Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 947–956

H O S T E D BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoscience Frontiers
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gsf

Research Paper

Thermal properties of harzburgite and dunite at 0.8–3 GPa and 300–823 K

and implications for the thermal evolution of Tibet
Jianhua Ge a, b, Baohua Zhang a, *, Zili Xiong a, b, Lanfang He c, Heping Li a
a
Key Laboratory for High-Temperature and High-Pressure Study of the Earth’s Interior, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang 550081, China
b
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
c
State Key Laboratory of Lithospheric Evolution, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Thermal diffusivity (D) and thermal conductivity (κ) of harzburgite and dunite from Luobusha ophiolite were
Thermal diffusivity simultaneously measured up to 3 GPa and 823 K using the transient plane-source method in a multi anvil
Thermal conductivity apparatus. The results show that the values of D and κ of both samples systematically decrease with increasing
Harzburgite
temperature and increase with increasing pressure. By combination of the thermal physical data of rocks and
Dunite
Thermal evolution
minerals and geophysical constraints, we performed numerical simulation on the thermal evolution of Tibet vary
Tibet over depth, distance and geologic ages. The present results provide new constraints on occurrence of partial
melting and its geophysical significance beneath Tibetan crust.

1. Introduction pressure data to deep Earth may be problematic because of significant

The understanding of heat transport processes in the Earth interior
requires the knowledge of thermal properties of minerals and rocks.
Thermal parameters (thermal diffusivity D and thermal conductivity κ) of
rocks vary with temperature, pressure and composition (Clauser and
Huenges, 1995; Hofmeister et al., 2007, 2014). Therefore, precise
determination of the thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of
minerals and rocks at relevant conditions would provide critical insight
into the temperature evolution and dynamics of subducting slabs.
Harzburgite and dunite are the most important rock types known in
the upper lithospheric mantle, especially for the Luobusha ophiolite in
southern Tibet (Yang et al., 2007; Yamamoto et al., 2009; Xu et al.,
2011). In the past half century, systematic exploration and studies have
been carried out on the Luobusha ophiolite since the discovery of the
largest reservoir of chromite in China in 1956 (Zhang et al., 1996). Most
of the studies have focused on the mineralogy, lithology, economic ge-
ology, tectonics; and the origin of these podiform chromites (e.g., Zhang
et al., 1996; Yang et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2015). Up to
date, only Gibert et al. (2003) and Pertermann and Hofmeister (2006)
measured the thermal diffusivity of Harzburgite and dunite under
ambient pressure. It is worth noting that extrapolation of atmospheric
pressure derivate of the thermal properties (e.g., Hofmeister, 2007).
However, the thermal transport properties of harzburgite and dunite
from the Luobusha ophiolite have never been investigated so far, which is
vital for correctly inferring the thermal state of southern Tibet, as well as
the origin of these podiform chromites.
In this study, we report simultaneous measurements on the thermal
transport properties of serpentinized harzburgite and dunite as a function
of temperature (up to 823 K) and pressure (up to 3 GPa). The present
results show that the thermal diffusivity and thermal conductivity of
these two rocks decrease with increasing temperature up to 823 K, while
a positive pressure effect is observed. In addition to reporting measure-
ments of thermal diffusivity and thermal conductivity of harzburgite and
dunite, our aim is to apply the data in an uncertainty analysis of thermal
lithosphere models. By varying the values of input parameters (D, κ, heat
production and boundary condition values), we model the thermal evo-
lution of Tibet in calculated temperature and geological time.
2. Geological setting
The Luobusha ophiolite outcrops in the eastern part of the Yarlung
Zangbo suture zone between India and Asia, which locates about 200 km

