Numerical simulations of spiral‐shaped inclusion trails: can 3D geometry distinguish between end‐member models of spiral formation?
Numerical simulations of spiral‐shaped inclusion trails: can 3D geometry distinguish between end‐member models of spiral formation?
复制标题
螺旋状夹杂物轨迹的数值模拟：3D 几何可以区分螺旋形成的端元模型吗？
DOI：
10.1046/j.1525-1314.2002.00407.x
复制
发表时间：
2002
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
T. Masuda
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Stallard;H. Ikei;T. Masuda
对成斑岩中螺旋包裹体轨迹的发展进行了三维数值模拟，以检验文献中提出的螺旋形成的旋转端元模型和非旋转端元模型之间的三维螺旋几何形状不同，以及(B)三维螺旋几何形状可以作为区分岩石中两种端元模型的标准。在两组模拟之间确定了四个主要差异：螺旋曲率的平滑；叶面的间距；代表成斑细胞的球体两侧的单个叶面的排列；以及相对于基质剪切感的螺旋不对称。在这些差异中，只有螺旋不对称和可能的个别面理平面的排列是区分末端成员模型的诊断标准。在缺乏易于应用的检验来区分端元模型的情况下，对螺旋包裹体轨迹的解释是有问题的。有必要确定补充证据，以区分螺旋体形成过程中的成斑细胞旋转和不旋转。
Numerical 3D simulations of the development of spiral inclusion trails in porphyroblasts were conducted in order to test the proposals that (a) 3D spiral geometry differs between the rotation and nonrotation end‐member models of spiral formation proposed in the literature, and (b) 3D spiral geometry can be used as a criterion to distinguish between the two end‐member models in rocks. Four principal differences are identified between the two sets of simulations: smoothness of spiral curvature; spacing of foliation planes; alignment of individual foliation planes either side of the sphere representing the porphyroblast; and spiral asymmetry with respect to matrix shear sense. Of these differences, only spiral asymmetry and possibly the alignment of individual foliation planes are diagnostic criteria for distinguishing between the end‐member models. In the absence of a readily applied test to distinguish the end‐member models, interpretation of spiral inclusion trails is problematic. It is necessary to determine complementary evidence to distinguish porphyroblast rotation or nonrotation during spiral formation.