Continental mantle seismic anisotropy: a new look at the Twin Sisters massif

摘要

Recent interpretations of upper continental mantle seismic anisotropy observations have often relied on fabric measurements and calculated anisotropies of upper mantle xenoliths, Seismic ray paths of P and S waves, which provide information on azimuthal compressional wave anisotropy and shear wave splitting, are tens to hundreds of kilometers, whereas, xenoliths are usually only a few centimeters in diameter. To place better constraints on field-based anisotropy observations and to evaluate anisotropy information provided by xenoliths, it is important to examine anisotropy in large ultramafic massifs which have originated in the upper mantle, On, such massif is the Twin Sisters Range located in the western portion of the North Cascades of Washington State, USA, The Twin Sisters massif, a stab of unaltered dunite, is 16 km in length, 6 km in width and 3 km thick. Exposed along its south and west sides are mafic granulite facies rocks, which likely represent lower continental crustal fragments. The ultramafic rocks are porphyroclastic in texture, consisting of strained, flattened porphyroclasts of olivine and enstatite and strain-free olivine mosaics. Olivine fabrics are typical of those formed at high temperatures and low strain rates, Petrofabrics and calculated anisotropies of individual samples vary throughout the massif, however, overall anisotropy of the body is significant, with maximum P and S waves anisotropies of 5.4% and 3.9%, respectively. The maximum delay time for split shear waves traveling through a 100-km-thick slab is 0.8 s and two directions of shear wave singularity are observed. The directions of maximum shear wave splitting and shear wave singularities do not coincide with the directions of maximum and minimum compressional wave velocity. In general, individual hand samples show significantly higher anisotropy than the overall anisotropy of the massif. It is concluded that simple averages of xenolith anisotropies are unreliable for use in the interpretation of field anisotropy observations. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. [References: 27]