* Corresponding author. Key Laboratory for High-Temperature and High-Pressure Study of the Earth’s Interior, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Guiyang 550081, China.
E-mail address: zhangbaohua@vip.gyig.ac.cn (B. Zhang).
Peer-review under responsibility of China University of Geosciences (Beijing).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.01.008
Received 10 August 2019; Received in revised form 18 November 2019; Accepted 2 January 2020
Available online 3 February 2020
1674-9871/© 2020 China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the
CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Ge et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic tectonic map of study area and surrounding areas, hexagrams showing the sampling site. The inset shows the three blocks and two suture zone that
separate the three blocks.
east-southeast of Lhasa in southern Tibet where it extends east-west
along the Yarlung Zangbo River for ~40 km and ranges from 0.7 to 4
km in width (Yamamoto et al., 2009, Fig. 1). Based on available outcrop
observations and drill-core results, the major lithotypes within the Luo-
busha ophiolite consists mainly of mantle peridotite and dunite with
sparse mafic cumulates. At the base is a thin m
elange zone containing
dismembered volcanic rocks and chert in a serpentinite matrix (Yang
et al., 2007; Yamamoto et al., 2009). The mantle peridotite consists
chiefly of harzburgite and clinopyroxene-bearing harzburgite with minor
lherzolite and dunite, whereas the cumulate rocks include wehrlite, py-
roxenite, dunite and gabbro (Fig. 1). Although the origin of Luobusha
ophiolite formation remains controversial (Huot et al., 2002; Yamamoto
et al., 2009; Xiong et al., 2015), geochronological studies suggest that the
ophiolite underwent a two-stage development, starting with formation at
a mid-ocean ridge at 177
33 Ma (Zhou et al., 2002), followed by
modification in a suprasubduction zone environment at ~126 Ma
(Malpas et al., 2003). This explanation is also supported by mineralogical
and geochemical observations (Xu et al., 2011; Li et al., 2012).
3. Experimental methods
3.1. Sample preparation and characterization
The two natural samples investigated (Table 1) include one harz-
burgite and one dunite, which were collected from the Luobusha
ophiolite in southern Tibet (Fig. 1). These two samples appear dark grey
to black, medium-to-coarse grained, and no crack is observed. The
mineralogical composition of the samples was determined by careful
examination of thin sections by point counting. Microphotographs indi-
cate that these harzburgite and dunite samples underwent high degree of
metamorphism (Fig. 2), which contain a large number of serpentine
(10%–20%) veins, olivine (70%–80%) and small amounts of constituents
Table 1
Major chemical compositions of the rocks (wt.%).
SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO
Harzburgite 40.64 0.02 1.56 8.74 0.12 38.0 1.82
Dunite 35.11 <0.01 0.18 8.00 0.10 40.5 0.05
Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 947–956
such as orthopyroxene, clinopyroxene, spinel, brucite and magnetite. The
major elements of each sample were determined by X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) spectrometry (Table 1). The accelerating potential and beam cur-
rent used were 20 kV and 22 nA, respectively.
Samples without visible cracks were prepared for the thermal prop-
erty measurement as disks of ~6 mm diameter and ~1 mm thickness.
The sample surfaces were lapped parallel, and polished first with sand-
paper and then with 1 μm diamond powder to minimize contact resis-
tance. Samples were cleaned in acetone and ethanol using an ultrasonic
cleaner and dried in a vacuum oven at 473 K for 24 h to remove any
possible absorbed water before assembling.
3.2. Thermal property measurement and data analysis
Thermal properties of harzburgite and dunite under high temperature
and high pressure were measured on YJ-3000t multi-anvil apparatus in
Institute of Geochemistry, CAS. The cell design for the thermal property
measurement is essentially the same as that in our previous study (Fu
et al., 2019). Three thin disks of nearly identical double polished speci-
mens were piled at the center of the pyrophyllite cubic pressure medium
(Fig. 3). A K-type thermocouple and an impulse heater were set on each
interface between two disks, respectively. The pressure was calibrated
via the phase transition of Bi (2.54 GPa at room temperature) and melting
of halide (high temperature). The uncertainties of pressure estimation
and temperature measurement with a K-type (NiCr–NiAl) thermocouple
are ~0.1 GPa and less than
0.5 K, respectively.
Measurements were performed at 0.8–3.0 GPa and 300–823 K by
employing the transient plane-source method (Dzhavadov, 1975; Osako
et al., 2004). The present pressure and temperature conditions were
within the stability of serpentine (Ulmer and Trommsdorff, 1995) to
ensure that serpentine does not decompose during thermal property
measurements. The samples were compressed in a stepwise fashion with
Na2O K2O P2O5 Cr2O3 BaO SO3 SrO LOI Total
0.20 0.01 <0.01 0.41 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 8.58 100.17
0.13 <0.01 <0.01 0.29 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 15.46 99.88
948
J. Ge et al. Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 947–956

temperature and the fitting errors of A and B. Sample geometry during

compression and heating was corrected based on the equation of state of
olivine (Liu et al., 2005) and harzburgite (Arafin et al., 2008) with the
assumption of isotropic contraction of the rock sample. The temperature
disturbance across the sample associated with the pulse heating is ~3 K
with 10 W pulse power. Thus, the effect of temperature heterogeneity on
measured results is negligible in our assembly. Consequently, the total
experimental uncertainties in Eq. (2) mainly derived from temperature
and sample geometry was estimated to be less than 5% in this study.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Harzburgite

The temperature dependence of the D and κ of the harzburgite are

shown in Fig. 4a and b, respectively, at various pressures. All raw data on
D and κ measured under high temperature and high pressure conditions
are given in Table 2. At a given pressure, a decreasing, concave-up
relationship between the present obtained D and κ and temperature
can be fitted by the following empirical function forms:

D(T) ¼ a0 þ a1/T þ a2/T2 (3)

2
κ(T) ¼ b0 þ b1/T þ b2/T (4)

where T is the absolute temperature, and fitting results for coefficients a0,
a1, a2, b0, b1 and b2 are summarized in Table 3. It is worth noting that
both D and κ systematically decrease with increasing temperature, but
increases with increasing pressure.
Fig. 4c and d shows the pressure dependence of D and κ of the ser-
pentinized harzburgite measured at different temperatures. At constant
temperature, both D and κ increase with increasing pressure, which is
consistent with the Debye theory that suggests that D or κ should increase
Fig. 2. Photomicrograph of harzburgite and dunite under cross-polarized light. with pressure for most geomaterials (Hofmeister, 2007). Thus, variation
Ol, olivine; Serp, serpentine; Opx, orthopyroxene.
of D and κ with pressure can be linearly fitted to the following empirical
relations:
a press load, and the temperature was changed in 50 or 100 K steps. At
DðPÞ ¼ D0 þ c  P (5)
least three repeated measurements for each temperature were performed
to check the reproducibility. When the impulse heater heats the sample
κðPÞ ¼ κ0 þ d  P (6)
(Fig. 3), thermal perturbation can be detected by the thermocouple at
each temperature step. The temperature disturbance ΔT at the position of
where the fitting coefficients D0, c, κ 0, and d are given in Table 3. With the
the thermocouple is expressed as:
temperature increasing from 300 K to 823 K, the calculated pressure
! coefficients (c and d) for D and κ of serpentinized harzburgite are in range
X∞
1 nπ nπ d   2  
ΔT ¼ A sin sin exp  n2
Bt exp n Bτ  1 : t > τ (1) of 0.354–0.439 mm2 s-1GPa-1 and 0.189–0.217 W m-1K-1GPa-1,
n¼1
n2 3 h respectively.

