Mathematics – Logic
Scientific paper
Sep 2008
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2008epsc.conf..317a&link_type=abstract
European Planetary Science Congress 2008, Proceedings of the conference held 21-25 September, 2008 in Münster, Germany. Online a
Mathematics
Logic
Scientific paper
Introduction Most part of impact ejecta is deposited ballistically at some distance from a crater, defined by ejection velocity V and ejection angle α: d=v2sinα/g. In case of giant impacts, planetary curvature should be taken into account [1]. Combined with ejecta scaling [2], these relations allow to define ejecta thickness as a function of distance. Ejecta from large craters are deposited at velocity high enough to mobilize substrate material and to thicken ejecta deposits [3]. Ballistic approximation is valid for airless bodies (if impact vaporization is not vast) or for proximal ejecta of large impact craters, where ejecta mass per unit area is substantially greater than the mass of involved vapor/atmosphere (M-ratio). Deposition of distal ejecta, in which ejecta mass is negligible compared to the atmosphere, may be also treated in a simplified manner, i.e. as 1) passive motion of ejected particles within an impact plume and 2) later, as sedimentation of particles in undisturbed atmosphere (equilibrium between gravity and drag). In all intermediate M-ratio values, impact ejecta move like a surge, i.e. dilute suspension current in which particles are carried in turbulent flows under the influence of gravity. Surges are well-known for near-surface explosive tests, described in detail for volcanic explosions (Plinian column collapse, phreato-magmatic eruption, lateral blast), and found in ejecta from the Chicxulub [4] and the Ries [5]. Important aspects of surge transport include its ability to deposit ejecta over a larger area than that typical of continuous ballistic ejecta and to create multiple ejecta layers. Numerical model Two-phase hydrodynamics. Surges should be modeled in the frame of two-phase hydrodynamics, i.e. interaction between solid/molten particles and atmospheric gas/impact vapor should be taken into account. There are two techniques of solving equations for dust particle motion in a gas flow. The first one describes solid/molten particles as a liquid with specific properties, i.e. finite-difference equations are the same as in standard hydrodynamics [6-8]. Another approach is based on solving equations of motion for representative particles [9]. Each of these markers describes the motion of a large number of real particles with similar sizes, velocities, and trajectories. Equation of motion (gravity, viscosity, and drag) is solved for every marker and then exchange of momentum, heat and energy with surrounding vaporair mixture is taken into account. This approach is used in the SOVA code [10] and allows to vary particle sizes within a broad range (from a few m to a few microns). Implicit procedure of velocity update allows a larger time step. The substantial advantage of the model is its three-dimensional geometry, allowing modeling of asymmetric deposits of oblique impact ejecta. Turbulent diffusion is taken into account in a simplified manner [6]. Fragments size-frequency distribution (SFD) may be of crucial importance: while large fragments move ballistically, the smallest ones are passively involved in gas motion. Ejected material is usually transformed into particles under tension. The initial particle velocity is given by the hydrodynamic velocity, but the object's initial position within the cell is randomly defined. The SFD of solid fragments in high velocity impacts has been studied experimentally [2,11], numerically [12,13], and has been derived from the lunar and terrestrial crater observations [14,15]. Various approaches may be used to implement fragment size in a dynamic model: in Grady-Kipp model the average fragment size is defined by strain rate [12]; alternatively, average ejection velocity [16] or maximum shock compression [17] may be used. All methods may be verified through comparison with known data. Volcanic direct blast. Numerical modeling of pyroclastic flows, checked against recent observations and young deposits, may be then a useful instrument for reconstruction of terrestrial craters' ejecta, which are mostly eroded or buried; and for impact ejecta study on other planets (first of all - on Mars), where remote sensing data are still the only source of our knowledge. In volcanology typical velocities are usually below 300 m/s, temperatures may be as low as 300 K (wet surge) and not higher than 1000 K (dry surge), solid/gas mass ratio ranges between 5-50, particle size rarely exceeds several cm, while the mass fraction of fine micronsized particles is usually poorly defined. Modeling results (thickness and spatial distribution of pyroclastics) are in reasonable agreement with observations of direct blast at Bezymianny volcano (Kamchatka, Russia) in 1956. Crater ejecta - the Ries crater in Germany. Impact ejecta parameters vary in a substantially wider range: distal ejecta velocities reach several km/s, km-sized fragments are typical for large craters, gas content may be high enough for cratering in volatile rich (or water-covered) target or in the presence of a dense atmosphere. Moldavites.. The Ries impact site is characterized by a thick sedimentary layer, from which a large amount of vapor (e.g., CO2) is shock-released. This vapor contributes to the ejected particles acceleration, or at least, to the sustainment of their motion. The initial ejection velocities of material are rather high, up to 10 km/s, which are close to the velocity of the expanding gas. As a result, the particles are not subject to high dynamic pressures that otherwise would disrupt them into fine mist immediately after ejection. The temperature of the entraining gas is rather high, so the particles do not cool quickly during the flight, allowing enough time to have them aerodynamically shaped (typical for tektites), and to lose volatiles [18,19]. Tektites are distributed up to 400-500 km away from the impact, in a fan of ˜75° symmetrically distributed with respect to the downrange direction. Bunte Breccia and fallout Suevite in Otting (Ries crater). The total amount of ejected material is about 160 km3 (with an average sediment/basement proportion of 3:1). The maximum ejection velocity for crystalline rocks does not exceed 1 km/s. There are no basement ejecta in the uprange direction. Ejecta deposited within a ring of 16-18 km radius (similar to the position of the Otting site) have a deposition velocity of ~350 m/s. This velocity allows substantial reworking of ejecta and mixing with target rocks. Otting ejecta consist of a sediment /basement rock mixture. The average shock compression of basement rocks is at least 4 times higher than in sediments for any azimuthal angle (16 GPa versus 4 GPa). Ejecta thickness (tens of m) is in a reasonable agreement with observations. However, our modeling results relevant to ballistic deposition do not allow to reproduce the observed ejecta in the suevite layer of Otting: 1) there is just very little melt in the modeled ejecta and 2) separation of sedimentary rocks from basement rocks (i.e. Bunte Breccia and fallout suevite) does not occur. Separation and gradation of ejected particles by atmosphere (fallout) seems improbable as the total ejecta mass per unit area at these distances is substantially higher than the mass of the involved atmosphere. Deposition of a suevitic layer as a viscous flow [20] seems also improbable, as viscosity of the flow with solid fragments (i.e. with temperature below the solidus) increases dramatically and prevents spreading to a few km from the transient cavity. We need another mechanism of the ejecta flow "fluidization". One possibility is a gas release (mainly water vapor from sediments) which allows dispersal of the smallest particles and suevite deposition above the ballistically deposited Bunte Breccia (similar to pyroclastic surges). Applications for planets Mars. Several attempts have been made to quantitatively describe the process of ejecta emplacement in formation of ramparts [21-25]. They dealt mainly with propagation of fluidized ejecta initially deposited ballistically and included rheologic models for Newtonian or Bingham materials based on observations (runout distance, height of the dist
No associations
LandOfFree
Ejecta emplacement: from distal to proximal does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Ejecta emplacement: from distal to proximal, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Ejecta emplacement: from distal to proximal will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1793503