. Summary of the Key Values for the Gruithuisen and Mairan Domesa
Dome Namerm/mdm/mV/km3E/(m3/s)D/years
  • a

    Values include dome radii, rm, heights, dm, volumes, V (treating the domes as parabolas so that V = [(π/2) rm2 dm]), effusion rates, E, and the implied duration of formation, D, equal to (V/E).

Gruithuisen γ10000856135.9119.338.0
Gruithuisen δ (NW lower dome)650086957.749.738.7
Gruithuisen δ (NW upper dome)400068117.124.023.8
Gruithuisen δ (SE lower dome)650093962.346.045.1
Gruithuisen δ (SE upper dome)27506117.312.619.3
Gruithuisen NW (lower dome)400068217.124.023.8
Gruithuisen NW (upper dome)15004181.55.59.1
Mairan T650090059.748.041.5
Mairan “middle”550060028.551.518.4
Mairan “south”500050019.651.112.8

[18] In summary, these new calculations confirm the unusual nature of these features and support previous qualitative suggestions that they were formed from magmas with significantly higher viscosity than typical of mare basalts.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters
  5. 3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome
  6. 4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes
  7. 5. Summary of Rheological Parameters
  8. 6. Eruption Rate Estimates
  9. 7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes
  10. 8. Discussion and Conclusions
  11. Acknowledgments
  12. References
  13. Supporting Information
  • Anderson, S. W., and J. H. Fink, Crease structures: Indicators of emplacement rates and surface stress regimes of lava flows, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 104, 615625, 1992.
  • Blake, S., Viscoplastic models of lava domes, in Lava Flows and Domes: Emplacement Mechanisms and Hazard Implications, IAVCEI Proc. Volcanol., 2, edited by J. Fink, pp. 88128, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990.
  • Chevrel, S., P. C. Pinet, and J. W. Head, Gruithuisen domes region: A candidate for an extended nonmare volcanism unit on the Moon, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 16,51516,529, 1999.
  • Fink, J. H., and R. W. Griffiths, Radial spreading of viscous-gravity currents with solidifying crust, J. Fluid Mech., 221, 485509, 1990.
  • Head, J. W., and P. C. Hess, Formation of tertiary crust on Venus by remelting of tessera crustal roots: The Ovda Regio festoon, Lunar Planet. Sci., 27, 513514, 1996.
  • Head, J. W., and T. B. McCord, Imbrian-aged highland volcanism on the Moon, The Gruithuisen and Marian domes, Science, 199, 14331436, 1978.
  • Head, J. W., and L. Wilson, Lunar mare volcanism: Stratigraphy, eruption conditions, and the evolution of secondary crusts, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 55, 21552175, 1992.
  • Head, J. W., P. C. Hess, and T. B. McCord, Geologic characteristics of lunar highland volcanic domes (Gruithuisen and Mairan region) and possible eruption conditions, Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf., 9th, 488490, 1978.
  • Head, J. W., L. S. Crumpler, J. C. Aubele, J. Guest, and R. S. Saunders, Venus volcanism: Classification of volcanic features and structures, associations, and global distribution from Magellan data, J. Geophys. Res., 97(E8), 13,15313,197, 1992.
  • Hulme, G., The interpretation of lava flow morphology, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 39, 361383, 1974.
  • Huppert, H. E., The propagation of two-dimensional and axisymmetric viscous gravity currents over a rigid horizontal surface, J. Fluid Mech., 188, 107131, 1982.
  • Huppert, H. E., J. B. Shepherd, H. Sigurdsson, and R. S. J. Sparks, On lava dome growth, with application to the 1979 lava extrusion of the Soufrière of St. Vincent, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 14, 199222, 1982.
  • Johnson, A. M., and D. D. Pollard, Mechanics of growth of some laccolithic intrusions in the Henry Mountains, Utah, I, Field observations, Gilbert's model, physical properties and flow of the magma, Tectonophysics, 18, 261309, 1973.
  • Malin, M., Lunar red spots: Possible pre-mare materials, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 21, 331341, 1974.
  • Moore, H. J., and J. A. Ackerman, Martian and terrestrial lava flows, in Reports on Planetary Geology Geophysics Program-1988, NASA Tech. Memo. TM-4130, 387389, 1989.
  • Moore, H. J., J. J. Plaut, P. M. Schenk, and J. W. Head, An unusual volcano on Venus, J. Geophys. Res., 97(E8), 13,47913,493, 1992.
  • Pavri, B., J. W. Head, K. B. Klose, and L. Wilson, Steep-sided domes on Venus: Characteristics, geologic setting, and eruption conditions from Magellan data, J. Geophys. Res., 97(E8), 13,44513,478, 1992.
  • Pinkerton, H., and L. Wilson, m Factors controlling the lengths of channel-fed lava flows, Bull. Volcanol., 56, 108120, 1994.
  • Richter, D. H., J. P. Eaton, K. J. Murata, W. H. Ault, and H. L. Krivoy, Chronological narrative of the 1959–60 eruption of Kilauea volcano, Hawaii, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 537-E, 173, 1970.
  • Rubin, A. M., Dikes vs. diapirs in viscoelastic rock, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 119, 641659, 1993.
  • Sakimoto, S., and M. T. Zuber, Effects of planetary thermal structure on the ascent and cooling of magma on Venus, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 64, 5360, 1995.
  • Wagner, R., J. W. Head III, U. Wolf, and G. Neukum, Stratigraphic sequence and ages of volcanic units in the Gruithuisen region of the Moon, J. Geophys. Res., 107(E11), 5104, doi:10.1029/2002JE001844, 2002.
  • Wilson, L., and J. W. Head, Ascent and eruption of basaltic magma on the Earth and Moon, J. Geophys. Res., 86(B4), 29713001, 1981.
  • Wilson, L., and J. W. Head, A comparison of volcanic eruption processes on Earth, Moon, Mars, Io and Venus, Nature, 302, 663669, 1983.
  • Wilson, L., and J. W. Head, Nature of local magma storage zones and geometry of conduit systems below basaltic eruption sites: Pu'u O'o, Kilauea, East Rift, Hawaii example, J. Geophys. Res., 93(B12), 14,78514,792, 1988.
  • Wolfe, E. W., C. A. Neal, N. G. Banks, and T. J. Duggan, Geological observations and chronology of eruptive events, in The Puu Oo Eruption of Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii; Episodes 1 Through 20, January 3, 1983, Through June 8, 1984, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 1463, 197, 1988.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Initial Estimates of Rheological Parameters
  5. 3. Analysis of the Gruithuisen γ Dome
  6. 4. Analysis of the Gruithuisen δ and NW Domes
  7. 5. Summary of Rheological Parameters
  8. 6. Eruption Rate Estimates
  9. 7. Geometries of Feeder Dikes
  10. 8. Discussion and Conclusions
  11. Acknowledgments
  12. References
  13. Supporting Information
FilenameFormatSizeDescription
jgre1595-sup-0001-tab01.txtplain text document1KTab-delimited Table 1.
jgre1595-sup-0002-tab02.txtplain text document1KTab-delimited Table 2.
jgre1595-sup-0003-tab03.txtplain text document1KTab-delimited Table 3.
jgre1595-sup-0004-tab04.txtplain text document1KTab-delimited Table 4.
jgre1595-sup-0005-tab05.txtplain text document0KTab-delimited Table 5.
jgre1595-sup-0006-tab06.txtplain text document0KTab-delimited Table 6.
jgre1595-sup-0007-tab07.txtplain text document1KTab-delimited Table 7.
jgre1595-sup-0008-tab08.txtplain text document1KTab-delimited Table 8.

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.