Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Models of large-scale viscous flow in the Earth's mantle with constraints from mineral physics and surface observations

Open access
Steinberger, Bernhard, Calderwood, Arthur R.·2006·Geophysical Journal International

Abstract

Modelling the geoid has been a widely used and successful approach in constraining flow and viscosity in the Earth's mantle. However, details of the viscosity structure cannot be tightly constrained with this approach. Here, radial viscosity variations in four to five mantle layers (lithosphere, upper mantle, one to two transition zone layers, lower mantle) are computed with the aid of independent mineral physics results. A density model is obtained by converting s-wave anomalies from seismic tomography to density anomalies. Assuming both are of thermal origin, conversion factors are computed based on mineral physics results. From the density and viscosity model, a model of mantle flow, and the resulting geoid and radial heat flux profile are computed. Absolute viscosity values in the mantle layers are treated as free parameters and determined by minimizing a misfit function, which considers fit to geoid, ‘Haskell average’ determined from post-glacial rebound and the radial heat flux profile and penalizes if at some depth computed heat flux exceeds the estimated mantle heat flux 33 TW. Typically, optimized models do not exceed this value by more than about 20 per cent and fit the Haskell average well. Viscosity profiles obtained show a characteristic hump in the lower mantle, with maximum viscosities of about 1023 Pa s just above the D″ layer— several hundred to about 1000 times the lowest viscosities in the upper mantle. This viscosity contrast is several times higher than what is inferred when a constant lower mantle viscosity is assumed. The geoid variance reduction obtained is up to about 80 per cent—similar to previous results. However, because of the use of mineral physics constraints, a rather small number of free model parameters is required, and at the same time, a reasonable heat flux profile is obtained. Results are best when the lowest viscosities occur in the transition zone. When viscosity is lowest in the asthenosphere, variance reduction is about 70–75 per cent. Best results were obtained with a viscous lithosphere with a few times 1022 Pa s. The optimized models yield a core-mantle boundary excess ellipticity several times higher than observed, possibly indicating that radial stresses are partly compensated due to non-thermal lateral variations within the lowermost mantle.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2006.03131.x

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 66 references

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
Steinberger, B., & Calderwood, A. R.
Venue
Geophysical Journal International
Published
2006-12
Volume
167
Issue
3
Pages
1461-1481
ISSN
  • 0956-540X (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-246X
OpenAlex
W2141008939
Cited by
323
References
66
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Models of large-scale viscous flow in the Earth's mantle with constraints from mineral physics and surface observations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-246x.2006.03131.x
The paper
Steinberger, B., & Calderwood, A. R. (2006). Models of large-scale viscous flow in the Earth's mantle with constraints from mineral physics and surface observations. Geophysical Journal International. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.2006.03131.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.