Demagnetization of terrestrial and extraterrestrial rocks under hydrostatic pressure up to 1.2 GPa

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2010.01.004Get rights and content

Abstract

We carried out hydrostatic pressure demagnetization experiments up to 1.24 GPa on samples of terrestrial and extraterrestrial rocks and minerals of different lithologies as well as on synthetic samples. The magnetic remanence of samples was measured directly under pressure using a non-magnetic high-pressure cell of piston-cylinder type that was inserted into a high sensitivity SQUID magnetometer. In order to bring light on the pressure demagnetization effect, we investigated 50 samples with different magnetic mineralogies, remanent coercivities (Bcr) and hysteresis parameters. The samples consisted of pyrrhotite-, magnetite- and titanomagnetite-bearing Martian meteorites, taenite-, tetrataenite- and kamacite-bearing ordinary chondrites and pyrrhotite-bearing Rumuruti chondrite; magnetite- and titanomagnetite-bearing basalts, andesites, ignimbrites, obsidians and granites; a variety of pyrrhotite- and hematite-bearing rocks and minerals (jasper, schist, rhyolite, radiolarite); samples of goethite and greigite as well as synthetic samples of dispersed powders of magnetite, hematite, pyrrhotite and native iron set into epoxy resin. Under hydrostatic pressure of 1.24 GPa, applied in a low magnetic field (<5 μT), the samples lost up to 84% of their initial saturation isothermal remanent magnetization (SIRM) without any changes in their intrinsic magnetic properties. We found that the efficiency of the pressure demagnetization is not exclusively controlled by the magnetic hardness of the samples (Bcr), but that it is strongly dependent on their magnetic mineralogy. For a given magnetic mineralogy the resistance to hydrostatic pressure is roughly proportional to ln(Bcr). It was shown that there is no simple equivalence between pressure demagnetization and alternating field demagnetization effects. The pressure demagnetization was shown to be time-independent but repeated application of the same pressure level resulted in further demagnetization.

Introduction

Hypervelocity impacts are a major mechanism for the evolution of the solid matter in our solar system. Shock waves generated during impacts can modify both intrinsic magnetic properties (Gattacceca et al., 2007a, Louzada et al., 2007, Nishioka et al., 2007, Gilder and Le Goff, 2008) and remanent magnetization (Pohl et al., 1975, Kletetschka et al., 2004, Gattacceca et al., 2006, Gattacceca et al., 2008, Louzada et al., 2007) of rocks. Consequently, the magnetic record of solid bodies in the solar system, affected by impacts to different degrees, could have been erased or overprinted by shock events. Understanding the process and the physical mechanism of the impact remagnetization is therefore a key issue to the interpretation of the crustal magnetization of Mars (Hood et al., 2003, Hood et al., in press), the Moon (Cisowski et al., 1976, Halekas et al., 2002, Halekas et al., 2003), small solid solar system bodies such as asteroids (Chen et al., 1995) as well as paleomagnetic records of meteorites and extraterrestrial materials available from sample return. Concerning the Earth, shock-induced changes in rock magnetic properties and magnetic remanence should be taken into consideration while studying the remanent magnetism of terrestrial impacts (Halls, 1979, Pesonen et al., 1992, Pilkington and Grieve, 1992, Louzada et al., 2008).

Different authors have carried out experimental investigations of shock demagnetization (remagnetization) of rocks and pure minerals in the 1–30 GPa peak pressure range. Different techniques have been used for shock waves generation: air or gas gun accelerating aluminium or copper projectiles (Hornemann et al., 1975, Pohl et al., 1975, Martelli and Newton, 1977, Cisowski and Fuller, 1978, Srnka et al., 1979, Dickinson and Wasilewski, 2000, Louzada et al., 2007); high explosive and nuclear charges (Hargraves and Perkins, 1969, Pesonen et al., 1997, Gattacceca et al., 2007a); free falling mass (Kletetschka et al., 2004) and pulsed laser (Gattacceca et al., 2006, Gattacceca et al., 2008). The main caveats of such experiments are the complexity of dynamic pressure calibration, the possible mechanical damages of investigated samples, and deciphering of the effect of deviatoric versus hydrostatic stresses. Indeed, it is known that remanent magnetization is more sensitive to non-hydrostatic (deviatoric) than hydrostatic stresses (Nagata, 1966, Martin and Noel, 1988). Moreover, shock may permanently modify the intrinsic magnetic properties (e.g., coercivity, see Gattacceca et al., 2007a) thus complicating the interpretation.