where t is the time from the start of pulse heating, τ is the duration (s) of
impulse heating, d is the distance (m) between the impulse heater and the
thermocouple, and h is the total height of three sample discs (m). The
quantities A and B are defined as follows:

2Qh π2 D
A¼ ; B¼ (2)
π 2 κS h2

where Q is the power (W) of the impulse heating, S is the area of the
impulse heater (m2), κ is the thermal conductivity (Wm-1K-1), and D is the
thermal diffusivity (mm2s-1). Eq. (1) is derived under the boundary
condition of constant temperature at the both sample ends (Dzhavadov,
1975). Given the rapid converge of series (1) for ΔT, summation up to n
¼ 10 yields sufficiently accurate value for the present experimental setup
(Osako et al., 2004; Yoneda et al., 2009).
Once the parameters A and B in Eq. (2) are determined through the
least square fitting of experimental data to Eq. (1), both the thermal
conductivity (κ) and the thermal diffusivity (D) can be calculated from
Eq. (2) if other necessary parameters are available. Obviously, the ac-
curacy of the experimental results on D and κ mainly comes from the Fig. 3. Cross section of the sample assembly and the top views of thermocouple
uncertainty of sample thickness h, heating area S, pulse heating power Q, and impulse heater.

949
 J. Ge et al.
Table 2
Thermal diffusivity D and thermal conductivity κ of harzburgite and dunite as a function of temperature and pressure.
Harzburgite

0.8 GPa 1.5 GPa 2 GPa 2.5 GPa 3 GPa

T (K) D (mm2s-1) κ (Wm-1 K-1) T (K) D (mm2s-1) κ (Wm-1 K-1) T (K) D (mm2s-1) κ (Wm-1 K-1) T (K) D (mm2s-1) κ (Wm-1 K-1) T (K) D (mm2s-1) κ (Wm-1 K-1)

300 1.177(15) 2.957(34) 300 1.330(15) 3.152(31) 300 1.459(11) 3.374 (18) 300 1.567(9) 3.580(11) 300 1.649(18) 3.801(21)
323 1.106(10) 2.875(23) 323 1.288(13) 3.017(28) 323 1.386(10) 3.117(16) 323 1.495(7) 3.421(10) 323 1.559(14) 3.647(17)
373 1.060(9) 2.720(21) 373 1.227(8) 2.853(16) 373 1.331(8) 3.013(15) 373 1.458(7) 3.227(9) 373 1.518(12) 3.358(14)
423 1.014(7) 2.538(16) 423 1.184(7) 2.741(14) 423 1.286(9) 2.923(18) 423 1.387(7) 3.065(9) 423 1.447(11) 3.278(15)
473 0.966(7) 2.430(17) 473 1.156(6) 2.653(13) 473 1.260(8) 2.843(15) 473 1.339(6) 2.940(9) 473 1.420(11) 3.180(15)
523 0.932(7) 2.362(16) 523 1.114(9) 2.598(13) 523 1.254(9) 2.745(18) 523 1.318(7) 2.841(8) 523 1.335(11) 2.966(15)
573 0.902(12) 2.310(28) 573 1.094(4) 2.550(11) 573 1.172(5) 2.678(10) 573 1.277(7) 2.759(9) 573 1.319(7) 2.980(11)
623 0.880(13) 2.257(29) 623 1.041(5) 2.398(12) 623 1.150(5) 2.610(11) 623 1.235(8) 2.677(12) 623 1.296(7) 2.867(11)
673 0.823(6) 2.190(17) 673 1.017(5) 2.455(15) 673 1.105(6) 2.557(15) 673 1.230(8) 2.625(12) 673 1.263(8) 2.790(13)
723 0.796(6) 2.185(20) 723 0.999(6) 2.338(16) 723 1.101(8) 2.504(17) 723 1.210(10) 2.567(14) 723 1.238(9) 2.714(14)
773 0.784(7) 2.233(23) 773 0.974(7) 2.317(18) 773 1.122(7) 2.464(16) 773 1.194(10) 2.524(15) 773 1.256(10) 2.750(15)
950

823 0.777(9) 2.163(18) 823 0.944(10) 2.325(31) 823 1.094(7) 2.429(16) 823 1.182(11) 2.536(18) 823 1.243(11) 2.623(17)

Dunite

0.8 GPa 1.5 GPa 2 GPa 2.5 GPa 3 GPa

T (K) D (mm2s-1) κ (Wm-1 K-1) T (K) D (mm2s-1) κ (Wm-1 K-1) T (K) D (mm2s-1) κ (Wm-1 K-1) T (K) D (mm2s-1) κ (Wm-1 K-1) T (K) D (mm2s-1) κ (Wm-1 K-1)

