卡洛琳地幔柱活动减弱过程中岩浆成因和源区组成演化

赵晗, 张国良, 张吉, 王帅

赵晗,张国良,张吉,等. 卡洛琳地幔柱活动减弱过程中岩浆成因和源区组成演化[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质,2022,42(4): 122-134. DOI: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2022012202
引用本文: 赵晗,张国良,张吉,等. 卡洛琳地幔柱活动减弱过程中岩浆成因和源区组成演化[J]. 海洋地质与第四纪地质,2022,42(4): 122-134. DOI: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2022012202
ZHAO Han,ZHANG Guoliang,ZHANG Ji,et al. Magma genesis and evolution of source composition during the weakening of Caroline mantle plume activity[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology,2022,42(4):122-134. DOI: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2022012202
Citation: ZHAO Han,ZHANG Guoliang,ZHANG Ji,et al. Magma genesis and evolution of source composition during the weakening of Caroline mantle plume activity[J]. Marine Geology & Quaternary Geology,2022,42(4):122-134. DOI: 10.16562/j.cnki.0256-1492.2022012202

卡洛琳地幔柱活动减弱过程中岩浆成因和源区组成演化

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金项目“深部碳循环对典型大洋海山链碱性玄武岩的成因制约”(41876040),“西太平洋板块俯冲体系岩浆过程中深部碳循环研究”(91858206)
详细信息
    作者简介:

    赵晗(1997—),男,硕士研究生,海洋地质专业,主要从事大洋岩石学和地球化学研究,E-mail:zhaohan@qdio.ac.cn

    通讯作者:

    张国良(1981—),男,研究员,主要从事大洋岩石学和地幔地球化学研究,E-mail:zhangguoliang@qdio.ac.cn

  • 中图分类号: P736.14

Magma genesis and evolution of source composition during the weakening of Caroline mantle plume activity

  • 摘要: 地幔柱活动不同阶段具有不同的岩浆作用产物,由楚克(14.8~4.3 Ma)、波纳佩(8.7~<1 Ma)、科斯雷(2~1 Ma)等洋岛构成的卡洛琳海山链是地幔柱活动不同阶段的典型例子,研究该海山链中不同洋岛地球化学特征的差异有助于加深对地幔柱晚期活动规律的认识。本研究对获取的楚克、科斯雷样品进行全岩主量、微量元素及矿物电子探针分析,并与波纳佩岛进行对比。科斯雷和楚克由霞石岩和碱性玄武岩组成,在微量元素配分模式上体现出典型碱性洋岛玄武岩的特征。这些样品的橄榄石斑晶具有与辉石岩源区夏威夷OIB橄榄石类似的高Ni、低Ca-Mn的特征,反映其地幔源区可能存在辉石岩。科斯雷霞石岩橄榄石斑晶内存在含碳酸盐的熔体包裹体,反映CO2在地幔熔融和岩浆成因过程中起到了重要作用。从楚克、波纳佩到科斯雷,La/Sm比值逐渐增大,地幔熔融程度逐渐降低。Nb/Nb*随着La/Sm、Sm/Yb升高和SiO2降低有逐渐降低的趋势,与地幔熔融程度降低过程中CO2作用的增强有关。研究认为,楚克、波纳佩、科斯雷等洋岛火山岩的地球化学变化由卡洛琳地幔柱热点活动逐渐减弱导致,随着地幔柱活动性减弱,CO2在火山岩成因上起到越来越明显的作用。
    Abstract: The Caroline seamount chain consists of Chuuk (14.8~4.3 Ma), Pohnpei (8.7~<1 Ma), Kosrae (2~1 Ma) islands and a series of seamounts as the result of late-stage mantle plume. Geochemical variations in the seamount chain can deepen the understanding of late activity of the mantle plume. The whole rock major- and trace-elements, electron probe mineral analyses of the samples from Chuuk and Kosrae islands were conducted, and the results were compared with published data of Pohnpei. Kosrae and Chuuk islands are composed of nephelinites and alkaline basalts, reflecting typical ocean-island alkaline basalts in trace element patterns. Olivine phenocrysts in the samples are Ni-enriched but Ca-Mn–depleted, which is similar to olivines from Hawaiian OIB (ocean island basalt), suggesting the existence of pyroxenite in the mantle source. The presence of carbonate melt inclusions in the olivine phenocryst (Fo=85 mol%) of Kosrae nephelinite indicates that CO2 plays an important role in mantle melting and magma generation. The average La/Sm ratio of volcanic rocks gradually increases from Chuuk, Ponape, to Kosrae, which may reflect the decreasing degree of mantle melting during the weakening of the Caroline hot spot activity. In addition, the Nb/Nb* ratio decreases with the increase of La/Sm, Sm/Yb ratios and the decrease of SiO2, indicating the enhancing effect of CO2 due to the decrease in mantle melting degree. Therefore, the continuous geochemical changes of volcanic rocks from Chuuk, Ponape, Kosrae islands are caused by the gradual weakening of Caroline mantle plume activity, during which CO2 plays an increasingly obvious role in genesis of volcanic rocks.
  • 天然气水合物(以下简称水合物)储量丰富,是最有可能代替化石燃料的清洁能源之一[1-3]。水合物沉积物层存在于低温、高压的自然环境中,陆地与海洋均有分布。中国海域水合物主要分布于南海地区[4],据估算其储量约为6.4×1013 m3,与中国常规天然气资源总量基本相当[5],具有巨大的开发潜力。随着中国对于海域水合物研究的不断深入,中国地质调查局分别在2017年和2020年进行了海域水合物的试采[6-7],实现短期稳定产气。

