Articles | Volume 14, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-14-683-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-14-683-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
11 Jul 2023
Research article |
| 11 Jul 2023
| 11 Jul 2023
The effect of temperature-dependent material properties on simple thermal models of subduction zones
Iris van Zelst
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Institute for Geophysics and Tectonics, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom
Institute of Planetary Research, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Berlin, Germany
Cedric Thieulot
Department of Earth Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Timothy J. Craig
Institute for Geophysics and Tectonics, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom
Related authors
Iris van Zelst, Fabio Crameri, Adina E. Pusok, Anne Glerum, Juliane Dannberg, and Cedric Thieulot
Solid Earth, 13, 583–637, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-583-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-583-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Geodynamic modelling provides a powerful tool to investigate processes in the Earth’s crust, mantle, and core that are not directly observable. In this review, we present a comprehensive yet concise overview of the modelling process with an emphasis on best practices. We also highlight synergies with related fields, such as seismology and geology. Hence, this review is the perfect starting point for anyone wishing to (re)gain a solid understanding of geodynamic modelling as a whole.
Deok-Kyu Jang, Kyeong-Min Lee, Cedric Thieulot, Whan-Hyuk Choi, and Byung-Dal So
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5480, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5480, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Solid Earth (SE).
Short summary
Short summary
We developed faster methods for simulating Earth's interior dynamics. Standard iterative algorithms struggle to solve these equations efficiently. We introduced two improvements. First, we reformulated how calculation errors are measured. Second, we added a mass conservation correction. Our method solves the equations much faster while staying accurate. We tested it on multiple benchmark problems, showing significant speed improvements with minimal extra computational cost.
Cedric Thieulot and Wolfgang Bangerth
Solid Earth, 16, 457–476, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-457-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-457-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
One of the main numerical methods in geodynamics is the finite element method. Many types of elements have been used in the past decades in hundreds of publications. They usually fall under two categories: quadrilaterals and triangles. For the first time we compare results obtained with the most-used elements of each type on a series of geodynamical benchmarks and draw conclusions as to which are the best ones and which are to be preferably avoided.
Erik van der Wiel, Cedric Thieulot, and Douwe J. J. van Hinsbergen
Solid Earth, 15, 861–875, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-15-861-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-15-861-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Geodynamic models of mantle convection provide a powerful tool to study the structure and composition of the Earth's mantle. Comparing such models with other datasets is difficult. We explore the use of
configurational entropy, which allows us to quantify mixing in models. The entropy may be used to analyse the mixed state of the mantle as a whole and may also be useful to validate numerical models against anomalies in the mantle that are obtained from seismology and geochemistry.
Rene Gassmöller, Juliane Dannberg, Wolfgang Bangerth, Elbridge Gerry Puckett, and Cedric Thieulot
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4115–4134, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4115-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4115-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Numerical models that use simulated particles are a powerful tool for investigating flow in the interior of the Earth, but the accuracy of these models is not fully understood. Here we present two new benchmarks that allow measurement of model accuracy. We then document that better accuracy matters for applications like convection beneath an oceanic plate. Our benchmarks and methods are freely available to help the community develop better models.
Barend Cornelis Root, Josef Sebera, Wolfgang Szwillus, Cedric Thieulot, Zdeněk Martinec, and Javier Fullea
Solid Earth, 13, 849–873, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-849-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-849-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Several alternative gravity modelling techniques and associated numerical codes with their own advantages and limitations are available for the solid Earth community. With upcoming state-of-the-art lithosphere density models and accurate global gravity field data sets, it is vital to understand the differences of the various approaches. In this paper, we discuss the four widely used techniques: spherical harmonics, tesseroid integration, triangle integration, and hexahedral integration.
Iris van Zelst, Fabio Crameri, Adina E. Pusok, Anne Glerum, Juliane Dannberg, and Cedric Thieulot
Solid Earth, 13, 583–637, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-583-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-583-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Geodynamic modelling provides a powerful tool to investigate processes in the Earth’s crust, mantle, and core that are not directly observable. In this review, we present a comprehensive yet concise overview of the modelling process with an emphasis on best practices. We also highlight synergies with related fields, such as seismology and geology. Hence, this review is the perfect starting point for anyone wishing to (re)gain a solid understanding of geodynamic modelling as a whole.