300 0.999(42) 2.634(37) 300 1.058(45) 3.025(17) 300 1.153(05) 3.145(15) 300 1.231(78) 3.271(12) 300 1.338(89) 3.326(13)
323 0.953(01) 2.591(35) 323 1.020(55) 2.900(19) 323 1.137(37) 3.040(15) 323 1.207(06) 3.187(13) 323 1.297(04) 3.274(14)
373 0.904(45) 2.463(27) 373 0.963(29) 2.768(25) 373 1.098(21) 2.920(16) 373 1.179(96) 3.110(17) 373 1.235(48) 3.178(14)
423 0.850(47) 2.381(26) 423 0.921(89) 2.635(36) 423 1.057(08) 2.817(18) 423 1.148(56) 2.973(21) 423 1.197(93) 3.117(18)
473 0.811(37) 2.349(52) 473 0.888(66) 2.553(39) 473 1.045(97) 2.772(23) 473 1.109(98) 2.872(24) 473 1.162(41) 2.932(21)
523 0.795(22) 2.300(66) 523 0.870(73) 2.488(44) 523 1.007(55) 2.667(28) 523 1.072(75) 2.845(27) 523 1.130(08) 2.970(21)
573 0.768(62) 2.274(48) 573 0.850(39) 2.435(38) 573 0.982(61) 2.612(22) 573 1.043(90) 2.745(22) 573 1.107(41) 2.827(18)
623 0.754(57) 2.247(27) 623 0.834(44) 2.393(30) 623 0.970(62) 2.553(24) 623 1.024(92) 2.593(23) 623 1.079(46) 2.706(17)
673 0.740(13) 2.235(40) 673 0.828(83) 3.363(33) 673 0.947(60) 2.502(25) 673 1.003(98) 2.621(22) 673 1.055(44) 2.715(20)
723 0.739(75) 2.214(36) 723 0.830(55) 2.329(32) 723 0.938(48) 2.451(26) 723 0.982(56) 2.566(26) 723 1.030(21) 2.608(20)
773 0.723(22) 2.202(23) 773 0.818(59) 2.309(34) 773 0.925(27) 2.420(27) 773 0.971(03) 2.531(27) 773 1.014(97) 2.622(22)
823 0.715(22) 2.215(32) 823 0.810(71) 2.298(28) 823 0.912(45) 2.373(28) 823 0.956(68) 2.526(31) 823 0.999(27) 2.609(23)

Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 947–956

J. Ge et al. Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 947–956

Table 3
Coefficients of fitting parameters for thermal diffusivity (D) and thermal conductivity (κ) as functions of temperature and pressure.
D(T) ¼ a0 þ a1/T þa2/T2 κ(T) ¼ b0 þ b1/T þ b2/T2
2 -1 2 -1 2 -1 2 2
a0 (mm s ) a1 (mm s  K) a2 (mm s  K ) R b0 (Wm-1 K-1) b1 (Wm-1) b2 (Wm-1K) R2

Harzburgite at 0.8 GPa 0.432 (48) 313.496 (46) -28627 (10408) 0.991 1.929 (112) 114.440 (108) 60458 (24131) 0.986
Harzburgite at 1.5 GPa 0.601 (35) 334.547 (34) -35746 (7643) 0.994 1.856 (118) 364.276 (114) 5386 (25364) 0.987
Harzburgite at 2.0 GPa 0.843 (77) 211.581 (75) -9577 (16715) 0.972 1.916 (144) 442.189 (140) -8139 (31077) 0.983
Harzburgite at 2.5 GPa 0.945 (39) 196.637 (38) -3928.714 (8447) 0.993 1.975 (54) 411.672 (52) 20044 (11715) 0.998
Harzburgite at 3.0 GPa 1.021 (65) 161.222 (63) 7031 (14133) 0.984 2.049 (156) 493.038 (151) 7804 (33456) 0.988
Dunite at 0.8 GPa 0.622 (18) 56.420 (17) 16918 (3861) 0.997 2.087 (31) 41.915 (30) 37252 (6856) 0.997
Dunite at 1.5 GPa 0.767 (13) 6.900 (12) 24240 (2863) 0.998 2.074 (20) 120.542 (20) 49561 (4442) 1
Dunite at 2.0 GPa 0.698 (17) 197.573 (17) -18237 (3768) 0.997 1.780 (48) 550.181 (66) -44001 (10452) 0.997
Dunite at 2.5 GPa 0.655 (17) 285.158 (16) -33902 (3724) 0.998 1.807 (116) 635.054 (112) -59290 (24888) 0.987
Dunite at 3.0 GPa 0.746 (21) 231.293 (20) -16802 (4543) 0.997 1.826 (149) 701.371 (144) -73114 (32050) 0.978

D(P) ¼ D0 þ cP κ(P) ¼ κ 0 þ dP

D0 (mm2 s-1) c (mm2 s-1 GPa-1) R2 κ0 (Wm-1 K-1) d (Wm-1 K-1 GPa-1) R2

Harzburgite at 300 K 1.007 (17) 0.206 (28) 0.995 2.613 (42) 0.387 (20) 0.992
Harzburgite at 323 K 0.960 (28) 0.207 (13) 0.988 2.527 (102) 0.349 (48) 0.945
Harzburgite at 373 K 0.901 (25) 0.213 (12) 0.990 2.446 (50) 0.299 (23) 0.981
Harzburgite at 423 K 0.873 (27) 0.199 (13) 0.987 2.256 (27) 0.333 (13) 0.995
Harzburgite at 473 K 0.829 (32) 0.203 (15) 0.983 2.159 (43) 0.332 (20) 0.994
Harzburgite at 523 K 0.819 (63) 0.189 (30) 0.929 2.177 (37) 0.267 (18) 0.993
Harzburgite at 573 K 0.780 (40) 0.190 (19) 0.970 2.088 (46) 0.288 (22) 0.991
Harzburgite at 623 K 0.745 (28) 0.191 (13) 0.986 2.035 (48) 0.269 (22) 0.979
Harzburgite at 673 K 0.687 (43) 0.204 (20) 0.970 2.013 (55) 0.260 (26) 0.970
Harzburgite at 723 K 0.667 (51) 0.205 (24) 0.959 1.996 (30) 0.237 (14) 0.990
Harzburgite at 773 K 0.639 (48) 0.217 (22) 0.968 2.002 (73) 0.233 (34) 0.938
Harzburgite at 823 K 0.621 (38) 0.217 (18) 0.979 2.010 (10) 0.207 (4) 0.998
Dunite at 300 K 0.850 (40) 0.156 (14) 0.974 2.457 (98) 0.321 (46) 0.940
Dunite at 323 K 0.807 (24) 0.160 (11) 0.984 2.392 (62) 0.309 (29) 0.973
Dunite at 373 K 0.759 (34) 0.161 (16) 0.970 2.239 (63) 0.330(30) 0.976
Dunite at 423 K 0.702 (33) 0.169 (16) 0.973 2.125 (21) 0.336 (10) 0.997
Dunite at 473 K 0.669 (39) 0.170 (19) 0.964 2.153 (65) 0.277 (31) 0.964
Dunite at 523 K 0.659 (31) 0.160 (14) 0.975 2.040 (23) 0.313 (11) 0.996
Dunite at 573 K 0.635 (27) 0.160 (13) 0.980 2.064 (33) 0.262 (16) 0.989
Dunite at 623 K 0.628 (31) 0.155 (15) 0.972 2.091 (36) 0.208 (17) 0.979
Dunite at 673 K 0.622 (25) 0.149 (12) 0.980 2.046 (19) 0.224 (9) 0.995
Dunite at 723 K 0.637 (25) 0.136 (11) 0.977 2.061 (30) 0.190 (14) 0.983
Dunite at 773 K 0.622 (26) 0.136 (12) 0.976 2.033 (16) 0.195 (8) 0.995
Dunite at 823 K 0.618 (25) 0.132 (12) 0.976 2.039 (40) 0.186 (19) 0.962