As for meteorites, considering the relative rarity of extraterrestrial material on the Earth, it is excluded for most of them to perform shock experiments that may be destructive and require rather large sample volume. Numerous parameters must be considered when studying the effect of shock on the magnetic remanence: shock intensity and duration, background magnetic field during the shock event, magnetic mineralogy, pre-shock magnetization and temperature. This large number of parameters, that are sometimes difficult to control, complicates the comprehension of shock effect on rock magnetic remanence.

Static pressure experiments are well suited to tackle these problems. They allow better pressure calibration and can be non-destructive for samples. However, they were until recently limited to the low pressure range for under pressure measurements (<0.1 GPa, e.g., Pozzi, 1973). Experiments were also carried out by pressurizing the sample up to 2 GPa, and remeasuring the remanence outside the pressurizing device (Pearce and Karson, 1981). More recently Rochette et al. (2003) compressed a pyrrhotite sample up to 3 GPa in a piston-cylinder press and remeasured isothermal remanent magnetization (IRM) after pressure release. It was found that pyrrhotite undergoes a high-pressure magnetic transition under a pressure of 2.8 GPa, which results in a complete loss of its magnetic remanence. This experimental scheme has the disadvantage of needing a new sample and few days of experiments per each pressure value. Moreover, these experiments, by using a solid confining media, generate some deviatoric stress on the sample.

Gilder et al. (2006) performed IRM measurements of pure single domain (SD) and multidomain (MD) magnetite under quasihydrostatic load up to 4.2 GPa using a diamond anvil non-magnetic cell (in the Earth's magnetic field) and also observed a pressure demagnetization effect. Gilder and Le Goff (2008) carried out pressure experiments up to 6 GPa using a moissanite anvil cell on natural and synthesized MD titanomagnetite with different titanium concentration, but this work was focused upon the influence of stress on the acquisition of IRM. All these experiments are restricted to pure strongly magnetic minerals due to the minute sample size (e.g., for the diamond anvil cell the cylindrical sample chamber was 400 μm in diameter and 100 μm in height) and cannot be realized on bulk rock samples without extracting their magnetic fraction.

Pressure demagnetization experiments on bulk rock samples have significant implications in solid-state physics and geophysics, in particular in paleomagnetism and interpretation of crustal magnetic anomalies of the solid solar system bodies. As crustal rocks suffer the load created by overlying rocks and/or water column (for instance ∼0.06 GPa for 5 km of water and 350 m of sediments), laboratory studies of the effect of pressure on the remanent magnetism of rocks may be helpful for the comprehension and interpretation of the paleomagnetic signal of the deep seated rocks and crustal magnetic anomalies. However, together with pressure, crustal rocks undergo the concomitant influence of high temperatures, making the situation even more complex. At pressures up to 1.5–2 GPa, which corresponds to a crustal thickness of 50–70 km, titanomagnetites do not crystallize any more (Valeev, 1984): this is the upper limit of relevant pressures.

Despite previous works, the effect of pressure on the remanent magnetization is still poorly known for natural materials for pressures of the order of 1 GPa. The goal of this work is to present a thorough investigation of the effect of hydrostatic pressure up to 1.24 GPa on the magnetic remanence of rocks within a wide range of magnetic mineralogies. We investigated 50 samples of terrestrial and extraterrestrial rocks and minerals as well as synthetic samples with the following magnetic carriers: magnetite, titanomagnetite, hematite, pyrrhotite, native iron and nickel iron, goethite, greigite. For each magnetic mineralogy we studied different samples spanning a wide range of remanent coercivity (Bcr).

Section snippets

Experimental setup

In order to isolate the pressure demagnetization effect on rock magnetic remanence from the creation of piezo-remanent magnetization after pressure application (studied in many previous works, e.g., Nagata, 1966, Kinoshita, 1968, Pozzi, 1973) we always applied the pressure in a low magnetic field (<5 μT).

