2018
DOI: 10.1007/s00531-018-1598-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deformation behavior of migmatites: insights from microstructural analysis of a garnet–sillimanite–mullite–quartz–feldspar-bearing anatectic migmatite at Rampura–Agucha, Aravalli–Delhi Fold Belt, NW India

Abstract: This is a repository copy of Deformation behavior of migmatites: insights from microstructural analysis of a garnet-sillimanite-mullite-quartz-feldspar-bearing anatectic migmatite at Rampura-Agucha, Aravalli-Delhi Fold Belt, NW India.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Miranda and Klepeis (2016) indicate that lower crust rocks that have previously undergone partial melting and melt solidification may deform by solid‐state dislocation creep during further deformation events. In contrast, microstructural analysis of migmatites during a single deformation event only develop weak post‐crystallization and solid‐state deformation characteristics in the “crystallized melt” portion of the rock (Prakash et al., 2018). Consequently, in the latter case the protolith (or residuum in this case study) takes up most of strain‐related deformation (Franěk et al., 2011; Vanderhaeghe, 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Miranda and Klepeis (2016) indicate that lower crust rocks that have previously undergone partial melting and melt solidification may deform by solid‐state dislocation creep during further deformation events. In contrast, microstructural analysis of migmatites during a single deformation event only develop weak post‐crystallization and solid‐state deformation characteristics in the “crystallized melt” portion of the rock (Prakash et al., 2018). Consequently, in the latter case the protolith (or residuum in this case study) takes up most of strain‐related deformation (Franěk et al., 2011; Vanderhaeghe, 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of the Mesozoic garnets of Kutch indicating granulite facies source resemble those of the Delhi Supergroup (Figures 4c, 5c). At the same time, a few of these granulite facies garnets are similar to those of the Banded Gneissic Complex and the Aravalli Supergroup (Bhowmik et al, 2010; Bhowmik et al, 2018; Prakash et al, 2018; Roy et al, 2005). The Mesozoic garnets, bearing amphibolite facies source signatures, are similar to those in rocks of the Aravalli Supergroup (Bhowmik et al, 2010; Lal et al, 1976; Prakash et al, 2018; Roy et al, 2005) (Figure 4c) and the Banded Gneissic Complex (Figure 5c).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…At the same time, a few of these granulite facies garnets are similar to those of the Banded Gneissic Complex and the Aravalli Supergroup (Bhowmik et al, 2010; Bhowmik et al, 2018; Prakash et al, 2018; Roy et al, 2005). The Mesozoic garnets, bearing amphibolite facies source signatures, are similar to those in rocks of the Aravalli Supergroup (Bhowmik et al, 2010; Lal et al, 1976; Prakash et al, 2018; Roy et al, 2005) (Figure 4c) and the Banded Gneissic Complex (Figure 5c). A few garnets, bearing amphibolite facies signatures in the Jhumara and Jhuran formations, resemble those of the Sirohi Granite (Arora, Pant, et al, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
See 2 more Smart Citations