    国内外学者针对含水合物沉积物的力学特性开展了丰富的力学试验研究[8-11]。Winters等[12-13]通过核磁共振和三轴压缩试验分别对原状样品和人工合成样品进行测量,得到了水合物沉积物的强度和压缩波速。Masui等[14]通过实验证实了原状样品和人工合成样品具有相似的力学强度,但是应力-应变关系随初始孔隙率和颗粒级配的变化而变化。Yun等[15]通过室内试验证明了四氢呋喃水合物(THF)和甲烷水合物具有相似的力学强度,建议使用THF进行力学性质研究。对于孔隙型水合物的研究较为广泛,Ren[16]等通过核磁共振发现水合物首先生长于小孔隙中,黏土会延缓整个生长过程。相较于均匀分布的含水合物沉积物样品,非均匀分布会对沉积物的物理和力学性质产生影响。Xie等[17-18]考虑了水合物沉积物的非均匀性,在人工样品中加入不同形状的水合物块体模拟不同的赋存形式,得到了不同形式下的水合物沉积物的强度和描述模型。含水合物沉积物的渗透率和破裂压力等均与水合物饱和度及分布形式有关[19-20]。然而大规模商业化开采水合物需要中长期稳定产气,因此还需要考虑储层的蠕变特性[21]

    目前,针对粉黏土蠕变特性的研究已经较为成熟[22-24]。余云燕等[25]针对非饱和盐渍土开展了一系列三轴固结不排水蠕变试验,在Singh-Mitchell模型的基础上进行修正,提出了适合非饱和盐渍土的经验模型。罗庆姿等[26]通过三轴不排水压缩试验对汕头的软土进行了分析。Lai等[27]针对三峡滑土带中的非饱和土进行三轴蠕变试验,引入了考虑基质吸力的相关参数,建立了适用于非饱和土的Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型。刘业科等[28]通过梯级载荷加载方法进行室内三轴固结不排水的蠕变试验,在此基础上对Singh-Mitchell模型进行修正使其能描述零应力零应变水平。关于常规粉黏土的蠕变特性试验已经开展了较多研究,积累了较多经验[29]。区别于常规软黏土的蠕变特性,含水合物粉质黏土在开采过程中存在水合物相变、渗流等过程,水合物分解前后沉积物的孔隙结构也相应发生改变,目前针对含水合物粉黏土的蠕变特性研究和相关模型的研究较少[30]

    本工作采用固结仪进行蠕变试验,研究了含水合物粉黏土的蠕变特性,并提出了描述模型。首先,通过试验获得了含水合物粉黏土的蠕变特性曲线,分析了含水合物粉黏土分解后的蠕变特性;在Singh-Mitchell模型中引入水合物饱和度参数,构建并验证修正后的Singh-Mitchell模型,得到了可以描述含水合物粉黏土的蠕变特性模型。

    研究区域位于中国南海北部的西北大陆边缘,呈NE向延展,面积达4.5×104 km2,具备稳定的高压低温环境,可以形成天然气水合物,也是我国重要的常规石油富集区域[31-32](图1)。试验采用研究区海域水合物储层的粉黏土沉积物,水合物赋存于海底7~158 m范围内的第四系沉积物中,该区域平均水深约为1 000 m。

    图  1  研究区域位置[31]
    Figure  1.  Location of the research area[31]

    土体的基本物理和力学性质如下:土体颗粒比重Gs=2.65,孔隙度n=0.509,平均粒径d50=0.0067,其中黏质组分(d≤4 μm)约占50%,砂质组分(4 μm<d≤63 μm)约占45%,颗粒级配曲线如图2所示。根据《土的工程分类标准》,试验用土粒径小于0.075 mm的颗粒质量分数大于50%,属于细粒土;不均匀系数Cu = 13.56,属于不均匀土,曲率系数Cc = 0.57,级配不连续。综上,试验土为级配不良的细粒土。

    图  2  沉积物颗粒级配曲线图
    Figure  2.  Curves of sediment particle size distribution

    试验所用的四氢呋喃溶液采购于中国国药试剂网,浓度为99.9%,通过加入蒸馏水配置成不同浓度的四氢呋喃溶液。质量分数为19%的四氢呋喃溶液在低温常压条件下可以完全合成四氢呋喃水合物,考虑到四氢呋喃的挥发性,试验中使用四氢呋喃溶液的质量分数为21%。根据试验样品所需的水合物饱和度,计算并配置一定质量分数的四氢呋喃溶液。

    试验介质为粉黏土,基于试验区域水合物储层实际工况和土工试验结果,粉黏土比重Gs = 2.65,制备水合物沉积物样品时选取干密度$ {\rho }_{\mathrm{d}}\text{=}\text{1.3}\;\text{}\text{g/}{\text{cm}}^{\text{3}} $,研究在恒定的上覆层荷载下水合物储层分解后对水合物储层的蠕变力学特性的影响。具体制备过程如下:

    土骨架制备:将洗盐后的粉黏土沉积物置于烘箱中在105℃条件下烘干12 h后取出冷却,研磨土体至颗粒完全粉碎(土体颗粒粒径小于0.2 mm)。根据干密度称取一定质量的沉积物平均二等分,将每份土体加入适量水后填入环刀内砸实至所要求的高度,在每层样品制备完成后将试样拉毛,以降低其分层的影响,制备成面积为30 cm2、高2 cm样品,置于烘箱中在105℃条件下烘干12 h后取出冷却。

    水合物合成:根据试验中水合物饱和度的设置配置不同浓度的四氢呋喃溶液,将制备好的土骨架置于密封罐内,密封罐与真空装置和储液装置相连,开启抽真空装置对样品抽取真空两小时,完成后通过储液装置自下而上浇注配置好的四氢呋喃溶液,保持密封状态一天至土样含液量稳定。最后取出浸泡完成的沉积物样品置于0~2 ℃的冷柜中1~2 d合成水合物,如图3所示。

    图  3  试验前后的试样
    Figure  3.  Sample before and after test

    在试验前取出含水合物沉积物样品置于密封罐内分解,从而得到不同水合物饱和度分解后的沉积物样品。采用分别加载的方式进行,在荷载的作用下,连续观测。加载应力分别为:①号0.5 MPa、②号2 MPa、③号3 MPa条件下进行试验;分解前水合物饱和度分别为 0%、20%、60%、80%。试验仪器使用固结仪如图4,通过采用单杠杆固结仪试验获得水合物沉积物的蠕变力学响应参数。

