Interior Evolution of Mercury

Breuer, D.; Hauck, S. A.; Buske, Monika; Pauer, M; Spohn, Tilman

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77539-5_4

Cited by 13 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A large impact stripping the outer layers of a larger, differentiated proto-Mercury [e.g., Cameron et al, 1988;Wetherill, 1988] could have left a silicate layer closely resembling CI chondritic abundances. Breuer et al [2007] compare contrasting formation scenarios. In condensation or vaporization models [e.g., Fegley and Cameron, 1987], U contents is low and K is missing.…”

Section: Mantlementioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Thermal evolution of Mercury: Effects of volcanic heat‐piping

Multhaup¹

2009

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] A 1D thermal evolution model of Mercury is presented. It accounts for stagnant lid convection, mantle differentiation and inner core growth. Early MESSENGER results indicate that-contrary to prior conclusions drawn from Mariner 10 imagery-volcanism has indeed played a significant role in Mercury's past. To study the effects of mantle heat bypassing the stagnant lid by means of volcanic heat-piping, contrasting end-member models are considered. Results show how break-down of mantle convection and onset of inner core growth are influenced by the mode of heat removal. Structural models of present day Mercury are presented. Their dependence on the core sulphur contents predominates that on the choice of mantle heat removal. However, the latter clearly controls the timing of thermal history events.

show abstract

Section: Mantlementioning

confidence: 96%

“…As the planet evolves, an inner iron core may freeze out and the mantle may differentiate by forming a basaltic crust. For a comprehensive review of our current understanding of Mercury's thermal evolution, refer to Breuer et al [2007].…”

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thermal evolution of Mercury: Effects of volcanic heat‐piping

Multhaup¹

2009

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The thermal models of Mars and Mercury (Breuer et al 2007;Solomon 1976;Toksoz et al 1978) indicate that the internal temperatures approached the solidus temperature of the silicate mantle and the magma ocean occurred early in the histories of these planets. By assuming that the cores of the planets contain both S and Si as light elements (Malavergne et al 2007;Malavergne et al 2010), the models of the thermal history of these planets suggest that, during their formation, the temperature in their centers approached or exceeded the liquidus temperature GPa and 1940(110).…”

Section: Solidus and Liquidus Temperatures In The Fe-s-si Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Melting relations in the Fe–S–Si system at high pressure and temperature: implications for the planetary core

Sakairi

Ohtani

Kamada

et al. 2017

Prog. in Earth and Planet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phase and melting relations in the Fe-S-Si system were determined up to 60 GPa by using a double-sided laser-heated diamond anvil cell combined with X-ray diffraction. On the basis of the X-ray diffraction patterns, we confirmed that hcp/fcc Fe-Si alloys and Fe 3 S are stable phases under subsolidus conditions in the Fe-S-Si system. Both solidus and liquidus temperatures are significantly lower than the melting temperature of pure Fe and both increase with pressure. The slopes of the Fe-S-Si liquidus and solidus curves determined here are smaller than the adiabatic temperature gradients of the liquid cores of Mercury and Mars. Thus, crystallization of their cores started at the core-mantle boundary region.

show abstract

“…The amount of contraction of the planet derived from the distribution, lengths, and heights of lobate scarps (e.g., Strom et al 1975;Byrne et al 2014), on the other hand, places constraints on the minimum amount of volatiles in the core, as well as on the cooling rate of the planet since the late heavy bombardment (LHB; Hauck et al 2004;Breuer et al 2007;Grott et al 2011;Tosi et al 2013). Before MESSENGER, the distribution and morphology of the scarps were thought to imply an average contraction of the planet's radius by only 1-2 km (Strom et al 1975) since the LHB.…”

Section: Mercurymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This effect can be considerably amplified if a light alloying element such as sulfur is present in the core, which is expelled from the inner core upon solidification, increasing the density difference between the liquid and solid core phases. The radius of the inner core can thus be taken as roughly proportional to the amount of planetary contraction (Hauck et al 2004;Breuer et al 2007;Grott et al 2011;Tosi et al 2013). Considering a value of~7 km (Byrne et al 2014) and assuming that it is entirely caused by the volume change owing to inner-core growth, an inner-core radius of~800-1000 km (0.4-0.5 R c ; Grott et al 2011) is obtained.…”

Section: Mercurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Iron snow, crystal floats, and inner-core growth: modes of core solidification and implications for dynamos in terrestrial planets and moons

Breuer

Rueckriemen

Spohn

2015

Prog. in Earth and Planet. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent planetary space missions, new experimental data, and advanced numerical techniques have helped to improve our understanding of the deep interiors of the terrestrial planets and moons. In the present review, we summarize recent insights into the state and composition of their iron (Fe)-rich cores, as well as recent findings about the magnetic field evolution of Mercury, the Moon, Mars, and Ganymede. Crystallizing processes in iron-rich cores that differ from the classical Earth case (i.e., Fe snow and iron sulfide (FeS) crystallization) have been identified and found to be important in the cores of terrestrial bodies. The Fe snow regime occurs at pressures lower than that in the Earth's core on the iron-rich side of the eutectic, where iron freezes first close to the core-mantle boundary rather than in the center. FeS crystallization, instead, occurs on the sulfur-rich side of the eutectic. Depending on the core temperature profile and the pressure range considered, FeS crystallizes either in the core center or close to the core-mantle boundary. The consequences of the various crystallizing mechanisms for core dynamics and magnetic field generation are discussed. For the Moon, revised paleomagnetic data obtained with advanced techniques suggest a peculiar history of its internal dynamo, with an early strong field persisting between 4.25 and 3.5 Ga, and subsequently a much weaker field. In addition, the long-lasting dynamo and the possible presence of an inner core, as inferred from a revised interpretation of Apollo seismic data, suggest core crystallization as a viable process of magnetic field generation for a substantial period during lunar evolution. The present-day magnetic fields of Mercury and Ganymede (if they occur on the iron-rich side of the Fe-FeS eutectic) and the related dynamo action are likely generated in the Fe snow regime and seem to be recent features. An earlier dynamo in Mercury would have been powered differently. For Mercury, MESSENGER data further suggest core formation under reducing conditions that may have resulted in an Fe-S-Si composition, further complicating the core crystallization process. Mars, with its early and strong paleo-field, likely has not yet started to freeze out an inner iron core.

show abstract

Interior Evolution of Mercury

Cited by 13 publications

References 92 publications

Thermal evolution of Mercury: Effects of volcanic heat‐piping

Thermal evolution of Mercury: Effects of volcanic heat‐piping

Melting relations in the Fe–S–Si system at high pressure and temperature: implications for the planetary core

Iron snow, crystal floats, and inner-core growth: modes of core solidification and implications for dynamos in terrestrial planets and moons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About