Differences in grain growth of calcite: a field-based modeling approach

Normal grain growth of calcite was investigated by combining grain size analysis of calcite across the contact aureole of the Adamello pluton, and grain growth modeling based on a thermal model of the surroundings of the pluton. In an unbiased model system, i.e., location dependent variations in temperature-time path, 2/3 and 1/3 of grain growth occurs during pro- and retrograde metamorphism at all locations, respectively. In contrast to this idealized situation, in the field example three groups can be distinguished, which are characterized by variations in their grain size versus temperature relationships: Group I occurs at low temperatures and the grain size remains constant because nano-scale second phase particles of organic origin inhibit grain growth in the calcite aggregates under these conditions. In the presence of an aqueous fluid, these second phases decay at a temperature of about 350 °C enabling the onset of grain growth in calcite. In the following growth period, fluid-enhanced group II and slower group III growth occurs. For group II a continuous and intense grain size increase with T is typical while the grain growth decreases with T for group III. None of the observed trends correlate with experimentally based grain growth kinetics, probably due to differences between nature and experiment which have not yet been investigated (e.g., porosity, second phases). Therefore, grain growth modeling was used to iteratively improve the correlation between measured and modeled grain sizes by optimizing activation energy (Q), pre-exponential factor (k₀) and grain size exponent (n). For n=2, Q of 350 kJ/mol, k₀ of 1.7×10²¹ mⁿs^–1 and Q of 35 kJ/mol, k₀ of 2.5×10^-5 mⁿs^–1 were obtained for group II and III, respectively. With respect to future work, field-data based grain growth modeling might be a promising tool for investigating the influences of secondary effects like porosity and second phases on grain growth in nature, and to unravel differences between nature and experiment.Editorial responsibility: J. Hoefs