    图  4  高压固结仪实物图
    Figure  4.  High-pressure consolidation apparatus

    高压固结仪放置于20℃的恒温室中,在试验过程中保持样品处于饱和状态,当沉降值稳定后样品停止变形,即认为试样的变形不超过0.001 mm/d后达到稳定状态。

    通过对原始数据的整理,得到了分别加载方式下,不同水合物饱和度(SH)粉质黏土样品分解后在轴向压力σ下试验时间t和应变ε的蠕变试验曲线(图5)。

    图  5  不同饱和度下蠕变全过程曲线图
    Figure  5.  The whole-process curve of creeping under different saturation degrees

    图5中可以看出,在分别加载的条件下,含水合物沉积物分解后样品在各级荷载下的应变-时间关系曲线的变化规律基本相同,只有初始蠕变阶段和稳定蠕变阶段,并未出现加速蠕变阶段。施加荷载的初期,均产生了较大的瞬间变形,曲线呈飞跃式增长。随着时间的推移,曲线的斜率逐渐减小,表示试样的变形速率逐渐减小。最终,试样的变形速率趋于稳定,曲线呈斜率较小的直线,试样的变形随时间不断增大,但该阶段变形值较小。

    含水合物粉质黏土样品的蠕变特性曲线可以分为瞬时变形、固结变形和蠕变变形3个阶段[33]。水合物的赋存改变了粉黏土的初始孔隙结构,在施加荷载的瞬间会产生较大的变形进入瞬时变形阶段;当样品孔隙被压缩,孔隙水被排出,而由于黏土沉积物骨架的渗透率较低因此会产生超静孔隙水压力并需要较长时间消散,处于固结变形阶段;最后固结完成后,在恒定荷载的作用下,由于恒定轴向压力的作用,土体骨架持续变形,应变不断增加但总体应变率较小,最后趋于稳定,处于蠕变变形阶段(图6)。无水合物沉积物应变率和时间的曲线见图7。瞬时变形认为当轴向荷载加载完成后完成,取1 min对应的应变作为瞬时变形。将图7中的转折点作为固结变形和蠕变变形分界点,即将应变率1×10−5/min作为固结变形和蠕变变形分界点。

    图  6  变形过程三阶段示意图
    Figure  6.  Diagram of three-stage deformation process
    图  7  无水合物沉积物应变率和时间的曲线
    Figure  7.  Curves of strain rate and time for hydrate-free sediments

    Singh和Mitchell等[34]在总结大量土体蠕变的基础上,使用指数函数及幂函数的形式描述黏土的应力-应变-时间关系,并在此基础上提出了Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型。Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型具有参数少、适用范围广等特点,因此本文先择此模型来描述粉黏土的蠕变特性。Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型可以表示为:

    $$ \dot{{ \varepsilon }}={{A}{\rm e}}^{\text{α}{{D}}_{\text{r}}}{\left(\frac{{t}}{{{t}}_{{1}}}\right)}^{{m}} $$ (1)

    式(1)中:$ \dot{{ \varepsilon }} $表示任意时刻t的应变速率;Aαm为模型参数,m为$ \text{ln}\text{}{ \varepsilon }\text{}\text{-}\text{}\text{ln}{}{t} $关系图中的直线斜率的绝对值,一般m值为0.75~1.0,并且$ \text{m}\text{}\text{≠}\text{}\text{1} $,$ {{D}}_{\text{r}} $为偏应力水平;$ {{t}}_{\text{1}} $为单位参考时间;t为蠕变加载时间。式中需要确定Aαm三个参数。将式(1)两边分别积分,可以得到式(2):

    $$ { \varepsilon }{}={{ \varepsilon }}_{{0}}+{}\frac{{{A}{{t}}_{{1}}}^{{m}}}{{1-}{m}}\text{exp}{{(}\overline{\alpha}}{{D}}_{\text{r}})\left(\frac{t}{t_1}\right)^{{1-}{m}} $$ (2)

    式(2)中$ { \varepsilon } $为轴向应变,$ {{ \varepsilon }}_{\text{0}} $为初始轴向应变;在不考虑初始的轴向应变时,$ {{ \varepsilon }}_{\text{0}}\text{}\text{=}\text{}\text{0} $,令$ \lambda = 1- m $,$ {B}\text{}\text{=}\text{}\dfrac{{{{At}}_{{1}}}^{{m}}}{{1-}{m}} $,$ \beta=\overline{\alpha} $,得到式(3):

    $$ { \varepsilon }={B}\text{exp(}\beta{{D}}_{\text{r}})\left(\dfrac{{t}}{{{t}}_{{1}}}\right)^{{ \lambda }} $$ (3)

    式(3)即蠕变方程,其中需要确定的参数有3个分别为$ {B}\text{、}\beta\text{、}{ \lambda } $。

    当${t}={t}_{1} $时,有$ { \varepsilon }={ \varepsilon}_{1} $,可以得到方程(4),两边取对数得到方程(5):

    $$ { \varepsilon }={B}\text{exp}\left(\beta{{D}}_{\text{r}}\right) $$ (4)
    $$ \text{ln}\text{}{ \varepsilon }=\beta{{D}}_{\text{r}}+\text{ln}{B} $$ (5)

    βB的值可以直接通过单位参考时间$ {{t}}_{\text{1}} $的$ \text{ln}\text{}{ \varepsilon }\text{}\text{-}\text{}{{D}}_{\text{r}} $直线关系图得到。土体的非线性蠕变是一簇曲线,从上式中可以看出Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型也是一簇指数形式的曲线,形状与现有的粉黏土蠕变试验结果吻合,因此选择Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型来描述粉黏土的蠕变特性是合适的。

    将蠕变特性曲线绘制在双对数坐标轴中,可以得到$ \text{ln}\text{}{ \varepsilon }\text{}\text{-}\text{}\text{ln}\text{}{t} $关系图(图8),图中可以看出,在不同的剪切应力水平下样品的蠕变试验曲线为一组平行近似的直线,直线的斜率为模型中${ \lambda } $值。将$ {{t}}_{\text{1}}\text{=1}\text{}\text{min} $时的应变带入式(4)和式(5)中得到$ \text{ln}\text{}{{ \varepsilon }}_{{\rm r}}\text{}\text{-}\text{}{{D}}_{\text{r}} $关系曲线,拟合后具有良好的线性关系,通过式(5)可以计算出不含水合物沉积物的βB值(图9)。