Cedric Thieulot and Wolfgang Bangerth
Solid Earth, 13, 229–249, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-229-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-229-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
One of the main numerical methods to solve the mass, momentum, and energy conservation equations in geodynamics is the finite-element method. Four main types of elements have been used in the past decades in hundreds of publications. For the first time we compare results obtained with these four elements on a series of geodynamical benchmarks and applications and draw conclusions as to which are the best ones and which are to be preferably avoided.
Cited articles
Abers, G. A.: Hydrated subducted crust at 100–250 km depth, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 176, 323–330, 2000. a
Arcay, D.: Modelling the interplate domain in thermo-mechanical simulations of subduction: Critical effects of resolution and rheology, and consequences on wet mantle melting, Phys. Earth Planet. In., 269,
112–132, 2017. a
Beall, A., Fagereng, Å., Davies, J. H., Garel, F., and Davies, D. R.: Influence of subduction zone dynamics on interface shear stress and potential
relationship with seismogenic behavior, Geochem. Geophy., Geosy.,
22, e09267, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GC009267, 2021. a
Berman, R. G. and Aranovich, L. Y.: Optimized standard state and solution properties of minerals: I. Model calibration for olivine, orthopyroxene, cordierite, garnet, and ilmenite in the system FeO-MgO-CaO-Al2O3-TiO2-SiO2, Contrib. Mineral. Petr., 126, 1–24, 1996. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n
Blom, N., Boehm, C., and Fichtner, A.: Synthetic inversions for density using seismic and gravity data, Geophys. J. Int., 209, 1204–1220,
2017. a
Bouilhol, P., Magni, V., van Hunen, J., and Kaislaniemi, L.: A numerical
approach to melting in warm subduction zones, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 411, 37–44, 2015. a
Brizzi, S., Van Zelst, I., Funiciello, F., Corbi, F., and van Dinther, Y.: How sediment thickness influences subduction dynamics and seismicity, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 125, e2019JB018964,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB018964, 2020. a
Burg, J.-P. and Gerya, T.: The role of viscous heating in Barrovian metamorphism of collisional orogens: thermomechanical models and application
to the Lepontine Dome in the Central Alps, J. Metamorph. Geol.,
23, 75–95, 2005. a
Chang, C., McNeill, L. C., Moore, J. C., Lin, W., Conin, M., and Yamada, Y.:
In situ stress state in the Nankai accretionary wedge estimated from
borehole wall failures, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 11, Q0AD04, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GC003261, 2010. a
Chemia, Z., Dolejš, D., and Steinle-Neumann, G.: Thermal effects of
variable material properties and metamorphic reactions in a three-component
subducting slab, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 120,
6823–6845, 2015. a
Crameri, F.: Scientific colour-maps, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1243862, 2018a. a
Crameri, F.: Geodynamic diagnostics, scientific visualisation and StagLab 3.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2541–2562, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2541-2018, 2018b. a
Crameri, F., Shephard, G. E., and Heron, P. J.: The misuse of colour in science communication, Nat. Commun., 11, 1–10, 2020. a
Crosby, A., McKenzie, D., and Sclater, J.: The relationship between depth, age and gravity in the oceans, Geophys. J. Int., 166, 553–573,
2006. a
Crouzeix, M. and Raviart, P.-A.: Conforming and nonconforming finite element methods for solving the stationary Stokes equations I, Rev. Fr. Automat. Infor. Mathématique, 7, 33–75, 1973. a
Cruciani, C., Carminati, E., and Doglioni, C.: Slab dip vs. lithosphere age: no direct function, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 238, 298–310, 2005. a
Dabrowski, M., Krotkiewski, M., and Schmid, D.: MILAMIN: MATLAB-based finite
element method solver for large problems, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 9, Q04030, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001719, 2008. a
Davies, J. H. and Davies, D. R.: Earth's surface heat flux, Solid Earth, 1, 5–24, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-1-5-2010, 2010. a, b
