Variscides of SW Britain - Calculations 2008 AN APPLICATION OF ARCHIMEDES PRINCIPLE

Question: what were the dimensions of the crustal tectonic load during the evolution of the British Variscides? Starting assumption (1), the first guess: The volume of the crustal tectonic load VTL Let VTL = 1.0 x 1015 m3 Knowing the mean density of the crust RTL RTL = 3.0 x 103 kgm-3 RTL = MTL/VTL Where MTL is the mass of the crustal tectonic load MTL = VTLRTL = 3.0 x 1018 kg Refining assumption (1) into case 1(a) a second guess where: The total height of the crustal tectonic load is represented by hTL
[It is reported the total height of the German Variscides, analogous to the British belt, was up to 4 km = 4.0 x 10 m.]
3

Variscides of SW Britain - Calculations 2008

SUMMARY OF INITIAL/CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Guess case 1. VTL = 1.0 x 1015 m3 Known: RTL = 3.0 x 103 kgm-3 Calculation: MTL = VTLRTL = 3.0 x 1018 kg Guess case 1(a). hTL = 4.0 x 103 m
From the German Variscides analogue: hTL = 4.0 x 10 m
3

Cases 1 & 1(a), calculation: ATL = 2.5 x 1011 m2 an approximation: Further estimates, based on provisional structural observations: LTL = 2.5 x 106 m WTL = 5.25 x 105 m an approximation: 106 m an approximation: 106 m

1011 m2

Length of the Rhenohercynian basin > 2500 km = 2.5 x 106 m LTL > 2.5 x 106 m Width of the north verging Variscan externides is 375 km shortening of 40% Calculation: WTL = 525 km = 5.25 x 105 m Calculations further to the observations above: Hence And so VTL = ATL x hTL = 1.0 x 1015 m3 ATL = 2.5 x 1011 m2 The estimates above are realistic based on observations of hTL, LTL, WTL
[MODEL: imagine an elastic crustal medium extending to an estimated depth of 35 40 km in the uppermost part of the lithosphere estimated to be 200 250 km in thickness. And say, below it is a viscous mantle.]

So, let hTL = 4.0 x 103 m Assuming (1) and case 1(a), then the area of the crustal tectonic load ATL is ATL = 2.5 x 1011 m2 an approximation: 1011 m2

[In southern Britain, the width of the north verging Variscan externides is 375 km. A reported shortening of 40% points to 5 an original width to the load of about 525 km = 5.25 x 10 m.

WTL a typical width is 5.25 x 105 m

6

an approximation: 106 m
6

[It is reported the length of the Rhenohercynian basin could be greater than 2500 km = 2.5 x 10 m LTL > 2.5 x 10 m could give a good estimate of the minimum length of the load.]

Using the volume VTL above... What would be the up-force beneath the crustal tectonic load, if the whole load was submerged down to mid crustal levels? Let the up-force beneath the totally submerged tectonic load be UtsTL
2|Page Marios Miliorizos Marios Miliorizos

LTL a typical length is 2.5 x 106 m

an approximation: 106 m

Now, the starting assumption for VTL = hTLWTLLTL = hTLATL

[And inspection from the above: ATL = 2.5 x 10 m and VTL = ATL x hTL = 1.0 x 10 m .]
11 2 15 3

1|Page

Variscides of SW Britain - Calculations 2008

Let the density of the mantle be RM = (5.0 x 103 kg)
[If the lithosphere is displaced in to the mantle by the load, there is resultant up-force generated.]

Variscides of SW Britain - Calculations 2008

Calculating the down-force (D): D = MTLg MTL = VTLRTL MTL = 1.0 x 1015 m3 x 3.0 x 103 kgm-3 MTL = 3.0 x 1018 kg D = 3.0 x 1018 kg force D = 3.0 x 1019 N Calculating the up-force (U): By Archimedes Principle the up-force (U) is given by U = (h2 h1)R A g R A h1 h2 h2 h1 g Here in exploratory case 1(a) (h2 h1) = 3.0 x 103 m RM = 5.0 x 103 kgm-3 ATL = 2.5 x 1011 m2 g = 10 ms-2 Then U = (h2 h1)RMATLg U = 3.0 x 103 m x 5.0 x 103 kgm-3 x 2.5 x 1011m2 x 10ms-2 U = 3.75 x 1019 N
4|Page

g = 10 ms-2

UtsTL = hTLATLRM g UtsTL = 5.0 x 1019 N.