    图  8  无水合物试样$ \text{lg}{ \varepsilon }\;\text{vs lg}{t} $蠕变特性曲线
    Figure  8.  The lgε vs lgt creep characteristic curve of hydrate-free samples
    图  9  $ \text{ln}{{ \varepsilon }}_{\text{r}}\text{}\;\text{vs}\;\text{}{{D}}_{\text{r}} $关系拟合曲线
    Figure  9.  Fitting curve $ \text{ln}{{ \varepsilon }}_{\text{r}}\;\text{vs}\;\text{}{{D}}_{\text{r}} $ relationship

    考虑含水合物沉积物的剪切应力,偏应力的计算公式为q$ \text{=}\text{}\left(\text{1-}{{K}}_{\text{0}}\right)\text{*}\text{σ} $,其中$ {{K}}_{\text{0}} $为静止土压力系数,σ为轴向应力。根据Simpson等[35]正常固结黏土$ {K}_{0} $经验公式:

    $$ {{K}}_{\text{0}}\text{}\text=\text{}\frac{{1-}\dfrac{\text{1}}{\sqrt{\text{2}}}{\sin}\varphi'}{\text{1+}\dfrac{\text{1}}{\sqrt{\text{2}}}{\sin}\varphi'} $$ (6)

    将三轴剪切试验内摩擦角$\varphi '=5^{\text °} $带入式(6)后得到K0=0.84,即q=0.16σ,同时注意到不同围压下qf=0.15~0.2 MPa[36],$ \dfrac{{1-}{{K}}_{{0}}}{{{q}}_{\text{f}}}\text{≈ 1} $,因此后续取值Dr=σ

    带入上述参数计算Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型中的相关参数值,结果如表1所示。

    表  1  Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型中参数计算值
    Table  1.  Parameter values of the Singh-Mitchell creeping model
    水合物饱和度σ / MPaDrBβλTr / min
    00.50.513.30.2060.01251
    2.02.013.30.2060.01011
    3.03.013.30.2060.00811
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    表1中计算的模型参数带入式(4)中,以轴向压力σ为0.5 MPa为例得到Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型的表达式:

    $$ { \varepsilon }\text{}\text=\text{}\text{13.3}{\text{e}}^{\text{0.103}}{{t}}^{\text{0.0}\text{125}} $$ (7)

    将模型计算曲线和试验值进行对比(图10)。可以看出,Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型计算曲线和蠕变试验曲线的发展趋势具有较好的一致性,在加载瞬间应变快速增长,随着时间的增加轴向应变迅速衰减。在较高的剪切应力水平下Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型和试验曲线具有较好的一致性,在较低的剪切应力水平下模型计算值略大于试验值,有一定的误差,总体拟合关系较好。

    图  10  无水合物模型计算曲线和试验值对比
    Figure  10.  Comparison of model calculation curve to the test result of hydrate-free sediments

    上一节中讨论了不含水合物沉积物样品的蠕变特性曲线,通过结果可以看出Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型可以描述其蠕变特性,为了使Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型可以描述含水合物沉积物样品,需要对模型进行修正。引入水合物饱和度SH来描述水合物含量,SH是指水合物与孔隙体积之比[37]

    $$ {{S}}_{\text{H}}\text{}\text=\text{}\frac{{{V}}_{{{S}}_{\text{H}}}}{{{V}}_{\text{v}}} $$ (8)

    水合物在合成时会膨胀从而引起土体孔隙的变化,在经典模型中,模型参数A反映出土的组成、结构和应力历史等特性,因此考虑通过对参数A进行修正来表征水合物饱和度的影响,在Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型的基础上引入模型如式(9):

    $$ { \varepsilon }\text={{ \varepsilon }}_{\mathrm{r}}{\text{(1+}{{S}}_{\text{H}}\text{)}}^{\textit{α}} $$ (9)

    式中,α为模型参数,根据试验数据,本文中取0.37。

    将修正后的参数A和不同水合物饱和度经典模型中的参数A进行对比(图11),可以看出其具有良好的对应关系。

    图  11  经典模型和修正模型参数$ \text{A} $对比图
    Figure  11.  Comparison of classical model and modified model parameter A

    由此建立了一种修正的Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型:

    $$ \dot{{ \varepsilon }\text{}}\text=\text{}{{{A}}_{\text{0}}\text{*}{\left(\text{1+}{{S}}_{\text{H}}\right)}^{\textit{α}}{e}}^{\textit{β}{{D}}_{\text{r}}}{\left(\frac{{t}}{{{t}}_{\text{1}}}\right)}^{{ \lambda }} $$ (10)

    SH=0时,模型又退化成经典的Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型。

    通过计算,得到不同工况下修正的Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型参数,得到参数(表2)。

    表  2  修正的 Singh-Mitchell 蠕变模型参数值
    Table  2.  Parameter values of modified Singh-Mitchell creeping model
    水合物饱和度/ %σ / MPaDrA(1+SH)αβλ
    200.50.514.230.2000.0123
    2.02.014.230.2000.0160
    3.03.014.230.2000.0114
    600.50.515.830.1920.0061
    2.02.015.830.1920.0117
    3.03.015.830.1920.0074
    800.50.516.530.2260.0076
    2.02.016.530.2260.0092
    3.03.016.530.2260.0064
    下载: 导出CSV 
    | 显示表格

    表2中的参数带入公式(10)中,得到模型计算值,同时和试验数据对比如图12所示。

    图  12  不同水合物饱和度模型计算曲线和试验值对比
    Figure  12.  Comparison of model calculated curves and the test values at different hydrate saturation degrees

    从图12可以看出,修正后的Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型在不同水合物饱和度和剪切应力下都能够较好地预测均匀分布的含水合物粉质黏土样品的蠕变特性,因此可以使用此修正的Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型来预测含水合物沉积物样品的蠕变特性曲线。修正的Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型参数计算简便、参数较少并且容易获取,使用较为方便,因此本文建立的修正Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型对描述含水合物沉积物样品的蠕变特性曲线更为合适,对我国南海水合物储层长期开采后的沉降预测具有一定的指导意义。