Fig. 4. Effects of temperature and pressure on thermal properties of harzburgite.

951
J. Ge et al. Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 947–956

Fig. 5. Effects of temperature and pressure on thermal properties of dunite.

Fig. 6. Comparison of our result with previous research of the similar rocks or the constituent minerals. The data without pressure marks are obtained under ambient
pressure or extrapolated to ambient pressure.

952
J. Ge et al.
Fig. 7. The illustration of numerical model, (a) represents the model at 10 Ma;
(b) represents the model at 20 Ma; (c) represents the model at 30 Ma. The cut
line denotes the line along which the temperature distributions are compared.
4.2. Dunite
Very similar to the trends observed in harzburgite, Fig. 5 shows the
effects of temperature and pressure on D and κ of serpentinized dunite.
The temperature and pressure dependence of D and κ of dunite were also
fitted by Eqs. (3) and (4) and Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively. We should
note that the calculated pressure derivative for D and κ of dunite are in
range of 0.132–0.170 mm2 s-1GPa-1 and 0.683–0.719 W m-1K-1GPa-1,
respectively. These values are distinctly smaller or larger than those of
observed D or κ in serpentinized harzburgite (Table 3).
4.3. Comparison with previous data
Pertermann and Hofmeister (2006) measured the D of dunite at
ambient pressure and temperature up to 1773 K by laser-flash method.
They found that the D of dunite is largely controlled by olivine, especially
dominated by [010] orientation. Pertermann and Hofmeister’s data are
very close to those averaged from three crystallographic axes for olivine
single crystal reported by Osako et al. (2004), but higher than those
953
Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 947–956
Fig. 8. The thermal conductivity of serpentinized harzburgite and olivine
with depth.
obtained in the present experiment and Xu et al. (2004). Gibert et al.
(2003) investigated the influence of temperature, pressure and defor-
mation fabric on the D of upper mantle rocks including lherzolite,
harzburgite and dunite. Their results showed that the D of lherzolite is
almost the same as that measured by Miao et al. (2014), and also the D of
harzburgite is consistent with that obtained in this study. On the other
hand, in order to examine the effect of serpentinization on thermal
properties of harzburgite and dunite investigated in the present study,
the D and κ of serpentine measured by Petrunin and Popov (1995) and
Osako et al. (2010) were also depicted in Fig. 6. Compared with other
upper mantle minerals or rocks, serpentine has relatively lower D and κ.
The D and κ of harzburgite and dunite measured in this study are basi-
cally lower than that of olivine or rocks mainly composed of olivine, but
higher than that of serpentine. This observation suggests that the ser-
pentinization of rocks would lead to a reduction of D and κ to a consid-
erable extent.
Due to the limitation of experimental technology on thermal transport
property measurement, except for the present experiments and Osako
et al. (2004, 2010), few studies have simultaneously measured D and κ of
harzburgite and dunite under high temperature and pressure. In general,
the temperature dependence of thermal conductivity is calculated
through the relation κ ¼ ρDCP, where ρ is the density and CP is the specific
heat capacity. As shown in Fig. 6b, the averaged κ of olivine single crystal
(Osako et al., 2004) are higher than those of olivine aggregates (Xu et al.,
2004) and those of lherzolite (Miao et al., 2014), as well as harzburgite
and dunite reported in this study. Similar to temperature dependence of
D, the κ of serpentine is the lowest in Fig. 6b, except for the results of
Osako et al. (2010).
The pressure dependence of D and κ of harzburgite and dunite
measured here in comparison with previous data are shown in Fig. 6c and
d. The averaged D and κ from three crystallographic axes for olivine
single crystal (Osako et al., 2004) is evidently higher than that of poly-
crystalline olivine measured by Xu et al. (2004). The D and κ of serpen-
tine (Osako et al., 2010) are almost independent from the pressure at
room temperature. Our results on pressure dependence of D and κ of
harzburgite and dunite lie between those of olivine (Osako et al., 2004)
and serpentine (Osako et al., 2010). However, the average pressure de-
rivatives of D or κ of harzburgite and dunite at 300 K are 0.206 mm2
s1GPa1 and 0.156 mm2 s1GPa1 or 0.387 W m1K1GPa1 and 0.321
W m1K1GPa1, respectively, which are larger than those of olivine
(Osako et al., 2004; Xu et al., 2004) and serpentine (Osako et al., 2010).
This discrepancy may be derived from the different porosity and crack
between the present study and other investigations. In the previous
J. Ge et al. Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 947–956

