Pressure-to-depth conversion models for (ultra-)high-pressure metamorphic rocks: review and application

Author(s):  
Arthur Bauville ◽  
Philippe Yamato

<p>Pressure estimated from metamorphic rocks is one of the main tools for geodynamic reconstructions. The pressure-temperature path of UHP metamorphic rocks typically shows a linear increase of P and T followed by a rapid drop of Pressure at near-constant temperature. The geological history can be reconstructed by using the metamorphic pressure as a proxy for depth. Researchers often base their geodynamic reconstruction on a simple linear mapping of pressure to depth, by considering that the pressure is the weight of the overlying column of rock or lithostatic pressure. In recent years, an increasing corpus of evidence demonstrates that rocks can experience pressures that deviate from the lithostatic state on the order of GPa. These deviations can be at the scale of the orogen (Petrelli and Podladchikov, 2002), the outcrop (Jamtveit et al., 2018; Luisier et al., 2019); or even at the grain-scale (Tajcmanova, 2015). Thus, these studies raise the concern that metamorphic pressures may not be reliable proxies for depth, and therefore could not be used for geodynamic reconstructions. The objective of this contribution (1) to review the various models proposed in the literature for metamorphic pressure, (2) to formulate analytical models with simple assumptions that can be used to convert metamorphic pressure to depth even in the case where pressure deviates significantly from the lithostatic pressure. We use our pressure-to-depth conversion models to estimate the depth of ~60 samples from various orogens worldwide. The prediction of the different models varies widely. Some models predict depth as deep as 160km for specific samples, while other models predict depth $<75$ km (i.e. deepest depth of the Moho) for all data points.  We discuss the limits of applicability and the geodynamic implications of each model. </p>

Elements ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucie Tajčmanová ◽  
Paola Manzotti ◽  
Matteo Alvaro

The mechanisms attending the burial of crustal material and its exhumation before and during the Alpine orogeny are controversial. New mechanical models propose local pressure perturbations deviating from lithostatic pressure as a possible mechanism for creating (ultra-)high-pressure rocks in the Alps. These models challenge the assumption that metamorphic pressure can be used as a measure of depth, in this case implying deep subduction of metamorphic rocks beneath the Alpine orogen. We summarize petro-logical, geochronological and structural data to assess two fundamentally distinct mechanisms of forming (ultra-)high-pressure rocks: deep subduction; or anomalous, non-lithostatic pressure variation. Furthermore, we explore mineral-inclusion barometry to assess the relationship between pressure and depth in metamorphic rocks.


2005 ◽  
Vol 127 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kunaporn ◽  
M. Ramulu ◽  
M. Hashish

Waterjet peening is a recent promising method in surface treatment. It has the potential to induce compressive residual stresses that benefit the fatigue life of materials similar to the conventional shot peening process. However, there are no analytical models that incorporate process parameters (i.e., supply pressure, jet exposure time, and nozzle traverse rate, etc) to allow predicting the optimized peening process. Mathematical modeling of high-pressure waterjet peening was developed in this study to describe the relation between the waterjet peening parameters and the resulting material modifications. Results showed the possibility of using the proposed mathematical model to predict an initial range for effective waterjet peening under the variation of waterjet peening conditions. The high cycle fatigue tests were performed to validate the proposed model and fatigue test results showed good agreement with the predictions.


Island Arc ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 135-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cong Bolin ◽  
Wang Qingchen ◽  
Zhai Mingguo ◽  
Zhang Ruyuan ◽  
Zhao Zhongyan ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 157-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rongguo Hu ◽  
Jan R. Wijbrans ◽  
Fraukje M. Brouwer ◽  
Min Wang ◽  
Linghao Zhao ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document