EarthRef.org Reference Database (ERR)
Development and Maintenance by the EarthRef.org Database Team

Detailed Reference Information
Shankland & Ander 1983
Shankland, T.J. and Ander, M.E. (1983). Electrical conductivity, temperatures, and fluids in the lower crust. Journal of Geophysical Research 88: doi: 10.1029/JB080i011p09475. issn: 0148-0227.

We have compiled both laboratory and worldwide field data on electrical conductivity to help understand the physical implications of deep crustal electrical profiles. Regional heat flow was used to assign temperatures to each layer in regional electrical conductivity models: we avoided those data where purely conductive heat flow suggested temperatures more than about 1000¿C, substantially higher than solidus temperatures and outside the range of validity of heat flow models. The resulting plots of log conductivity &sgr; versus 1/T demonstrate that even low-conductivity layers (LCL) have conductivities several orders of magnitude higher than dry laboratory samples and that the data can be represented by straight line fits. In addition, tectonically active regions show systematically higher conductivities than do shield areas. Because volatiles are usually lost in laboratory measurements and their absence is a principal difference between laboratory and field conditions, these materials probably account for the relatively higher conductivities of rocks in situ in the crust; free water in amounts of 0.01--0.1% in fracture porosity could explain crustal conductivities. Other possibilities are graphite, hydrated minerals in rare instances, and sulfur in combination with other volatiles. As most of the temperatures are less than 700¿C, partial melting seems likely only in regions of highest heat flow where the conductive temperature profiles are inappropriate. Another result is that at a given temperature, crustal high-conductivity layes (HCL) are more conductive by another order of magnitude and show more scatter than do LCL's. Because the differences between HCL's and LCL's are independent of temperature, we must invoke more than temperature increases as a cause for large conductivity increases; increased fluid concentration in situ seems a probable cause for enhanced conductivities in HCL's. From the point of view of these observations, it does not matter whether the fluids are in communication with the surface or trapped at lithostatic pressures.

BACKGROUND DATA FILES

Abstract

Journal
Journal of Geophysical Research
http://www.agu.org/journals/jb/
Publisher
American Geophysical Union
2000 Florida Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009-1277
USA
1-202-462-6900
1-202-328-0566
service@agu.org
Click to clear formClick to return to previous pageClick to submit