Assembly, configuration, and break-up history of Rodinia: A synthesis

Hysteresis properties of titanomagnetites: Grain-size and compositional dependence

The common ferromagnetic minerals have distinctive, characteristic coercivities and thermomagnetic properties. The analysis of the acquisition curve of isothermal remanent magnetization (IRM) is a useful but often ambiguous diagnostic technique. For a more conclusive interpretation, IRM acquisition must be combined with subsequent thermal demagnetization of the IRM. A modification of this method is proposed as a more powerful analytical technique. Different coercivity fractions of IRM are remagnetized in successively smaller fields along three orthogonal directions. The thermal demagnetization of each orthogonal component of the composite IRM is then plotted separately. This method often gives a clearer interpretation of the ferromagnetic mineral content of a rock. Examples are described for limestone and sandstone samples.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/GL017i002p00159%4010.1002/%28ISSN%291944-8007.GRL40

Identification of ferromagnetic minerals in a rock by coercivity and unblocking temperature properties

[1] Although most paleomagnetic and environmental magnetic papers incorporate a Day plot of the hysteresis parameters Mrs/Ms versus Hcr/Hc, a comprehensive theory covering superparamagnetic (SP), single-domain (SD), pseudo-single-domain (PSD), and multidomain (MD) (titano)magnetites is lacking. There is no consensus on how to quantify grain-size trends within the Day plot, how to distinguish MD from SP trends/mixtures, or whether magnetite, titanomagnetites, and other minerals have distinctive trends by which they might be identified. This paper develops the theory of the Day plot parameters for MD, MD + SD, PSD, and SP + SD grains of titanomagnetite (Fe 3– xTixO4) with compositions x = 0 (TM0 or magnetite) and x = 0.6 (TM60). MD grains have a separate trend that intersects the curve for SD + MD mixtures. SP + SD mixtures generate a variety of trends, depending on the SP grain size. All SP + SD curves lie much above those for MD or SD + MD trends, as has been proposed, but not demonstrated, previously. Data for PSD-size magnetites of many different origins fall along a single trend, but different levels of internal stress shift points for similar grain sizes along the ‘‘master curve.’’ In order to use the Day plot to determine grain size, one must have independent information about the state of internal stress. Theoretical model curves for SD + MD mixtures match the PSD magnetite and TM60 data quite well, although the SD!MD transition region in grain size is much narrower for TM60 than for magnetite. The agreement between PSD data and SD + MD mixing curves implies that PSD behavior is due to superimposed independent SD and MD moments, either in individual or separate grains, and not to exotic micromagnetic structures such as vortices. The theory also matches Mrs and Hc values in mechanical mixtures of very fine and very coarse grains, although nonlinear mixing theory is required to explain some Hcr and Hcr/Hc data. INDEX TERMS: 1540 Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism: Rock and mineral magnetism; 1594 Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism: Instruments and techniques; 1533 Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism: Remagnetization; 1512 Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism: Environmental magnetism;

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JB000486

Theory and application of the Day plot (Mrs/Ms versus Hcr/Hc) 1. Theoretical curves and tests using titanomagnetite data

bases were introduced in [Smy77] where they are called “R-structures”. Examples of abstract bases are concrete bases of continuous domains, of course, where the relation≺ is the restriction of the order of approximation. Axiom (INT) is satisfied because of Lemma 2.2.15 and because we have required bases in domains to have directed sets of approximants for each element. Other examples are partially ordered sets, where (INT) is satisfied because of reflexivity. We will shortly identify posets as being exactly the bases of compact elements of algebraic domains. In what follows we will use the terminology developed at the beginning of this chapter, even though the relation ≺ on an abstract basis need neither be reflexive nor antisymmetric. This is convenient but in some instances looks more innocent than it is. An idealA in a basis, for example, has the property (following from directedness) that for everyx ∈ A there is another element y ∈ A with x ≺ y. In posets this doesn’t mean anything but here it becomes an important feature. Sometimes this is stressed by using the expression ‘ A is a round ideal’. Note that a set of the form↓x is always an ideal because of (INT) but that it need not contain x itself. We will refrain from calling ↓x ‘principal’ in these circumstances. Definition 2.2.21. For a basis〈B,≺〉 let Idl(B) be the set of all ideals ordered by inclusion. It is called theideal completionof B. Furthermore, leti : B → Idl(B) denote the function which maps x ∈ B to ↓x. If we want to stress the relation with whichB is equipped then we write Idl(B,≺) for the ideal completion. Proposition 2.2.22.Let 〈B,≺〉 be an abstract basis.

