| Paper No. 189-7 | ||
| Presentation Time: 8:00 AM-12:00 PM | ||
| GEOCHEMISTRY OF AMPHIBOLITES AND ASSOCIATED ROCKS FROM THE CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN UCHEE BELT OF GEORGIA | ||
|
WILSON, Crystal G.1, LEHNHERR, Alison M.1, WRIGHT, Anthony O.1, TOURSCHER, Sara1, SHOPA, Amanda1, HANLEY, T.B.2, KAR, Aditya3, LA TOUR, Timothy E.4, GHAZI, A. Mohamad5, and BURNLEY, Pamela C.4, (1) ACRES, Department of Geology, Georgia State Univ, Atlanta, GA 30303, crysgwil29@yahoo.com, (2) Chemistry and Geology, Columbus State Univ, 4225 University Ave, Columbus, ID 31907, (3) Cooperative Developmental Energy Program, Fort Valley State Univ, Fort Valley, GA 31030, (4) Department of Geology, Georgia State Univ, University Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303-3083, (5) Geology, Georgia State Univ, Atlanta, GA 30303 Amphibolite-dominated rock units are an important component of the Uchee Belt (UB) of Georgia and Alabama. New analyses of amphibolites from southern and central UB (SCUB) allow comparison with previous analyses of northern UB (Hudson Rapids (HR) and Davis Mills (DM)), Inner Piedmont (IP), and Avalon terrane amphibolites. SCUB amphibolites vary more in silica content than northern UB amphibolites with a range from 41% to 54%. However, all these rocks are much less differentiated than samples of amphibolite from Junction City in the western part of the Avalon terrane. On Harker diagrams, SCUB share similar trends in MgO, TiO2 and Al2O3 relative to amphibolites from HR and DM. SCUB and DM amphibolites are alike with respect to total iron content, in contrast to greater total iron in HR. However, HR is depleted in P2O5 relative to SCUB and DM. There is also considerably more variation in the CaO content for SCUB compared to CaO in HR and DM. Although northern UB rocks are subalkaline to tholeittic, the SCUB amphibolites overlap the subalkaline-alkaline boundary. Amphibolite samples from Kendall Creek and a group of ultramafic to mafic rocks from the eastern UB share the least degree of similarity with SCUB and northern UB amphibolites. This presentation will review the geochemistry of these rocks to further evaluate their similarities and differences. | ||
|
2002 Denver Annual Meeting (October 27-30, 2002)
| ||
| Session No. 189--Booth# 79 Petrology, Metamorphic (Posters) Colorado Convention Center: Exhibit Hall 8:00 AM-12:00 PM, Wednesday, October 30, 2002 | ||
© Copyright 2002 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions. | ||