Quantitative structural analyses and numerical modelling of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DTD 5ARTICLE IN PRESS20L. Baratoux et al. / Journal of Structural Geology xx (xxxx) 1–24stress but on the limbs it does not. The resulting stressgradients cause the migration of quartz from the limb to thehinge and mica from the hinge to the limb.Microstructural examination of the rocks in the presentstudy area shows an analogous situation in the amphiboleplagioclase rock. The resulting stress gradients establishedin both the amphibole and the plagioclase cause a migrationof plagioclase to the hinge and amphibole to the limbs,leading to metamorphic differentiation.We suggest that this process operated in the hinge zonesof some macrofolds leading to their thickening. Because ofstrain compatibility, this hinge thickening develops inalternating layers, thus producing patterns similar to thefolding of bilaminate (Fig. 12).In the hinge zones of folds in the staurolite zone aconspicuous reduction in the grain size of the amphiboleswith respect to the limb zones can be observed. This islocally connected with the reorientation of amphibolefragments, and we interpret this microstructure as beingthe result of the fracturing and rigid body rotation ofamphiboles as described by Nyman et al. (1992). Thedynamically recrystallized plagioclase in the hinge zonesalso shows a decrease in grain size with respect to the limb.In the hinges, both minerals have similar grain size, lowaspect ratio, very weak SPO and GBPO and exhibit animportant degree of mixing. We suggest that these featuresmay stimulate a change in deformation mechanism in thesedomains and that in the highly attenuated folds thefracturing of amphiboles and the dynamic recrystallizationof plagioclase switch to a type of granular flow facilitatingthe development of high strain intensities in these areas(Table 2). The changeover from dislocation creep dominatedflow to granular flows connected with a reduction ofgrain size and the mechanical mixing of minerals has beendescribed by several authors in greenschist facies metabasitemylonites (e.g. Stünitz, 1993; Berger and Stünitz,1996). As with the folds in the garnet zone we argue that thefabric on the limbs of the folds in the staurolite zonerepresents the original, pre-fold fabric.In contrast to the garnet and staurolite zones no bendingor fracturing of the amphibole lattice was noted in the hingezones of folds in the sillimanite zone. Instead the fold hingeareas in the sillimanite zone display crossover growths ofamphiboles and straight, well-equilibrated grain boundariesof all minerals. In addition, the amphibole grains show nosigns of internal deformation and the grain size is alwayshigher than that observed in the garnet and staurolite zones.All these criteria indicate that these grains developed by themechanism of nucleation and possibly syn-deformationalgrowth (Vernon, 1976; Rosenberg and Stünitz, 2003). Theplagioclase also shows well-equilibrated grain boundariesmeeting at triple point junctions and an almost uniformdistribution in the rock, features consistent with the highgradecrystallization of amphiboles and plagioclase (Brodieand Rutter, 1985). Comparison of the mineral microstructuresof the hinge zones and the limbs shows that the hingezones display higher aspect ratios, smaller grain sizes,similar SPO and like–like and unlike GBPOs (Table 2). Thisimplies that, during the development of the folds, recrystallizationoccurred simultaneously in both the hinge zonesand the limbs, producing an increase in elongation of theoriginal crystals in the hinge zone. This is because the grainsin both the limb regions and the hinge regions are parallel tothe axial plane, i.e. are perpendicular to the largest principalcompressive stress axis. This resulted in an increase inaspect ratio by the process of heterogeneous dissolutionaccompanied by recrystallization and grain growth, themechanism of schistosity transposition well known in highgrade schists and described by a number of authors (seePasschier and Trouw (1996, fig. 4.17) for a review). Unlikethe folds in the garnet and staurolite zones where weconsider that the fabric on the fold limbs represents