Denlinger, R. P.: A revised estimate for the temperature structure of the
oceanic lithosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 97,
7219–7222, 1992. a
Dixon, N. A. and Durham, W. B.: Measurement of activation volume for creep of dry olivine at upper-mantle conditions, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 123, 8459–8473, 2018. a
England, P. and Molnar, P.: The interpretation of inverted metamorphic
isograds using simple physical calculations, Tectonics, 12, 145–157, 1993. a
Faccenda, M., Gerya, T. V., Mancktelow, N. S., and Moresi, L.: Fluid flow
during slab unbending and dehydration: Implications for intermediate-depth
seismicity, slab weakening and deep water recycling, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 13, Q01010, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GC003860, 2012. a, b
Frohlich, C.: Deep earthquakes, Cambridge university press, ISBN 9781107297562, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107297562, 2006. a
Fujiwara, T., Kodaira, S., No, T., Kaiho, Y., Takahashi, N., and Kaneda, Y.:
The 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake: Displacement reaching the trench axis,
Science, 334, 1240–1240, 2011. a
Fulton, P., Brodsky, E. E., Kano, Y., Mori, J., Chester, F., Ishikawa, T., Harris, R., Lin, W., Eguchi, N., Toczko, S., and Expedition 343, 343T, and KR13-08 Scientists: Low coseismic friction on the Tohoku-Oki fault determined from temperature measurements, Science, 342, 1214–1217, 2013. a
Gao, X. and Wang, K.: Rheological separation of the megathrust seismogenic zone and episodic tremor and slip, Nature, 543, 416–419, 2017. a
Gerya, T.: Introduction to numerical geodynamic modelling, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9781316534243, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316534243, 2019. a
Gerya, T. V. and Meilick, F.: Geodynamic regimes of subduction under an active margin: effects of rheological weakening by fluids and melts, J. Metamorph. Geol., 29, 7–31, 2011. a
Gerya, T. V., Yuen, D. A., and Maresch, W. V.: Thermomechanical modelling of
slab detachment, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 226, 101–116, 2004. a
Gutscher, M.-A. and Peacock, S. M.: Thermal models of flat subduction and the
rupture zone of great subduction earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 108, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000787, 2003. a, b, c
Hacker, B. R., Peacock, S. M., Abers, G. A., and Holloway, S. D.: Subduction
factory 2. Are intermediate-depth earthquakes in subducting slabs linked to
metamorphic dehydration reactions?, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 108, 2030, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB001129, 2003b. a
Harris, R., Yamano, M., Kinoshita, M., Spinelli, G., Hamamoto, H., and Ashi,
J.: A synthesis of heat flow determinations and thermal modeling along the
Nankai Trough, Japan, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 118,
2687–2702, 2013. a
Harris, R. N., Spinelli, G. A., and Fisher, A. T.: Hydrothermal circulation and the thermal structure of shallow subduction zones, Geosphere, 13, 1425–1444, 2017. a
Heuret, A., Lallemand, S., Funiciello, F., Piromallo, C., and Faccenna, C.: Physical characteristics of subduction interface type seismogenic zones revisited, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 12, Q01004, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GC003230, 2011. a, b, c, d
Hillier, J. and Watts, A.: Relationship between depth and age in the North
Pacific Ocean, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 110, B02405, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003406, 2005. a
Hofmeister, A. M.: Thermal conductivity of the Earth's deepest mantle, in: Superplumes: Beyond Plate Tectonics, Springer, 269–292, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5750-2, 2007a. a
Hofmeister, A. M.: Pressure dependence of thermal transport properties,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 9192–9197, 2007b. a
Holt, A. F. and Condit, C. B.: Slab temperature evolution over the lifetime of a subduction zone, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 22, e2020GC009476, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GC009476, 2021. a
Hu, J. and Gurnis, M.: Subduction duration and slab dip, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 21, e2019GC008862, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GC008862, 2020. a, b