The experimental setup was designed for room temperature measurements of magnetic remanence of relatively large rock samples (up to 5.8 mm in diameter and 15 mm long cylinders) under hydrostatic

Main characteristics of the pressure demagnetization experiments

The used pressure cell is characterized by a relatively low but nonzero remanent magnetic moment (see above). In order to check the need for correction of the magnetic remanence of investigated samples by the cell magnetic remanence, the sample of rhyolite (rb7a) was chosen. This sample is the better suited as it was shown to be the least magnetic (initial SIRM inside pressure cell is 5.48 × 10−7 A m2). Fig. 2 displays the evolution of the magnetic moment of the cell versus pressure (after 5, 10

Discussion

In order to check the effect of repeated load (to the same pressure level) on the magnetic remanence, several cycles from 0 to 1.24 GPa were carried out on some of investigated sample (see Fig. 8). Throughout repeated loads the remanent magnetization under pressure (Fig. 8a) or upon pressure release (Fig. 8b) always shows a slight decrease as a function of number of cycles, consistent with previous works (e.g., Pozzi, 1975, Gilder et al., 2006, Bezaeva et al., 2007). This is not linked to a

Conclusions

This study gives an overview of the sensitivity to pressure demagnetization (by a purely hydrostatic load up to 1.24 GPa) of geological and extraterrestrial materials as well as synthetic samples with a variety of magnetic mineralogies: magnetite and titanomagnetite, pyrrhotite, greigite, hematite, goethite as well as iron and iron–nickel alloys. Magnetic remanence under pressure and upon decompression was investigated using a non-magnetic high-pressure cell of piston-cylinder type together with

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (project 05-JCJC-0133) and was partially funded by the CNRS-RFFI PICS program (grant no. 07-05-92165) while the stay of N.S. Bezaeva at CEREGE was funded by a research grant of the French Government (no. 2005814). We acknowledge K.L. Louzada (Harvard University, Cambridge, USA) for providing basalt samples from the Lonar crater (PD6-2-1, PD6-2-4). C. Francis (Harvard Museum of Natural History, Cambridge, USA) is acknowledged

References (56)

  • L.J. Pesonen et al.

    Palaeomagnetism of the Lappajärvi impact structure, western Finland

    Tectonophysics

    (1992)
  • J.P. Pozzi

    Magnetic properties of oceanic basalts—effects of pressure and consequences for the interpretation of anomalies

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (1975)
  • P. Rochette et al.

    Magnetostratigraphy and timing of the Oligocene Ethiopian traps

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (1998)
  • P. Rochette et al.

    Pyrrhotite and the remanent magnetization of SNC meteorites: a changing perspective on Martian magnetism

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (2001)
  • L.J. Srnka et al.

    Magnetic field and shock effects and remanent magnetization in a hypervelocity impact experiments

    Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

    (1979)
  • B.E. Van Dongen et al.

    Formation of iron sulfide nodules during anaerobic oxidation of methane

    Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta

    (2007)
  • G.M. Avchyan

    Effect of hydrostatic pressure up to 8000 kg/cm2 on various types of remanent magnetization of rocks (translated from Russian)

    Izv. Phys. Solid Earth

    (1967)
  • N.S. Bezaeva et al.

    Pressure demagnetization of the Martian crust: ground truth from SNC meteorites

    Geophys. Res. Lett.

    (2007)
  • S.M. Cisowski et al.

    Magnetic effects of shock and their implications for lunar magnetism (II)

  • S.M. Cisowski et al.

    The effect of shock on the magnetism of terrestrial rocks

    J. Geophys. Res.

    (1978)
  • T.L. Dickinson et al.

    Shock magnetism in fine particle iron

    Meteoritic Planet. Sci.

    (2000)
  • D. Dunlop et al.

    Rock Magnetism: Fundamentals and Frontiers

    (1997)
  • F. Florindo et al.

    Palaeomagnetism and rock magnetism in the upper Pliocene Valle Ricca (Rome, Italy) section

    Geophys. J. Int.

    (1995)
  • J. Gattacceca et al.

    Magnetic fabric of granitoids from Southern Corsica and Northern Sardinia and implications for Late Hercynian tectonic setting

    J. Geol. Soc., Lond.

    (2004)
  • J. Gattacceca et al.

    Investigating impact demagnetization through laser impacts and SQUID microscopy

    Geology

    (2006)
  • S.A. Gilder et al.

    Static stress demagnetization of single and multidomain magnetite with implications to meteorite impacts

    High Press. Res.

    (2006)
  • S.A. Gilder et al.

    Systematic pressure enhancement of titanomagnetite magnetization

    Geophys. Res. Lett.

    (2008)
  • J.S. Halekas et al.

    Demagnetization signatures of lunar impact craters

    Geophys. Res. Lett.

    (2002)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text