Table 4
Parameters for modeling.
Serpentinized slab Primitive slab and mantle (approximated as olivine)
-1 - 2
Thermal conductivity (Wm K κ(P, T) ¼ (1.8154þ70.22217/Tþ1816.62438/T )(1þ0. 131P) κ(P, T)a ¼ (2.15þ977.82/Tþ91591/T2)(1þ0.044P)
1
)
Heat capacity (Jkg-1K-1) CP(T)b ¼ 130.21þ60017.45T(0.5)4.68108T(-2)þ7.711010T(-3) (273 CP(T)c ¼ (233180–180.16T(-0.5)26.7941010T(-3))/
K–800 K) 140.7
CP(T) ¼ 1415 (800 K–1800 K)
Density (kg/m3) 2700 3300
a
The temperature dependence is from Hofmeiser et al. (2007), pressure derivative is evaluated from that of olivine (Osako et al., 2004).
b
Evaluated from Osako et al. (2010) and modified according to Berman et al. (1996).
c
From McKenzie et al. (2005).

studies (Osako et al., 2004, 2010; Xu et al., 2004), their samples are
sintered pure olivine or natural serpentine specimens with minimum
initial porosity and crack so that the pressure dependence of D or κ is
relatively small. In contrast, the porosity and crack for serpentinized
harzburgite and dunite are larger in this study compared to previous
works (Fig. 2). At low pressure, the thermal diffusivity and thermal
conductivity of serpentinized harzburgite and dunite are lower than
those of olivine, while the D or κ increase with increasing pressure due to
the reduction of the porosity and crack during thermal property
measurement.
4.4. Implications for the thermal evolution of Tibet
Since temperature plays a critical role in determining the strength of
the lithosphere (McKenzie et al., 2005), it is a key to understanding the
dynamics of continental collision. The processes controlling the tem-
perature structure beneath Tibet are poorly understood. Geological and
seismic observations (e.g., Royden et al., 2008; Hung et al., 2011) have
revealed that the evolution of the Tibetan plateau involves subduction of
Indian lithosphere, thickening of Tibetan crust and eastern extrusion of
Tibetan lithosphere, and extended sub-horizontally (at the depth about
200 km) over a distance of 500 km north of the Greater Himalaya (Li
et al., 2008).
In order to better understand the thermal evolution of Tibet, we
conducted quantitative simulations of how temperature evolved beneath
southern and central Tibet on the basis of the thermal properties of rocks
measured in this study and geophysical constraints, using a well-verified
finite element code COMSOL Multiphysics. To describe the dynamics of
the most prominent case of active continental collision, we make several
simplifications: we consider a model along two-dimensional, vertical
cross-section in the direction of convergence with the origin located at
the surface near the Main Central Thrust where it dips (20 ) northward
beneath the Greater Himalaya (Wang et al., 2013; Fig. 7). The onset time
of collision was assumed to be 50 Ma and the convergence velocity is
about 10 mm/yr (H
ebert et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013). The crust of the
Tibetan plateau is considered to be doubly thickened crust by continental

Fig. 9. (a, b, c) The temperature of slabs without serpentinized harzburgite; (d, e, f) the temperature of slabs with serpentinized harzburgite; (a, d, g) the temperature
at 10 Ma; (b, e, h) the temperature at 20 Ma; (c, f, i) the temperature at 30 Ma. (g, h, i) the contrast of temperature distribution between serpentinized subduction slab
and primitive subduction slab.