(g is the acceleration due to gravity = 10ms-2)

The up-force above may be greater than the down-force generated by the load of mass MTL [about 3.0 x 1019 N, see below]. And, so that equilibrium was reachable between up-force and down-force, where the resultant up-thrust was zero; a down-force of 5.0 x 1019 N would be required A submerged height of the load hTL greater than height hTL assumed in case 1(a) becomes necessary Calculating hTL: UtsTL = hTLATLRTLg Where 5.0 x 1019 N = hTL m x 2.5 x 1011 m2 x 3.0 x 103 kgm-3 x 10 ms-2 i.e. hTL = 66662/3 m, approximately 6700 m. Therefore, in this case, equilibrium was reached only if the whole load had an enormous height submerged to a depth of 66662/3m. Only then would the down-force have been equal to the up-force
[exerted on the base of the load due to the elasticity of the crust and the viscosity of the mantle].

is density of displaced matter is basal area of submerged body is emergent height is total height is submerged height is acceleration due to gravity

However the large dimension for up-force due to a totally submerged load suggests that even if the load was only 4000 m in total height, considered in case 1(a), and about 2700 m < hTL, it would still have been partially emergent. But based on the calculated up-force, by how much was the load emergent? Taking all the attributes of the load in case 1(a) Where the total height of the load is 4000 m Now take exploratory case 1(a) in which the load was emergent by 1000 m

3|Page Marios Miliorizos

Marios Miliorizos

Variscides of SW Britain - Calculations 2008

i.e. the up-force is 3.75 x 1019 N Thus, for case 1(a), based on the calculations above, involving the crucial assumption of the volume of the load, equilibrium would not have been reached if the mantle accommodated 4km of the total height, and if it left the load emergent by 1km, for case 1(a). However by adjusting case 1(a) to (h2 h1) = 2.4 x 103 m, gives: U = 2.4 x 103 m x 5.0 x 103 kgm-3 x 2.5 x 1011m2 x 10ms-2 U = 3.0 x 1019 N i.e. the adjusted up-force is 3.0 x 1019 N Hence for case 1(a) in order that D = U: Up-thrust is balanced to produce a crustal down-flexure of 2.4 km depth. There
is evidence for subsidence of 3km within the South Wales coalfield foreland basin, based on the rigorous, quantitative stratigraphic analysis carried out by Burgess and Gayer (2000).

Variscides of SW Britain - Calculations 2008

How can the starting assumption in case 1(a) become justified? Knowledge independent of previous calculations is preferable in any justification. If the starting assumption involves reasonable load dimensions that withstand further scientific enquiry, then the dimensions are rendered valid and become part of an admissible particular solution. Ways ahead in research may involve the following: o STRATIGRAPHIC: Clastic sedimentology of Carboniferous and Permo-Triassic strata Palaeo-hydrologic, climatologic modelling and fluvial sedimentology Quantitative stratigraphy Tectono-stratigraphy of the End-Carboniferous mountain chain o STRUCTURAL: Study of tectonic maps Construction of mountain scale balanced sections Deductions based on the mechanical properties of the crust and mantle o GEOPHYSICAL: Independent geophysical properties used to deduce the effects of crustal loading Mathematical modelling of load size and effective crustal thickness o GEOGRAPHIC: Comparisons with modern mountain chains and foreland basins.

Set D = U Then adjusted So when h2 h1 = 2.4km h2 = 4.0km h1 = 1.6km The close agreement between calculations in the particular case here and basin subsidence modelling suggests magnitudes of load volume, 1015, and mantle up-force, 1019, are at least of correct orders. It appears the load dimensions in cases 1, 1(a) & 1(a), yield an acceptable amount of crustal down-flexure and remain admissible. Answer to the dimensions of the British Variscides: the mountains would have been emergent by at least 1600 metres. The external Variscides were substantial foothills to the internides to the south.
[Recent dimensions of the Variscides could give an independent justification of starting assumptions (see notes above).]

29th November 2009, edited 28th April 2011, 2nd edition 22nd March 2012. M.N. Miliorizos

5|Page Marios Miliorizos

6|Page Marios Miliorizos