Isacks, B. L. and Barazangi, M.: Geometry of Benioff zones: Lateral segmentation and downwards bending of the subducted lithosphere, in: Island Arcs, Deep Sea Trenches and Back-Arc Basins, edited by: Talwani, M. and Pitman III, W. C., American Geophysical Union, 1, 99–114, ISBN 9781118665756, https://doi.org/10.1029/ME001, 1977. a
Jia, Z., Shen, Z., Zhan, Z., Li, C., Peng, Z., and Gurnis, M.: The 2018 Fiji Mw 8.2 and 7.9 deep earthquakes: One doublet in two slabs, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 531, 115997, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2019.115997, 2020. a
Jones, D. W. R., Katz, R. F., Tian, M., and Rudge, J. F.: Thermal impact of
magmatism in subduction zones, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 481,
73–79, 2018. a
Kanamori, H.: Mechanism of tsunami earthquakes, Phys. Earth Planet. In., 6, 346–359, https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(72)90058-1, 1972. a
Karato, S.-I.: Deformation of earth materials, vol. 463, Cambridge Press
Cambridge, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804892, 2008. a
Karato, S.-I. and Wu, P.: Rheology of the upper mantle: A synthesis, Science, 260, 771–778, 1993. a
Kelemen, P. B. and Hirth, G.: A periodic shear-heating mechanism for
intermediate-depth earthquakes in the mantle, Nature, 446, 787–790, 2007. a
Klemd, R., John, T., Scherer, E., Rondenay, S., and Gao, J.: Changes in dip of subducted slabs at depth: petrological and geochronological evidence from
HP–UHP rocks (Tianshan, NW-China), Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 310,
9–20, 2011. a
Korenaga, T. and Korenaga, J.: Evolution of young oceanic lithosphere and the
meaning of seafloor subsidence rate, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 121, 6315–6332, 2016. a
Lay, T., Ammon, C. J., Kanamori, H., Xue, L., and Kim, M. J.: Possible large near-trench slip during the 2011 Mw 9.0 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake, Earth Planets Space, 63, 32, https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2011.05.033, 2011. a
Lay, T., Kanamori, H., Ammon, C. J., Koper, K. D., Hutko, A. R., Ye, L., Yue,
H., and Rushing, T. M.: Depth-varying rupture properties of subduction zone
megathrust faults, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 117, B04311,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB009133, 2012. a
Liu, H., Gurnis, M., Leng, W., Jia, Z., and Zhan, Z.: Tonga Slab Morphology
and Stress Variations Controlled by a Relic Slab: Implications for Deep
Earthquakes in the Tonga-Fiji Region, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48,
e2020GL091331, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091331, 2021. a
McKenzie, D. and Sclater, J.: Heat flow in the eastern Pacific and sea floor
spreading, Bulletin Volcanologique, 33, 101–117, 1969. a
Miao, S., Li, H., and Chen, G.: Temperature dependence of thermal diffusivity, specific heat capacity, and thermal conductivity for several types of rocks, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., 115, 1057–1063, 2014. a
Morishige, M. and Tasaka, M.: Limited impact of anisotropic thermal
conductivity in the mantle wedge on the slab temperature in the Tohoku
subduction zone, Northeast Japan, Tectonophysics, 820, 229110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2021.229110, 2021. a
Peacock, S. M.: Blueschist-facies metamorphism, shear heating, and P-T-t paths in subduction shear zones, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 97,
17693–17707, 1992. a
Peacock, S. M.: Large-scale hydration of the lithosphere above subducting
slabs, Chem. Geol., 108, 49–59, 1993a. a
Peacock, S. M.: The importance of blueschist -> eclogite dehydration reactions in subducting oceanic crust, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 105, 684–694, 1993b. a
Peacock, S. M.: Thermal and metamorphic environment of subduction zone episodic tremor and slip, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 114, B00A07, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JB005978, 2009. a
Penniston-Dorland, S. C., Kohn, M. J., and Manning, C. E.: The global range of subduction zone thermal structures from exhumed blueschists and eclogites:
Rocks are hotter than models, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 428,
243–254, 2015. a
Perrin, A., Goes, S., Prytulak, J., Davies, D. R., Wilson, C., and Kramer, S.: Reconciling mantle wedge thermal structure with arc lava thermobarometric