the prefoldingmicrostructure, in the sillimanite zone it is modifiedby dissolution and growth process.In the contact aureole a similar type of microstructuralpattern to the sillimanite zone occurs but it is marked by acomplete loss of SPO and GBPO coupled with an importantgrain size increase (Table 2). These features are consistentwith there having been an important contribution from highgrade “static” recrystallization in both the hinge and limbdomains. However, we emphasise that one can still observesmaller grain sizes and aspect ratios for both amphibole andplagioclase in the hinge zones compared with the limbs.7. ConclusionsA summary of the fold analysis and the microstructuralstudies supporting the fold mechanics models is given inTable 2.The garnet grade region. The quantitative microstructuralanalysis of the limb zones in the folds in the garnetzone reveals the possible existence of a stress-supportingnetwork. This type of structure implies a relativelyhomogeneous stress distribution in the rock (Jordan,1988), which is controlled by the rheologically resistantamphiboles, with the plagioclase representing only weakpockets that deform to accommodate the deformationimposed by the strong amphibole. This is supported by thelarge grain size difference between the recrystallizedplagioclase and amphibole crystals, which can be interpretedin terms of a stress-supporting network with a highrheological contrast between the plagioclase and amphibole(Handy, 1990). In addition, the microstructural analysisshows that the amphibole stress-supporting frameworkcollapses in the hinge zones by brittle failure. This brittledeformation, which represents an extreme example of strainlocalization, tends to produce sharp-hinged chevron folds ona grain scale (Fig. 3a and b).The observed folding mechanism also gives rise tochevron folds on a macroscopic scale indicating that themechanical anisotropy of the rock was high. To interpret the128
Table 2Summary of parameters derived from fold shape and microstructural analyses in all zones. Used symbols are: A, Amp—amphibole; P, Pl—plagioclase; S—grain size; R—aspect ratio; SPO—shape preferredorientation; GBPO—grain boundary preferred orientationFoldingmechanismsDegree ofmechanicalanisotropyQuantitavivemicrostructureparametersMicrostructureDeformationmechanismsGarnetzoneStaurolitezoneSillimanitezone andpluton aureoleActive amplification Active amplification and post-buckle flattening Passive amplificationLow to medium b1. Low positive F Medium to high b1. High F Low to medium b1. High positive FHigh mechanical anisotropy Bilaminate Low mechanical anisotropyS R SPO GBPO S R SPO GBPO S R SPO GBPOLimb AOP AOP AOP AOP AZP ARP ARP ARP AZP AZP AZP AZPHinge AOP AOP AOP AOP AZP ARP ARP AOP AZP AZP AZP AZPAmphibole supported LBF (large elongate and interconnectedIWL microstructure with low-viscosity contrast (alter-Amphibole supported LBF structure with low-viscosityAmp grains surrounding pockets of finenationof Pl-rich and Amp-rich aggregates)contrast (mixture of Amp and Pl of equal size and aspectgrained Pl)ratio)Hinge Limb Hinge Limb Hinge and limbAmp fracturing Brittle reactivation of S 2fabricAmp fracturing and granularflow of Amp–PlmatrixDynamic recrystallizationof Pl and ductile flow inPl-rich layersNucleation and syndeformational growthL. Baratoux et al. / Journal of Structural Geology xx (xxxx) 1–24 21DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS129
Page 3:
“It strikes me that all our knowl
Page 8 and 9:
Contentsviii4.7 Schulmann, Konopás
Page 11:
Dedicated to my wife Markéta, daug
Page 14 and 15:
Foreword 2First topic “Quantitati
Page 16 and 17:
Foreword 4source and freely availab
Page 18 and 19:
1. Quantitative analysis of deforma
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 2Mechanisms of lower crusta
Page 33 and 34:
2. Mechanisms of lower crustal flow
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Chapter 3Quantitative analyses ofme
Page 43 and 44:
3. Quantitative analyses of metamor
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51:
Page 54 and 55:
Bibliography 42Culshaw, N., Beaumon
Page 56 and 57:
Bibliography 44sources and trigger
Page 58 and 59:
Bibliography 46Skrzypek, E., Štíp
