Maxwell rheology and the memory stress

The mantle is modelled as an incompressible Maxwell body: it responds elastically on short timescales and viscously on long ones, with a single Maxwell time \(\tau_M = \eta/\mu\) per layer. FastEarth3D integrates this constitutive law explicitly in the time domain — there is no normal-mode decomposition and no Laplace transform. This is the structural choice that makes laterally varying (3D) viscosity essentially free.

The Maxwell body

For a deviatoric stress \(\boldsymbol{\tau}\) and deviatoric strain \(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}\), the Maxwell rheology is

\[ \dot{\boldsymbol{\tau}} + \frac{\mu}{\eta}\,\boldsymbol{\tau} \;=\; 2\mu\,\dot{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}, \]

with \(\mu(r)\) the shear modulus and \(\eta(r)\) the viscosity. Two limits are exact and are used as validation anchors:

  • Elastic / lithosphere: \(\eta\to\infty \Rightarrow\) Hooke’s law \(\boldsymbol{\tau} = 2\mu\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}\). The lithosphere is taken as \(\eta = \infty\) exactly; a large-but-finite value would seed a spurious slow mode that contaminates multi-cycle runs.
  • Fluid / inviscid core: \(\mu\to 0 \Rightarrow\) the layer carries no deviatoric stress (free-slip).

Explicit memory-stress scheme

Following Martinec (2000) (§3, eqs. 23–25), the total stress at time step \(i\) is the instantaneous elastic stress — computed by the same elastic operator every step — plus a memory stress \(\boldsymbol{\tau}^{V}\) that encodes the relaxation history:

\[ \boldsymbol{\tau}^{V,i} \;=\; (1 - M)\,\boldsymbol{\tau}^{V,i-1} \;-\; 2\mu\,M\,\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{\,i}, \qquad M \equiv \frac{\mu\,\Delta t}{\eta}. \]

This is the \(\omega = 1\) (fully explicit) update. The memory stress enters the right-hand side of the field equations as a dissipative forcing

\[ F_{\text{diss}} \;=\; -\!\int \boldsymbol{\tau}^{V,i} : \delta\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}\ \mathrm{d}V \qquad\text{(eq. 35).} \]

The crucial consequence: the left-hand-side operator never changes in time. It is assembled, equilibrated, and LU-factored once, then reused at every step with a fresh right-hand side. Each step costs a back-substitution, not a re-factorization (see Solver).

NoteWhy explicit, not implicit or normal-mode

With the explicit update, the memory stress at step \(i\) depends only on the previous step’s stress and strain — both known. Nothing in the operator depends on viscosity, so a spatially varying \(\eta(r,\theta,\phi)\) changes only the scalar \(M\) that multiplies known fields pointwise. The angular harmonics stay decoupled in the solve. A normal-mode method, by contrast, must re-solve a degree-by-degree eigenvalue problem whenever the radial structure changes and cannot represent lateral viscosity at all without abandoning the mode basis.

From layers to the same kernel in 1D and 3D

In the 1D (radially symmetric) case the memory stress evolves directly on the tensor spherical-harmonic coefficients (Martinec 2000, §9): there is no spatial grid. Per radial element it is stored for the four spheroidal tensor components \(\lambda\in\{1,2,5,6\}\) (eq. 109), and the strain coefficients follow from the nodal radial functions \(U,V\) via eq. 87–88. The dissipative right-hand side is a two-point radial Gauss quadrature of the spectral double-dot \(\sum_\lambda \lVert Z^\lambda\rVert^2\,\tau^{V,\lambda}\,\delta\varepsilon^\lambda\) with the component norms \(\{1,\ J/2,\ 2J^2,\ 2J(J-2)\}\), \(J = \ell(\ell+1)\) (eqs. 110, B13).

In the 3D (laterally varying viscosity) case, the identical kernel runs, but the memory update \(M = \mu\Delta t/\eta\) is evaluated pointwise on the Gauss–Legendre grid and transformed back to spectral space each step (pseudo-spectral). The per-element Maxwell routines — strain_coeffs, ve_strain_constants, dissipative_rhs, advance_memory — are shared verbatim between the 1D stepper and the field driver. There is no duplicated algorithm and no separate “3D solver”.

Stability

The explicit scheme is conditionally stable: the step is bounded by the shortest Maxwell time present,

\[ \Delta t \;\lesssim\; \frac{2\,\eta_{\min}}{\mu}. \]

In practice a viscosity floor (e.g. \(\sim 10^{19}\ \mathrm{Pa\,s}\)) caps the fastest relaxation and sets a usable step (VILMA-scale runs use \(\Delta t \approx 2.5\) yr; the benchmark cases here use 20 yr). Elastic layers (\(M\to 0\)) freeze and carry no memory; fluid layers (\(\mu = 0\)) carry no memory either.

TipWhere this lives in the code

fe_viscoelastic holds both the 1D per-degree stepper (ve_degree) and the shared per-element kernel. The memory state is the only prognostic field carried across a restart (fe_io). Time integration is validated by test_relax (a held load relaxes elastic \(\to\) fluid, \(t_{\text{relax}}\propto\eta\), step-converged) and is benchmarked in Sea-level equation.

A modal reduction was tried

For an incompressible layered Maxwell Earth the per-degree response is a finite sum of exponential relaxation modes, with only a handful of modes dominating the surface response at each degree. This suggests a natural reduction: replace the full radial memory tensor by \(K\) scalar amplitudes \(\xi_k(\ell,m)\) per coefficient, each advancing by its exact exponential. Radially varying viscosity is then exact in the limit \(K \to \infty\), and lateral viscosity is folded in as a rate modulation of each mode by the local viscosity in the depth band that mode samples.

We implemented and validated such a reduced solver, but decided against retaining it. The measured speed-up over the full explicit scheme was modest, and the approximation error grew rapidly once lateral viscosity contrasts or strongly time-varying loads were introduced. Since the explicit memory-stress scheme is already cheap — one back-substitution per step, with no angular coupling — the added complexity of maintaining a second response operator was not justified. The full solver is retained as the single response path.

Back to top

References

Martinec, Z. 2000. “Spectral–Finite Element Approach to Three-Dimensional Viscoelastic Relaxation in a Spherical Earth.” Geophysical Journal International 142 (1): 117–41. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246x.2000.00138.x.