determinations in oceanic subduction zones, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 17, 4105–4127, 2016. a
Petrini, C., Gerya, T., Yarushina, V., van Dinther, Y., Connolly, J., and
Madonna, C.: Seismo-hydro-mechanical modelling of the seismic cycle:
methodology and implications for subduction zone seismicity, Tectonophysics, 791, 228504, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2020.228504, 2020. a
Plunder, A., Thieulot, C., and van Hinsbergen, D. J. J.: The effect of obliquity on temperature in subduction zones: insights from 3-D numerical modeling, Solid Earth, 9, 759–776, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-9-759-2018, 2018. a
Ponko, S. C. and Peacock, S. M.: Thermal modeling of the southern Alaska subduction zone: insight into the petrology of the subducting slab and overlying mantle wedge, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 100,
22117–22128, 1995. a
Pozgay, S. H., Wiens, D. A., Conder, J. A., Shiobara, H., and Sugioka, H.: Seismic attenuation tomography of the Mariana subduction system: Implications
for thermal structure, volatile distribution, and slow spreading dynamics,
Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 10, Q04X05, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GC002313, 2009. a
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., and Flannery, B. P.:
Numerical recipes in C++, The art of scientific computing, Cambridge University Press, 2, 1002, ISBN 9780521880688, 1992. a
Qu, R., Zhu, W., Ji, Y., Xie, C., Zeng, D., and Zhang, F.: Subduction thermal regime, petrological metamorphism and seismicity under the Mariana arc,
Sci. Rep., 13, 1948, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29004-1, 2023. a
Ranalli, G.: Rheology of the Earth, Springer Science & Business Media, ISBN 978-0-412-54670-9, 1995. a
Rondenay, S., Abers, G. A., and van Keken, P. E.: Seismic imaging of subduction zone metamorphism, Geology, 36, 275–278, 2008. a
Royden, L. H.: The steady state thermal structure of eroding orogenic belts and accretionary prisms, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 98,
4487–4507, 1993. a
Rüpke, L. H., Morgan, J. P., Hort, M., and Connolly, J. A.: Serpentine and the subduction zone water cycle, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 223,
17–34, 2004. a
Satake, K.: 4.19 – Tsunamis, in: Treatise on Geophysics, edited by: Schubert, G., 2nd edn., 477–504, Elsevier, Oxford,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00086-5, 2015. a
Satake, K. and Tanioka, Y.: Sources of tsunami and tsunamigenic earthquakes in subduction zones, Pure Appl. Geophys., 154, 467–483,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s000240050240, 1999. a
Schellart, W. P. and Rawlinson, N.: Global correlations between maximum
magnitudes of subduction zone interface thrust earthquakes and physical
parameters of subduction zones, Phys. Earth Planet. In.,
225, 41–67, 2013. a
Schmeling, H., Babeyko, A., Enns, A., Faccenna, C., Funiciello, F., Gerya, T., Golabek, G., Grigull, S., Kaus, B., Morra, G., Schmalholz, S. M., and van Hunen, J.: A benchmark comparison of spontaneous subduction models – Towards a free surface, Phys. Earth Planet. In., 171, 198–223, 2008. a
Scholz, C. H.: The mechanics of earthquakes and faulting, Cambridge university press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316681473, 2019. a, b, c
Schubert, G., Turcotte, D. L., and Olson, P.: Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets 2 Volume Set, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612879, 2001. a
Sclater, J., Jaupart, C., and Galson, D.: The heat flow through oceanic and
continental crust and the heat loss of the Earth, Rev. Geophys., 18, 269–311, 1980. a
Spinelli, G. A. and Wang, K.: Effects of fluid circulation in subducting crust on Nankai margin seismogenic zone temperatures, Geology, 36, 887–890, 2008. a
Stein, C. A. and Stein, S.: Constraints on hydrothermal heat flux through the
oceanic lithosphere from global heat flow, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 99, 3081–3095, 1994. a
Tsitsulin, A.: Optimal qualitative colour palettes,
http://tsitsul.in/blog/coloropt/ (last access: 10 May 2021), 2019. a
Turcotte, D. and Schubert, G.: Geodynamics, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511843877, 2002. a, b
van Dinther, Y., Gerya, T. V., Dalguer, L. A., Corbi, F., Funiciello, F., and Mai, P. M.: The seismic cycle at subduction thrusts: 2. Dynamic implications