Page 61 and 62:
Journal of Structural Geology 23 20
Page 63 and 64:
J. KonopaÂsek et al. / Journal of
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VO
Page 83 and 84:
SCHULMANN ET AL.: STRAIN DISTRIBUTI
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90: SCHULMANN ET AL.: STRAIN DISTRIBUTI
Page 95: SCHULMANN ET AL.: STRAIN DISTRIBUTI
Page 98 and 99: 5 - 2 LEXA ET AL.: COLLISION IN WES
Page 106 and 107: 5 - 10 LEXA ET AL.: COLLISION IN WE
Page 114 and 115: 156O. Lexa et al. / Journal of Stru
Page 121 and 122: DTD 5ARTICLE IN PRESSJournal of Str
Page 123 and 124: DTD 5ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Baratoux et
Page 135 and 136: Table 1Statistical values of the qu
Page 139: DTD 5ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Baratoux et
Page 145 and 146: J. metamorphic Geol., 2008, 26, 273
Page 147 and 148: EXHUMATION IN LARGE HOT OROGEN 275m
Page 149 and 150: Probabi l irequencyProbabi l ireque
Page 151 and 152: EXHUMATION IN LARGE HOT OROGEN 279y
Page 153 and 154: EXHUMATION IN LARGE HOT OROGEN 281N
Page 155 and 156: EXHUMATION IN LARGE HOT OROGEN 283w
Page 157 and 158: EXHUMATION IN LARGE HOT OROGEN 285a
Page 159 and 160: EXHUMATION IN LARGE HOT OROGEN 287w
Page 161 and 162: EXHUMATION IN LARGE HOT OROGEN 289T
Page 163 and 164: EXHUMATION IN LARGE HOT OROGEN 291O
Page 165 and 166: EXHUMATION IN LARGE HOT OROGEN 293r
Page 167 and 168: EXHUMATION IN LARGE HOT OROGEN 295B
Page 169: EXHUMATION IN LARGE HOT OROGEN 297R
Page 172 and 173: Author's personal copyK. Schulmann
Page 190 and 191:
Author's personal copyK. Schulmann
Page 193 and 194:
J. metamorphic Geol., 2011, 29, 79-
Page 195 and 196:
HEAT SOURCES AND EXHUMATION MECHANI
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
EXTRUSIONOFLOWERCRUSTINVARISCANOROG
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
J. metamorphic Geol., 2005, 23, 649
Page 245 and 246:
CONTRASTING TEXTURAL RECORD OF TWO
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Contrasting microstructures and def
Page 263 and 264:
TEXTURES OF NATURALLY DEFORMED META
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
1.0--0.9__Mg~(Mg2++Fe2+)9 Core of p
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
' ~'-----2~--~----TEXTURES OF NATUR
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289:
Page 292 and 293:
B10210ZÁVADA ET AL.: EXTREME DUCTI
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 307 and 308:
ClickHereforFullArticleJOURNAL OF G
Page 309 and 310:
B10406SCHULMANN ET AL.: RHEOLOGY OF
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 31Ó 20
Page 331 and 332:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 33durin
Page 333 and 334:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 35(a)Ty
Page 335 and 336:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 37(a)Pl
Page 337 and 338:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 39Grain
Page 339 and 340:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 41(a)(b
Page 341 and 342:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 43(a)(b
Page 343 and 344:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 45Fig.
Page 345 and 346:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 47produ
Page 347 and 348:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 49stron
Page 349 and 350:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 51Cmı
Page 351:
ORIGIN OF FELSIC MIGMATITES 53easte
Page 354 and 355:
104 J. FRANĚK ET AL.in terms of th
Page 356 and 357:
106 J. FRANĚK ET AL.Fig. 2. Struct
Page 358 and 359:
108 J. FRANĚK ET AL.(a)perthite po
Page 360 and 361:
110 J. FRANĚK ET AL.(a)(b)(c) (d)
Page 362 and 363:
112 J. FRANĚK ET AL.Table 1. Repre
Page 364 and 365:
114 J. FRANĚK ET AL.at these P-T c
Page 366 and 367:
116 J. FRANĚK ET AL.(a)(b)Fig. 10.
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
120 J. FRANĚK ET AL.Table 2. Quant
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
124 J. FRANĚK ET AL.Fig. 16. Inter
Page 376 and 377:
126 J. FRANĚK ET AL.development of
Page 378 and 379:
128 J. FRANĚK ET AL.Behrmann, J.H.
Page 380:
130 J. FRANĚK ET AL.Southern Bohem
show all

Quantitative structural analyses and numerical modelling of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?