Ch 24 Mineral Assemblages.ppt

The resulting ABC projection is simplified with respect to the quaternary system, and we need no longer attempt to estimate the depth of points X and Y But the projection suffers from the same pitfalls that we saw above Note the sub-polyhedron a-b-c-x in 4-C Phases a, b, and c are truly on the base and x (and y) are above it The diagram in Fig. 24.13 is not truly ternary, but a projection, which must be remembered! The pseudo-ternary triangle is really part of a quaternary system Because it is projected from q, it should be clearly referenced to coexisting q! Although A, B, and C are separated by several tie-lines in Fig. 24.13, and appear to be incompatible together, they can coexist, but with x and without q! We’re not just dropping Q when we create the projection in Fig. 24.13 The sub-triangles in the figure are only rigorously valid groupings when phase Q is included as a part of each mineral assemblage Conscientious workers include the message “+Qtz” in the corner of most diagrams, such as ACF, AKF, etc. that are projected from quartz Multiple projections are possible, each successive one reducing the number of remaining components The ACF diagram is projected from SiO2 and then from alkali feldspar In such cases all projection phases should be noted in the diagrams Pelites are sensitive to T P, and undergo many mineralogical changes as grade increases Good to have a comprehensive diagram to display these changes Talc is always richer in Mg than coexisting diopside, diopside more so than tremolite, etc All but anthophyllite are more Mg-rich than olivine The same type of partitioning occurs in virtually all mafic minerals, including those in pelitic rocks Garnet, staurolite, and chloritiod have low Mg/Fe ratios, whereas cordierite has a higher ratio Thompson concluded that it would be advantageous in many situations to account for this unequal distribution, since it plays a role in mineral stability - AFM diagram, in which Fe and Mg are no longer combined