954
J. Ge et al.
collision, which is assumed to be 70 km thickness with 35 km upper crust
and 35 km lower crust. The surface temperature of Tibet was fixed at 273
K, the right boundary has no heat flux across it and the lower boundary is
considered to be adiabatic, which is set far from the area of interest to
avoid any numerical artifacts. The major components of crust and mantle
of Tibet are considered to be granite and olivine, respectively. In addi-
tion, if considering the stability of serpentine (Rupke et al., 2004; Renard,
2013) and the effect of serpentinization on thermal evolution, we
assumed that ophiolite (serpentinized harzburgite) is the major rock in
the topmost 20 km thickness of the subducted slab. The radioactive heat
production of Tibet crust is 0.8 μW/m3 (e.g., Craig et al., 2012; Wang
et al., 2013). The effects of temperature and pressure on the thermal
properties of granite, olivine and serpentinized harzburgite have been
investigated experimentally by Osako et al. (2004), Fu et al. (2019) and
this study (Fig. 8). The κ and CP of serpentinized and primitive slabs are
summarized in Table 4.
Numerical simulations were carried out at three geologic ages (10 Ma,
20 Ma and 30 Ma) after the subduction of Indian lithosphere, and three
vertical cut lines are set in the 20 km left of the endpoint of the sub-
duction slab (Fig. 7). According to the phase diagram (Ulmer and
Trommsdorff, 1995), serpentine will dehydrate at temperature more than
1000 K and 3.5 GPa (~100 km depth). Fig. 9 shows the results of three
representative simulated thermal structures and how the simulated
geotherms vary over depth and distance. At 10 Ma after beginning of the
subduction, the temperature difference between the serpentinized and
primitive models is negligible (Fig. 9a, d and g). At 20 Ma, this temper-
ature difference is about 50 K (Fig. 9h), which is similar to that at 30 Ma
(Fig. 9i). Overall, one important feature of the thermal evolution of Tibet
is that there is a maximum temperature in the shallow part but a mini-
mum temperature in the deep lithosphere. For example, a temperature of
~673 K at a depth of 35 km was found in the upper crust (Fig. 9g). With
increasing geologic time (20 Ma), this maximum temperature reaches to
~973 K at greater depth (60 km) near the Moho (Fig. 9h). However, this
maximum temperature reaches to ~1123 K at greater depth (60 km) at
30 Ma (Fig. 9i), suggesting dehydration of serpentine. This observation
provides a simple interpretation for the dichotomy of a warm crust
overlying a cold upper mantle beneath Tibet (Wang et al., 2013).
Meanwhile, this simulation suggests that substantial partial melting
could occur beneath the southern Tibet due to dehydration of serpentine
(Ulmer and Trommsdorff, 1995) or other hydrous minerals (Fu et al.,
2019). Furthermore, similar calculation by Osako et al. (2010) showed
that the temperature difference is as high as 400 K if considering a 20 km
thickness of the serpentine layer for the Ryukyu subduction zone from
seismological anisotropy study (Katayama et al., 2009). This large dif-
ference between this study and Osako et al. (2010) may be derived from
the using of different κ for serpentinized harzburgite and serpentine.
Obviously, at greater depth, larger difference in κ at higher temperature
will lead to a bigger temperature difference between the serpentinized
and primitive models. Another possibility is likely come from the
different pressure derivatives of κ obtained in this study and Osako et al.
(2010).
5. Concluding remarks
Combining measured thermal properties of serpentinized harzburgite
and dunite from Tibet with modeling method, the following conclusion
can be derived: (1) Serpentinization can lower thermal diffusivity and
thermal conductivity of rocks to a large extent; (2) Serpentinized rocks in
subduction zone play as thermal insulation layer to hinder temperature
homogenization between subducting slabs and surrounding lithosphere;
(3) Serpentine breaks down in the process of slab subduction, which may
be a trigger of partial melting in upper mantle.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
955
Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 947–956
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by Key Research Program of Frontier Sci-
ences of CAS (ZDBS-LY-DQC015), National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Nos. 41973056, 41773056, 41303048) and Science Founda-
tion of Guizhou Province (2017-1196, 2018-1176).
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
References
Arafin, S., Singh, R.N., George, A.K., Al-Lazki, A., 2008. Thermoelastic and
thermodynamic properties of harzburgite—an upper mantle rock. J. Phys. Chem.
Solid. 69, 1766–1774.
Clauser, C., Huenges, E., 1995. Thermal conductivity of rocks and minerals. In: Rock
Physics and Phase Relations: a Handbook of Physical Constants, 3, pp. 105–126.
Craig, T.J., Copley, A., Jackson, J., 2012. Thermal and tectonic consequences of India
underthrusting Tibet. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 353–354, 231–239.
Dzhavadov, L.N., 1975. Measurement of thermophysical properties of dielectrics under
pressure. High. Temp. - High. Press. 7, 49–54.
Fu, H.F., Zhang, B.H., Ge, J.H., Xiong, Z.L., Zhai, S.M., Shan, S.M., Li, H.P., 2019. Thermal
diffusivity and thermal conductivity of granitoids at 283–988 K and 0.3–1.5 GPa. Am.
Mineral. 104 (11), 1533–1545.
Gibert, B., Seipold, U., Tommasi, A., Mainprice, D., 2003. Thermal diffusivity of upper
mantle rocks: influence of temperature, pressure, and the deformation fabric.
J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 108 (B8), 2359.
H
ebert, R., Bezard, R., Guilmette, C., Dostal, J., Wang, C.S., Liu, Z.F., 2012. The
Indus–Yarlung Zangbo ophiolites from Nanga Parbat to Namche Barwa syntaxes,
southern Tibet: first synthesis of petrology, geochemistry, and geochronology with
incidences on geodynamic reconstructions of Neo-Tethys. Gondwana Res. 22,
377–397.
Hofmeister, A.M., 2007. Pressure dependence of thermal transport properties. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 104, 9192–9197.
Hofmeister, A.M., Branlund, J.M., Pertermann, M., 2007. In: Schubert, G. (Ed.), Properties