Domain theory

Preface 1. Magnetism in nature 2. Fundamentals of magnetism 3. Terrestrial magnetic materials 4. Magnetostatic fields and energies 5. Elementary domain structure and hysteresis 6. Domain observations 7. Micromagnetic calculations 8. Single-domain thermoremanent magnetization 9. Multidomain thermoremanent magnetization 10. Viscous and thermoviscous magnetization 11. Isothermal magnetization and demagnetization 12. Pseudo-single-domain remanence 13. Crystallization remanent magnetization 14. Magnetism of igneous rocks and baked materials 15. Magnetism of sediments and sedimentary rocks 16. Magnetism of metamorphic rocks 17. Magnetism of extraterrestrial rocks References.

Rock Magnetism: Fundamentals and Frontiers

Magnetization changes caused by burial and uplift

[1] New theoretical curves relating the hysteresis parameters Mrs/Ms and Hcr/Hc for single-domain (SD), superparamagnetic (SP), pseudo-single-domain (PSD), and multidomain (MD) grains and their mixtures are applied to published data for natural materials. The Day plot of Mrs/Ms versus Hcr/Hc has been used to crudely classify samples into box-like SD, PSD, and MD (or sometimes incorrectly, MD + SP) regions with arbitrary boundaries. New type curves for MD, PSD/SD + MD, and SD + SP grains and mixtures permit more subtle and precise modeling. The predicted MD trend and its junction with the PSD trend are observed in two data sets: for magnetite spherules from carbonate rocks and for temperature-varying hysteresis results spanning the Verwey transition. The latter data are the basis of a suggested new method for pinpointing the PSD-MD threshold size. Selected data for pottery clays, soils, and paleosols generally follow SD + MD type curves and indicate intermediate-size PSD magnetite with narrow to broad size distributions. A lake sediment section with known grain-size progression tracks in the predicted sense along the SD + MD trend. Selected data for glaciomarine and pelagic sediments are also generally compatible with SD + MD trends. Examples of remagnetized carbonate rocks, submarine basaltic glasses, and glassy rims of pillow basalts all follow predicted SP + SD or SP + PSD mixing curves, with a large range in volume fraction of SP grains (0–75%) but a narrow range of SP particle sizes: 10 ± 2 nm. Larger SP grains spanning the range to SD size (25–30 nm) are absent for unknown reasons. Oceanic dolerites, gabbros, and serpentinized peridotites in some cases fall in a novel region of the Day plot, parallel to but below magnetite SD + MD mixing curves.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JB000487

Theory and application of the Day plot (Mrs/Ms versus Hcr/Hc) 2. Application to data for rocks, sediments, and soils

At the Verwey transition (Tv≈110–120 K), magnetite transforms from monoclinic to cubic spinel structure. It has long been believed that magnetic remanence and susceptibility would change markedly at Tv in the case of coarse grains but only slightly or inappreciably in the case of fine (<1 µm) grains. We find on the contrary that remanence changes at Tv by 50–80% in both large and small crystals, if they are stoichiometric. However, minor surface oxidation suppresses the transition, and the fact that fine grains oxidize more readily leads to an apparent size dependence. Our experiments used submicron magnetite cubes with mean sizes of 0.037, 0.076, 0.10 and 0.22 µm which were initially non-stoichiometric (oxidation parameter z from 0.2–0.7). A saturation isothermal remanent magnetization (SIRM) given in a 2.5 T field at 5 K decreased steadily during zero-field warming to 300 K with little or no indication of the Verwey transition. After the oxidized surface of each crystal was reduced to stoichiometric magnetite, the SIRM decreased sharply during warming by 50–80% around 110 K. The change in SIRM for the 0.22 µm grains was almost identical to that measured for a 1.5 mm natural magnetite crystal. Thus a 1012 change in particle volume does not materially affect the remanence transition at Tv but oxidation to z=0.3 essentially suppresses the transition. The effect of the degree of oxidation on Tv provides a sensitive test for maghemitization in soils, sediments and rocks.

/pdf/the-effect-of-oxidation-on-the-verwey-transition-in-lpis99fhta.pdf

David J. Dunlop

Papers

Rock Magnetism: Fundamentals and Frontiers

Theory and application of the Day plot (Mrs/Ms versus Hcr/Hc) 1. Theoretical curves and tests using titanomagnetite data

Magnetization changes caused by burial and uplift

Theory and application of the Day plot (Mrs/Ms versus Hcr/Hc) 2. Application to data for rocks, sediments, and soils

The effect of oxidation on the Verwey transition in magnetite