of geodynamic simulations validated with laboratory models, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 118, 1502–1525, 2013a. a
van Dinther, Y., Gerya, T. V., Dalguer, L. A., Mai, P. M., Morra, G., and
Giardini, D.: The seismic cycle at subduction thrusts: Insights from
seismo-thermo-mechanical models, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 118, 6183–6202, 2013b. a
van Dinther, Y., Mai, P. M., Dalguer, L. A., and Gerya, T. V.: Modeling the seismic cycle in subduction zones: The role and spatiotemporal occurrence of
off-megathrust earthquakes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 1194–1201, 2014. a
van Keken, P. E., Kiefer, B., and Peacock, S. M.: High-resolution models of
subduction zones: Implications for mineral dehydration reactions and the
transport of water into the deep mantle, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy., 3, 1056, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GC000256, 2002. a
van Keken, P. E., Currie, C., King, S. D., Behn, M. D., Cagnioncle, A., He, J., Katz, R. F., Lin, S.-C., Parmentier, E. M., Spiegelman, M., and Wang, K.: A community benchmark for subduction zone modeling, Phys. Earth Planet. In., 171, 187–197, 2008. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, aa, ab, ac, ad, ae, af, ag, ah, ai, aj
van Keken, P. E., Hacker, B. R., Syracuse, E. M., and Abers, G. A.: Subduction factory: 4. Depth-dependent flux of H2O from subducting slabs worldwide, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 116, B01401, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB007922, 2011.
a
van Keken, P. E., Kita, S., and Nakajima, J.: Thermal structure and intermediate-depth seismicity in the Tohoku-Hokkaido subduction zones, Solid Earth, 3, 355–364, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-3-355-2012, 2012. a, b, c
Van Zelst, I.: irisvanzelst/xFieldstone: Final version xFieldstone used in Van Zelst et al. (2023, Solid Earth), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7957374, 2023. a, b, c
Van Zelst, I., Wollherr, S., Gabriel, A.-A., Madden, E. H., and van Dinther,
Y.: Modeling megathrust earthquakes across scales: One-way coupling from
geodynamics and seismic cycles to dynamic rupture, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 124, 11414–11446, 2019. a
Van Zelst, I., Crameri, F., Pusok, A. E., Glerum, A., Dannberg, J., and Thieulot, C.: 101 geodynamic modelling: how to design, interpret, and communicate numerical studies of the solid Earth, Solid Earth, 13, 583–637, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-583-2022, 2022. a, b, c, d
Van Zelst, I., Thieulot, C., and Craig, T. J.: Data & scripts – The effect of temperature-dependent material properties on simple thermal models of
subduction zones, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7957674, 2023. a, b
Wada, I.: A simple picture of mantle wedge flow patterns and temperature
variation, J. Geodynam., 146, 10848, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2021.101848, 2021. a
Whittington, A. G., Hofmeister, A. M., and Nabelek, P. I.:
Temperature-dependent thermal diffusivity of the Earth’s crust and
implications for magmatism, Nature, 458, 319–321, 2009. a
Yabe, S., Fukuchi, R., Hamada, Y., and Kimura, G.: Simultaneous estimation of
in situ porosity and thermal structure from core sample measurements and
resistivity log data at Nankai accretionary prism, Earth Planets Space,
71, 1–15, 2019. a
Yamasaki, T. and Seno, T.: Double seismic zone and dehydration embrittlement of the subducting slab, J. Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 108, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JB001918, 2003. a, b
Zhan, Z.: Mechanisms and implications of deep earthquakes, Annu. Rev. Earth Pl. Sc., 48, 147–174, 2020. a
Short summary
A common simplification in subduction zone models is the use of constant thermal parameters, while experiments have shown that they vary with temperature. We test various formulations of temperature-dependent thermal parameters and show that they change the thermal structure of the subducting slab. We recommend that modelling studies of the thermal structure of subduction zones take the temperature dependence of thermal parameters into account, especially when providing insights into seismicity.
A common simplification in subduction zone models is the use of constant thermal parameters,...