    南海海域水合物主要赋存于海底以下到200 m范围内的粉黏土等未固结的沉积物内,具有含水高、孔隙度高的特点,水合物饱和度最高可达90%以上[38]。因此本文根据储层的实际赋存条件,以水合物储层的粉黏土为介质,在0.5、2和3 MPa的压缩加载条件下进行了0、20%、60%、80%水合物饱和度分解后的蠕变特性试验。试验表明:加载过程中,含水合物沉积物经历瞬时变形、固结变形和蠕变变形3个阶段;在加载的短时间内,瞬时变形阶段完成,引起的轴向变形约占总变形量的70%~80%,最大值为85.8%,在固结变形阶段,孔隙水在稳定的应力条件下从孔隙中排出,一般数小时内完成,引起的轴向应变占应变量的15%~25%,最后的蠕变变形阶段一般数天内完成,引起的轴向应变小于总应变量的5%。轴向压力和水合物饱和度均对轴向变形有影响。轴向压力越大,蠕变变形越大,轴向压力在较低水平时变化对轴向变形的影响大,随着轴向压力的增加,这种影响程度减小。水合物饱和度主要通过改变样品的微观孔隙结构进而影响蠕变特性,分解前的水合物饱和度越高,蠕变变形越大。水合物饱和度在低轴压条件下对变形影响小,在轴压为0.5 MPa时,从无水合物到水合物饱和度增加到80%时,轴向变形从17.25%增加到18.8%,而在轴压为3 MPa时,轴向变形从26.83%增加到了34.73%。

    数学模型是定量描述各个试验变量之间相互关系的常用方法。之前的海洋地质调查海域水合物储层粉质黏土进行蠕变特性的研究不足,本文利用蠕变试验结果,通过建立修正的Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型,对研究区域内水合物储层土的蠕变特性进行初步分析。从蠕变模型中可以看出,通过轴向压力和水合物饱和度两个物理指标能够建立出较好的蠕变模型,反映出这两个物理指标是蠕变特性的主要影响因素。模型中参数α和土体初始条件有关,主要根据试验获取,反映出土体的蠕变特性与土体孔隙微观结构、颗粒级配、应力历史等多种因素相关。

    (1)含水合物沉积物样品蠕变特性曲线可以分为瞬时变形、固结变形和蠕变变形3个阶段。瞬时变形数分钟内完成,引起较大的变形,固结变形数小时内完成,引起较小的变形,蠕变变形数天内完成,引起极小的变形。

    (2)蠕变变形随着加载应力水平、水合物饱和度的增大而增加,水合物饱和度主要通过改变沉积物样品的孔隙结构从而影响蠕变变形,水合物饱和度越高,孔隙结构受影响程度也越大,试样的物理和力学性质越差。在低应力水平时,水合物饱和度对蠕变变形的影响不明显。

    (3)基于应力水平和水合物饱和度建立的修正Singh-Mitchell蠕变模型,可以有效地预测含水合物沉积物的蠕变特性,对水合物储层长期开采后的沉降变形预测具有指导意义,便于实际工程中推广。但由于试验组数少等原因本文未对水合物沉积物蠕变变形机理进行深入研究,针对非均匀分布的含水合物沉积物蠕变特性也需要进一步研究。

  • 图  1   卡洛琳群岛分布图(a)与科斯雷岛采样位置(b)

    采用GeoMapApp 软件制图,水深数据来源于http://www.geomapapp.org/

    Figure  1.   Distribution of Caroline Islands (a) and the sampling points in Kosrae Island (b)

    Bathymetric data are from http://www.geomapapp.org/ and map is produced using the GeoMapApp software.

    图  2   卡洛琳群岛火山岩TAS分类图

    波纳佩火山岩数据来自文献[22]。

    Figure  2.   Total alkalis vs SiO2 (TAS) diagram of volcanic rocks of the Caroline Islands

    Data of volcanic rocks of Pohnpei are from reference [22].

    图  3   楚克、科斯雷火山岩原始地幔标准化微量元素配分模式图

    波纳佩数据来自文献[22];原始地幔数据来自文献[25];红色虚线代表Cape Verde火成碳酸岩,数据来自文献[26]。

    Figure  3.   Primitive mantle-normalized trace multi-element patterns for Chuuk and Kosrae samples

    Pohnpei data are from reference [22]. PM data are from reference [25]. Red dotted line represents the typical oceanic carbonatite lava from Cape Verde with data from reference [26].

    图  4   科斯雷霞石岩、碱性玄武岩矿物组合(a,b)和霞石岩橄榄石内部包裹体的背散射电子图像(c,d)及该含碳酸盐矿物相熔体包裹体成分面扫图(e)

    Ap-磷灰石,Cpx-单斜辉石,Mag-磁铁矿,Ne-霞石,Ol-橄榄石。

    Figure  4.   Backscattered electron images showing mineral phase of Kosrae nephelinolite (a) and alkali basalt (b); melt inclusion in olivine from nephelinolite (c, d), and composition scan of carbonate-bearing melt inclusion (e)

    Ap(apatite), Cpx(clinopyroxene), Mag(magnetite), Ne(nepheline), Ol(olivine).

    图  5   橄榄石Fo值与Ni、Mn、Ca、Fe/Mn的关系

    红色圆形、蓝色正方形、灰色三角形填充标记分别代表科斯雷、楚克以及波纳佩火山岩橄榄石(波纳佩数据来自文献[22]);灰色正方形代表夏威夷OIB,白色菱形代表大西洋、印度洋、太平洋MORB橄榄石,数据来自文献[28];黑色区域代表KR-4003饱满橄榄岩原始岩浆(全岩MgO含量为8%~38%)橄榄石组分,带数字标记的黑色曲线代表计算的派生岩浆橄榄石组分,数据来自文献[29]。

    Figure  5.   Olivine Fo content versus Ni, Mn, Ca contents and Fe/Mn ratio

    Red circle, blue square, and grey triangle fill marks represent Kosrae, Chuuk, and Pohnpei olivines respectively (Pohnpei data are from reference [22]). Gray squares represent Hawaiian olivines, white rhomboids represent MORB olivines from the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific, with data from reference [28]. The black area represents the compositions of olivine from primary magmas (whole rock MgO = 8%~38%) of fertile peridotite KR-4003, and the dark lines with number represent the compositions of olivine from derivative magmas (data are from reference [29]).

