Indentation tectonics of the Zhongtiaoshan Block in the Trans-North China Orogen

Author(s):  
Jiawei Cui

<p><span>The North China (NCC) is one of the oldest cratons in the world. The tectonic evolution processes of the NCC have been debated for decades (Zhao and Zhai, 2013; Zhao, 2007; Zhao et al., 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009; Zhai et al., 2005; Zhai and Santosh, 2011; Wilde et al., 2002, 2005; Kroner et al., 2005; Kusky et al., 2001, 2007; Kusky and Li, 2003; Faure et al., 2007; Trap et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2013; Zhao et al.,2019). The controversy focuses on the time of the formation of the NCC is in the late Paleoproterozoic or the late Archean. The key point of the controversy is that there are serious disagreement about the nature and implications of the late Paleoproterozoic orogen in the NCC. Some researchers thought the NCC underwent compression in 1.85 Ga according to previous researchers (Zhai et al., 2005; Zhai and Santosh, 2011; Zhao et al., 2019). Some researchers even thought that the NCC was finally formed resulted from the collision of the east block and the west block</span><span> (Kusky et al., 2001, 2007; Kusky and Li, 2003; </span><span>Trap et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2002a, 2003a, 2005, 2009;). Recently, we found that NE-NEE trending extensional ductile shear zones developed in the Paleoproterozoic granitic gneiss (2.4Ga) in the northern margin of the Zhongtiaoshan, the middle part of the NCC. The ductile shear zone was unconformity covered by the Changcheng System and the deformation ages according to the <sup>40</sup>Ar/<sup>39</sup>Ar dating results is 1.92 Ga, which indicate that the deformation time was in the late Paleoproterozoic. Therefore, We propose that that the NCC was in the post-collision extension environment or lateral and vertical extrusion of blocks might have happened after the orogeny</span> <span>in late Paleoproterozioc.</span></p>

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongjiang Liu ◽  
Jing Li ◽  
Weimin Li ◽  
Sanzhong Li ◽  
Liming Dai

<p>The controversy over the Archean tectonic regimes has lasted several decades focusing around horizontal and vertical tectonics, the two classical tectonic models for Archean times. Thus, more studies of the early crustal growth and tectonic evolution are requisite for better understanding geodynamic regimes in the early Precambrian. The North China Craton is one of the major Archean to Paleoproterozoic cratons in the world and oldest craton in China, which preserves a large amount of ancient basement and abundant structures showing the early earth tectonics.</p><p>In this study, we have carried out detailed structural analysis of two down-slip ductile shear zones which developed in eastern Anshan area and provided an example for revealing of Neoarchean vertical tectonics in the study area. There were also develop many structures of dome and keel style in the North China Craton, such as Qian ’an, Qingyuan areas.</p><p>Based on abundant structural evidence and previous studies, we infer that the vertical tectonics is still the dominant model for Neoarchean crust growth and tectonic evolution in Anshan area. The formation of dome and keel structure, and the deformation of the down-slip ductile shear zones may have resulted from the sagduction of the banded iron formations and synchronous Archean granite dome emplacement, supporting a vertical tectonic regime in Archean times.</p>


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiahui Qian

<p>Ductile shear zones <span>usually record mineralogical and isotopic changes that are not apparent in the surrounding host rocks and thus may preserve a complete evolutionary record in a single locale from relatively undeformed to highly deformed rocks. </span>The Zhujiafang ductile shear zone is situated in the central Hengshan Complex, a key area for understanding the Paleoproterozoic tectonic evolution of the Trans-North China Orogen, North China Craton. Detailed metamorphic and geochronological analyses were carried out on metapelite and garnet amphibolite from the Zhujiafang ductile shear zone. The metapelite preserves two phases of mineral assemblages: early kyanite-rutile-bearing assemblage and late chlorite-staurolite-bearing assemblage in garnet–mica schist, and inclusion-type muscovite (high-Si) + kyanite assemblage and late sillimanite-bearing assemblage in sillimanite–mica gneiss. Garnet in the metapelite occasionally exhibits pronounced two-stage zoning characteristic of a diffusion core with irregular pyrope (X<sub>py</sub>) and grossular (X<sub>gr</sub>) contents and a growth rim with X<sub>py</sub> and X<sub>gr</sub> increasing outwards. The isopleths of the maximum X<sub>gr</sub> in garnet core and Si content in inclusion-type muscovite in the P–T pseudosections suggest that the early mineral assemblages underwent medium-high-pressure type metamorphism with pressures up to 12–14 kbar at 700–750 °C. The late assemblages and the growth zoning of garnet rim predict a late separated clockwise P–T path with peak conditions of 6.5 ± 0.2 kbar/620 ± 10 °C (medium-low-pressure type). The garnet amphibolite is mainly composed of garnet, hornblende, plagioclase, ilmenite and quartz, without overprinting of late mineral assemblages except for localized corona textures. Phase modeling suggests that the rock has experienced high-amphibolite facies metamorphism with peak conditions of 10.5 ± 0.8 kbar/770 ± 50 °C, which is broadly consistent with the early-phase metamorphism of metapelite. Zircon U–Pb dating on metapelite yields two metamorphic age groups of 1.96–1.92 Ga and 1.87–1.86 Ga which are interpreted to represent the timing of the two separated phases of metamorphism. Two separated orogenic events may have occurred respectively at ~1.95 Ga and ~1.85 Ga in the Hengshan–Wutai area. The older orogeny was resulted from continental collision and the younger one may be caused by within-plate deformation. The final exhumation of the high-grade rocks formed in the older (i.e. 1.95 Ga) orogeny should be related with the younger deformation/metamorphic event. For more details, please refer to <span>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2019.02.001.</span></p>


Tectonics ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maarten J. de Wit ◽  
Sam A. Bowring ◽  
Lew D. Ashwal ◽  
Leon G. Randrianasolo ◽  
Vincent P. I. Morel ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document