of Rock and Minerals - Thermal Conductivity of the Earth, Treatise in Geophysics Vol.
2 of Treatise in Geophysics. Elsevier, pp. 543–577.
Hofmeister, A.M., Dong, J.J., Branlund, J.M., 2014. Thermal diffusivity of electrical
insulators at high temperatures: evidence for diffusion of bulk phonon-polaritons at
infrared frequencies augmenting phonon heat conduction. J. Appl. Phys. 115,
163517.
Hung, S.H., Chen, W.P., Chiao, L.Y., 2011. A data-adaptive, multiscale approach of finite-
frequency, traveltime tomography with special reference to P and S wave data from
central Tibet. J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth 116, B06307.
Huot, F., H
ebert, R., Varfalvy, V., et al., 2002. The Beimarang M
elange (Southern Tibet)
brings additional constraints in assessing the origin, metamorphic evolution and
obduction processes of the Yarlung Zangbo Ophiolite. J. Asian Earth Sci. 21,
307–322.
Katayama, I., Hirauchi, K., Michibayashi, K., Ando, J., 2009. Trench-parallel anisotropy
produced by serpentine deformation in the hydrated mantle wedge. Nature 461,
1114–1117.
Li, C., Van der Hilst, R.D., Meltzer, A.S., Engdahl, E.R., 2008. Subduction of the Indian
lithosphere beneath the Tibet plateau and Burma. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 274,
157–168.
Li, J.Y., Yang, J.S., Ba, D.Z., Xu, X.Z., Meng, F.C., Li, T.F., 2012. Origin of different dunites
in the Luobusa ophiolite, Tibet. Acta Petrol. Sin. 28, 1829–1845 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Liu, W., Kung, J., Li, B., 2005. Elasticity of san carlos olivine to 8 GPa and 1073 K.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L16301.
Malpas, J., Zhou, M.F., Robinson, P.T., Reynolds, P.H., 2003. Geochemical and
geochronological constraints on the origin and emplacement of the Yarlung Zangbo
ophiolites, Southern Tibet. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 218,
191–206.
McKenzie, D., Jackson, J., Priestley, K., 2005. Thermal structure of oceanic and
continental lithosphere. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 233, 337–349.
Miao, S.Q., Li, H.P., Chen, G., 2014. The temperature dependence of thermal conductivity
for lherzolites from the North China Craton and the associated constraints on the
thermodynamic thickness of the lithosphere. Geophys. J. Int. 197, 900–909.
Osako, M., Ito, E., Yoneda, A., 2004. Simultaneous measurements of thermal conductivity
and thermal diffusivity for garnet and olivine under high pressure. Phys. Earth Planet.
In. 143–144, 311–320.
Osako, M., Yoneda, A., Ito, E., 2010. Thermal diffusivity, thermal conductivity and heat
capacity of serpentine (antigorite) under high pressure. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 183,
229–233.
Pertermann, M., Hofmeister, A.M., 2006. Thermal diffusivity of olivine-group minerals at
high temperature. Am. Mineral. 91, 1747–1760.
Petrunin, G.I., Popov, V.G., 1995. Temperature dependence of lattice thermal
conductivity of Earth’s mineral substance. Phys. Solid Earth 30, 617–623.
Renard, B., 2013. Serpentine in active subduction zones. Lithos 178, 171–185.
Royden, L.H., Burchfiel, B.C., Van der Hilst, R.D., 2008. The geological evolution of the
Tibetan plateau. Science 321, 1054–1058.
J. Ge et al.
Rupke, L.H., Morgan, J.P., Hort, M., Connolly, J.A.D., 2004. Serpentine and the
subduction zone water cycle. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 223, 17–34.
Ulmer, P., Trommsdorff, V., 1995. Serpentine stability to mantle depths and subduction-
related magmatism. Science 268, 858–861.
Wang, C.Y., Chen, W.P., Wang, L.P., 2013. Temperature beneath Tibet. Earth Planet Sci.
Lett. 375, 326–337.
Xiong, F.H., Yang, J.S., Robinsona, P.T., Xu, X.Z., Liu, Z., Li, Y., Li, J.Y., Chen, S.Y., 2015.
Origin of podiform chromitite, a new model based on the Luobusa ophiolite, Tibet.
Gondwana Res. 27, 525–542.
Xu, X.Z., Yang, J.S., Ba, D.Z., Guo, G.L., Robinson, P.T., Li, J.Y., 2011. Petrogenesis of the
kangjinla peridotite in the luobusa ophiolite, southern Tibet. J. Asian Earth Sci. 42,
553–568.
Xu, Y.S., Shankland, T.J., Linhardt, S., Rubie, D.C., Langenhorst, F., Klasinski, K., 2004.
Thermal diffusivity and conductivity of olivine, wadsleyite and ringwoodite to 20
GPa and 1373 K. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 143–144, 321–336.
Xu, Z.Q., Dilek, Y., Yang, J.S., Liang, F.H., Liu, F., Ba, D.Z., Cai, Z.H., Li, G.W., Dong, H.W.,
Ji, S.C., 2015. Crustal structure of the Indus–Tsangpo suture zone and its ophiolites in
southern Tibet. Gondwana Res. 27, 507–524.
Yamamoto, S., Komiya, T., Hirose, K., Maruyama, S., 2009. Coesite and clinopyroxene
exsolution lamellae in chromites: in-situ ultrahigh-pressure evidence from podiform
chromitites in the Luobusa ophiolite, southern Tibet. Lithos 109, 314–322.
956
Geoscience Frontiers 12 (2021) 947–956
Yang, J.S., Dobrzhinetskaya, L., Bai, W.J., Fang, Q.S., Robinson, P.T., Zhang, J.F.,
Green, H.W., 2007. Diamond- and coesite-bearing chromitites from the Luobusa
ophiolite, Tibet. Geology 35, 875–878.
Yang, J.S., Meng, F.C., Xu, X.Z., Robinson, P.T., Dilek, Y., Makeyev, A.B., Wirth, R.,
Wiedenbeck, M., Griffin, W.L., Cliff, J., 2014. Diamonds, native elements and metal
alloys from chromiites of the Ray-Iz ophiolite of the Polar Urals. Gondwana Res. 27,
459–485.
Yoneda, A., Osako, M., Ito, E., 2009. Heat capacity measurement under high pressure: a
finite element method assessment. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 174, 309–314.
Zhang, H.Y., Ba, D.Z., Guo, T.Y., Mo, X.X., Xue, J.Z., Ruan, G.P., 1996. Study of Luobusa
Typical Chromite Ore Deposit Qusong County, Tibet (Xizang). Xizang People Press,
Lhasa, pp. 1–181 (in Chinese).
Zhou, M.F., Robinson, P.T., Su, B.X., Gao, J.F., Li, J.W., Yang, J.S., Malpas, J., 2014.
Compositions of chromite, associated minerals, and parental magmas of podiform
chromite deposits: the role of slab contamination of contamination of asthenospheric
melts in supersubduction zone environments. Gondwana Res. 26, 262–283.
Zhou, S., Mo, X.X., Mahony, J.J., Zhang, S.Q., Guo, T.J., Zhao, Z.D., 2002. Geochronology
and Nd and Pb isotope characteristics of gabbro dikes in the Luobusha ophiolite,
Tibet. Chin. Sci. Bull. 47, 144–147.