    图  6   楚克、科斯雷、波纳佩火山岩MgO与 SiO2、CaO、Al2O3、TiO2、CaO/Al2O3相关图

    波纳佩火山岩数据来自文献[22]。

    Figure  6.   MgO content versus SiO2, CaO, Al2O3, TiO2, CaO/Al2O3 for Chuuk, Pohnpei, Kosrae volcanic rocks

    Pohnpei data are from reference [22].

    图  7   楚克、波纳佩、科斯雷火山岩 (La/Sm)N (a)、 (Sm/Yb)N (b)平均值,La-(La/Sm)N (c)、(Sm/Yb)N-Al2O3 (d)关系图解

    波纳佩火山岩数据来自文献[22],N表示原始地幔标准化值,误差条代表各洋岛火山岩数据的±1σ标准差。

    Figure  7.   Average values of (La/Sm)N, (La/Sm)N for Chuuk, Pohnpei, Kosrae island volcanic rocks respectively; the relationship of La content versus (La/Sm)N (c), (Sm/Yb)N versus Al2O3 content(d)

    Pohnpei data are from reference[22]; N represents the primitive mantle-normalized value. The error bars represent ±1σ standard deviation of volcanic rock data from each island.

    图  8   卡洛琳群岛火山岩SiO2与CaO/Al2O3 (a)、Nb/Nb* (b),Nb/Nb*与(La/Sm)N (c)、(Sm/Yb)N (d)相关图

    N代表原始地幔标准化值,波纳佩火山岩数据来自文献[22]。

    Figure  8.   SiO2 versus CaO/Al2O3 (a), Nb/Nb*(b); Nb/Nb*vs (La/Sm)N (c), (Sm/Yb)N (d) of volcanic rock in the Caroline islands

    N represents the primitive mantle-normalized value; Pohnpei data are from reference[22].

    表  1   楚克、科斯雷样品主量元素测定结果

    Table  1   Whole-rock major element compositions of Chuuk and Kosrae samples

    样品号Na2OMgOAl2O3SiO2P2O5K2OCaOTiO2MnOFe2O3TLOI总计
    CHK-12.1611.3012.4045.100.310.5710.202.790.1614.5099.49
    CHK-42.449.0413.9045.000.360.7610.303.280.1714.900.38100.52
    CHK-52.2011.6012.5044.700.310.5910.102.960.1615.000.49100.61
    CHK-62.248.9014.0044.500.360.6810.403.220.1614.201.36100.01
    CHK-72.478.5314.1045.300.380.6710.203.240.1614.101.38100.52
    CHK-82.359.0713.7044.500.370.7410.303.190.1714.600.8499.82
    KSR2-22.3712.8010.0041.200.670.7012.603.430.1913.601.4499.00
    KSR4-14.0013.609.7939.201.200.9712.803.250.2113.800.2499.06
    KSR4-23.6813.909.6938.801.170.9113.003.280.2014.000.5099.14
    KSR4-44.0613.209.9839.301.210.9312.803.260.2113.800.3799.12
    KSR5-23.9113.309.7338.801.301.2813.003.330.2114.100.2299.17
    KSR6-10.7115.408.9739.801.040.1013.303.090.1913.602.9399.13
    KSR6-21.1315.408.9340.100.980.2513.303.100.1913.602.0098.98
    KSR6-30.9115.908.8640.200.990.1713.203.080.1913.702.3499.54
    KSR7-11.3314.6010.5041.700.600.5711.603.250.2013.501.6099.45
    KSR7-21.7413.4011.2042.000.660.7511.503.360.1713.501.5299.81
    KSR8-22.3011.5011.5043.300.631.1011.803.370.1813.200.8899.76
      注:元素含量单位:%; CHK、KSR分别表示样品来自楚克、科斯雷;CHK-1因样品量太少而未做烧失量分析。
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2   楚克、科斯雷样品微量元素测定结果

    Table  2   Trace element compositions of Chuuk and Kosrae samples

    10−6  
    样品号LiBeScVCrCoNiCuZnGaRbSrYZrNbCdCsBaLaCePrNdSmEuGdTbDyHoErTmYbLuHfTaWPbThU
    CHK-14.020.8927.532753770.038913010520.111.238321.713919.90.2360.14516313.530.44.0718.54.981.685.130.814.450.831.990.2611.480.2113.591.280.1651.021.290.338
    CHK-44.721.0325.837428663.224798.511520.515.957223.316124.00.2420.09120416.035.64.7221.25.541.885.660.884.810.882.130.2761.560.2184.011.520.0971.131.490.416
    CHK-54.330.8626.534540169.636312411619.111.149021.214220.60.2330.09717013.632.34.0718.54.951.685.110.814.360.811.960.2581.460.2073.691.340.1501.031.320.361
    CHK-64.521.0326.736730858.922610411521.114.659522.815722.80.2460.25319215.735.54.6520.95.531.875.640.874.700.872.090.2721.540.2153.961.470.0721.111.480.408
    CHK-752.00.9725.936525868.026510712321.58.4558424.216423.80.2880.06920816.337.34.8421.85.751.955.890.914.920.912.210.2861.650.2294.121.520.0661.431.550.442
    CHK-84.640.9124.133027355.822690.510518.516.648322.514721.50.2300.12518415.333.44.5120.35.301.815.470.854.590.862.060.2641.520.2103.681.330.0561.081.430.377
    KSR2-25.671.8034.837471968.336585.111920.927.272628.729661.90.4870.94653249.110012.952.710.93.1810.21.326.311.102.590.3231.810.2517.123.680.6613.624.931.25
    KSR4-112.22.9229.940468679.844595.415528.431.2161747.240498.00.5860.82783411322426.910420.05.8118.92.3110.51.763.970.4772.580.3548.755.112.336.6312.42.91
    KSR4-210.32.2825.834860369.639278.513423.921.5128638.933775.70.4800.55664790.718222.185.716.54.7815.51.898.721.473.290.3922.130.2927.434.012.016.129.572.33
    KSR4-410.92.4924.734756667.137271.313424.130.3141040.634385.20.4780.77774398.919523.389.117.24.9616.11.979.011.513.440.4132.210.3057.354.452.046.7810.82.50
    KSR5-210.62.5825.635557368.435874.114324.530.7134940.436288.90.5700.43472594.719123.189.717.45.0516.32.009.101.513.380.3992.160.2927.744.681.726.5910.41.66
    KSR6-110.31.8428.826591870.845582.911120.556.2114432.130171.80.4074.2359165.413316.666.513.33.9012.31.557.181.222.760.3321.830.2586.894.190.7080.816.321.69
    KSR6-26.941.8229.431093371.245779.111120.466.9100631.429670.50.4382.9655564.313116.566.313.23.8612.11.527.051.202.730.3291.800.2516.774.150.9341.326.271.70
    KSR6-37.741.8728.927694971.746377.711320.353.2108431.529770.60.3851.7854464.413216.566.413.33.8912.21.537.151.212.770.3351.830.2566.894.190.9190.486.391.76
    KSR7-15.561.6431.034879171.043885.311020.214.843229.126053.40.3560.31154040.382.210.644.19.642.898.961.226.071.082.540.3201.780.2486.303.190.6352.434.161.05
    KSR7-27.281.7730.236374966.941092.612221.617.850430.427859.30.3610.46641844.089.511.547.410.23.079.591.296.461.152.700.3411.900.2666.643.480.7322.934.631.17
    KSR8-25.741.8330.733251158.128584.010920.630.668431.229662.60.4490.69951348.598.112.449.710.23.019.641.316.551.192.880.3712.130.3046.973.740.6783.225.281.36
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1]

    Ruttor S, Nebel O, Nebel-Yacobsen Y, et al. Alkalinity of ocean island lavas decoupled from enriched source components: a case study from the EM1-PREMA Tasmantid mantle plume [J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2021, 314: 140-158. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2021.09.023

    [2]

    Garcia M O, Jorgenson B A, Mahoney J J, et al. An evaluation of temporal geochemical evolution of Loihi Summit Lavas: results from Alvin submersible dives [J]. Journal of Geophysical Research:Solid Earth, 1993, 98(B1): 537-550. doi: 10.1029/92JB01707

    [3]

    Garcia M O, Foss D J P, West H B, et al. Geochemical and isotopic evolution of Loihi Volcano, Hawaii [J]. Journal of Petrology, 1995, 36(6): 1647-1674.

    [4]

    Naumann T R, Geist D J. Generation of alkalic basalt by crystal fractionation of tholeiitic magma [J]. Geology, 1999, 27(5): 423-426. doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027<0423:GOABBC>2.3.CO;2

    [5]

    Hirose K. Partial melt compositions of carbonated peridotite at 3 GPa and role of CO2 in alkali-basalt magma generation [J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 1997, 24(22): 2837-2840. doi: 10.1029/97GL02956

    [6]

    Dasgupta R, Hirschmann M M, Smith N D. Partial Melting experiments of peridotite + CO2 at 3 GPa and genesis of alkalic ocean island basalts [J]. Journal of Petrology, 2007, 48(11): 2093-2124. doi: 10.1093/petrology/egm053

    [7]

    Gerbode C, Dasgupta R. Carbonate-fluxed melting of MORB-like pyroxenite at 2·9 GPa and genesis of HIMU ocean island basalts [J]. Journal of Petrology, 2010, 51(10): 2067-2088. doi: 10.1093/petrology/egq049

    [8]

    Kiseeva E S, Yaxley G M, Hermann J, et al. An experimental study of carbonated eclogite at 3·5–5·5 GPa—implications for silicate and carbonate metasomatism in the cratonic mantle [J]. Journal of Petrology, 2012, 53(4): 727-759. doi: 10.1093/petrology/egr078

    [9]

    Kiseeva E S, Litasov K D, Yaxley G M, et al. Melting and phase relations of carbonated eclogite at 9–21 GPa and the petrogenesis of alkali-rich melts in the deep mantle [J]. Journal of Petrology, 2013, 54(8): 1555-1583. doi: 10.1093/petrology/egt023

    [10]

    Mallik A, Dasgupta R. Reactive infiltration of MORB-eclogite-derived carbonated silicate melt into fertile peridotite at 3 GPa and genesis of alkalic magmas [J]. Journal of Petrology, 2013, 54(11): 2267-2300. doi: 10.1093/petrology/egt047

    [11]

    Mallik A, Dasgupta R. Effect of variable CO2 on eclogite-derived andesite and lherzolite reaction at 3 GPa-Implications for mantle source characteristics of alkalic ocean island basalts [J]. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 2014, 15(4): 1533-1557. doi: 10.1002/2014GC005251

    [12]

    Zhang G L, Chen L H, Jackson M G, et al. Evolution of carbonated melt to alkali basalt in the South China Sea [J]. Nature Geoscience, 2017, 10(3): 229-235. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2877

    [13]

    Yao J H, Zhang G L, Wang S, et al. Recycling of carbon from the stagnant paleo-Pacific slab beneath Eastern China revealed by olivine geochemistry [J]. Lithos, 2021, 398-399: 106249. doi: 10.1016/j.lithos.2021.106249

    [14]

    Jackson M G, Dasgupta R. Compositions of HIMU, EM1, and EM2 from global trends between radiogenic isotopes and major elements in ocean island basalts [J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2008, 276(1-2): 175-186. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2008.09.023

    [15]

    Jackson M G, Weis D, Huang S C. Major element variations in Hawaiian shield lavas: source features and perspectives from global ocean island basalt (OIB) systematics [J]. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 2012, 13(9): Q09009.

    [16]

    Dasgupta R, Jackson M G, Lee C Y A. Major element chemistry of ocean island basalts — Conditions of mantle melting and heterogeneity of mantle source [J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2010, 289(3-4): 377-392. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2009.11.027

    [17]

    Mattey D P. The minor and trace element geochemistry of volcanic rocks from Truk, Ponape and Kusaie, Eastern Caroline Islands; the evolution of a young hot spot trace across old Pacific Ocean Crust [J]. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 1982, 80(1): 1-13. doi: 10.1007/BF00376730

    [18]

    Keating B H, Mattey D P, Naughton J, et al. Age and origin of Truk Atoll, eastern Caroline Islands: geochemical, radiometric-age, and paleomagnetic evidence [J]. GSA Bulletin, 1984, 95(3): 350-356. doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1984)95<350:AAOOTA>2.0.CO;2

    [19]

    Keating B H, Mattey D P, Helsley C E, et al. Evidence for a hot spot origin of the Caroline Islands [J]. Journal of Geophysical Research:Solid Earth, 1984, 89(B12): 9937-9948. doi: 10.1029/JB089iB12p09937

    [20]

    Jackson M G, Price A A, Blichert-Toft J, et al. Geochemistry of lavas from the Caroline hotspot, Micronesia: evidence for primitive and recycled components in the mantle sources of lavas with moderately elevated 3He/4He [J]. Chemical Geology, 2017, 455: 385-400. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2016.10.038

    [21]

    Zhang G L, Zhang J, Wang S, et al. Geochemical and chronological constraints on the mantle plume origin of the Caroline Plateau [J]. Chemical Geology, 2020, 540: 119566. doi: 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.119566

    [22]

    Zhang G L, Wang S, Zhang J, et al. Evidence for the essential role of CO2 in the volcanism of the waning Caroline mantle plume [J]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2020, 290: 391-407. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.09.018

    [23]

    Batanova V G, Thompson J M, Danyushevsky L V, et al. New olivine reference material for in situ microanalysis [J]. Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, 2019, 43(3): 453-473. doi: 10.1111/ggr.12266

    [24]

    Dixon T H, Batiza R, Futa K, et al. Petrochemistry, age and isotopic composition of alkali basalts from Ponape Island, Western Pacific [J]. Chemical Geology, 1984, 43(1-2): 1-28. doi: 10.1016/0009-2541(84)90138-4

    [25]

    McDonough W F, Sun S S. The composition of the Earth [J]. Chemical Geology, 1995, 120(3-4): 223-253. doi: 10.1016/0009-2541(94)00140-4

    [26]

    Hoernle K, Tilton G, Bas M J L, et al. Geochemistry of oceanic carbonatites compared with continental carbonatites: mantle recycling of oceanic crustal carbonate [J]. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 2002, 142(5): 520-542. doi: 10.1007/s004100100308

    [27]

    Sobolev A V, Hofmann A W, Sobolev S V, et al. An olivine-free mantle source of Hawaiian shield basalts [J]. Nature, 2005, 434(7033): 590-597. doi: 10.1038/nature03411

    [28]

    Sobolev A V, Hofmann A W, Kuzmin D V, et al. The amount of recycled crust in sources of mantle-derived melts [J]. Science, 2007, 316(5823): 412-417. doi: 10.1126/science.1138113

    [29]

    Herzberg C. Identification of source lithology in the Hawaiian and Canary Islands: implications for origins [J]. Journal of Petrology, 2011, 52(1): 113-146. doi: 10.1093/petrology/egq075

    [30]

    Prytulak J, Elliott T. TiO2 enrichment in ocean island basalts [J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2007, 263(3-4): 388-403. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2007.09.015

    [31]

    Garapić G, Mallik A, Dasgupta R, et al. Oceanic lavas sampling the high-3He/4He mantle reservoir: primitive, depleted, or re-enriched? [J]. American Mineralogist, 2015, 100(10): 2066-2081. doi: 10.2138/am-2015-5154

    [32]

    Dasgupta R, Hirschmann M M, Stalker K. Immiscible Transition from carbonate-rich to silicate-rich melts in the 3 GPa melting interval of eclogite + CO2 and genesis of silica-undersaturated ocean island lavas [J]. Journal of Petrology, 2006, 47(4): 647-671. doi: 10.1093/petrology/egi088

    [33]

    Spandler C, Yaxley G, Green D H, et al. Phase relations and melting of anhydrous K-bearing eclogite from 1200 to 1600°C and 3 to 5 GPa [J]. Journal of Petrology, 2008, 49(4): 771-795.

    [34]

    Herzberg C. Petrology and thermal structure of the Hawaiian plume from Mauna Kea volcano [J]. Nature, 2006, 444(7119): 605-609. doi: 10.1038/nature05254

    [35]

    Kogiso T, Hirschmann M M, Frost D J. High-pressure partial melting of garnet pyroxenite: possible mafic lithologies in the source of ocean island basalts [J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2003, 216(4): 603-617. doi: 10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00538-7

    [36]

    Kogiso T, Hirschmann M M. Partial melting experiments of bimineralic eclogite and the role of recycled mafic oceanic crust in the genesis of ocean island basalts [J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2006, 249(3-4): 188-199. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2006.07.016

    [37]

    Andersen T, Neumann E R. Fluid inclusions in mantle xenoliths [J]. Lithos, 2001, 55(1-4): 301-320. doi: 10.1016/S0024-4937(00)00049-9

    [38]

    Golovin A V, Sharygin V V, Pokhilenko N P. Melt inclusions in olivine phenocrysts in unaltered kimberlites from the Udachnaya-East pipe, Yakutia: some aspects of kimberlite magma evolution during late crystallization stages [J]. Petrology, 2007, 15(2): 168-183. doi: 10.1134/S086959110702004X

    [39]

    Frezzotti M L, Touret J L R. CO2, carbonate-rich melts, and brines in the mantle [J]. Geoscience Frontiers, 2014, 5(5): 697-710. doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2014.03.014

    [40]

    Hudgins T R, Mukasa S B, Simon A C, et al. Melt inclusion evidence for CO2-rich melts beneath the western branch of the East African Rift: implications for long-term storage of volatiles in the deep lithospheric mantle [J]. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 2015, 169(5): 46. doi: 10.1007/s00410-015-1140-9

图(8)  /  表(2)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  2296
  • HTML全文浏览量:  435
  • PDF下载量:  68
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2022-01-21
  • 修回日期:  2022-04-11
  • 录用日期:  2022-04-11
  • 网络出版日期:  2022-05-11
  • 刊出日期:  2022-08-27

目录

/

返回文章
返回