How large are tectonic deviations from lithostatic pressure in a continent-derived, lithologically heterogeneous Alpine UHP nappe (Koralpe-Saualpe-Pohorje Complex, Austria and Slovenia)?

岩石在非均匀应力场中的变形受流变特性的控制。相邻岩石强度的巨大差异不可避免地导致平均正应力（即压力）偏离岩石静压力。一些理论研究表明，这种偏差可能达到数百MPa，在这种情况下，它们可能会影响岩石学压力记录。由于岩石记录的压力通常用于根据岩石静力学压力-深度转换来估计其埋藏深度，因此这种估计可能有偏差。另一方面，明确的证据构造偏离岩石静压力是非常罕见的，他们的规模和规模，他们发生知之甚少。我们提出了一种新的方法，通过系统地比较峰值压力的不同岩石类型（主要是榴辉岩和变岩）沿沿着造山带垂直断面通过阿尔卑斯山超高压推覆体。对于每种岩石类型，我们将确定峰值压力剖面作为沿横断面沿着距离的函数。如果这些剖面重合，就没有证据表明存在重大的构造压力。如果它们显示出系统性的变化，这可以解释为不同岩性的流变特性的影响，并且可以最容易地用构造压力来解释。以前的文献数据表明，这可能确实是在奥地利高山Koralpe-Saualpe-Pohorje复杂的情况。第二种方法是调查是否有露头规模的结构控制的构造压力的变化，在近场的刚性透镜体和层所包围的一个较弱的矩阵。我们将研究样品的Koralpe-Saualpe-Pohorje复杂的简单的热压法，尽可能少地依赖于复杂的矿物反应。如果岩石记录没有提供构造压力的证据，这将符合地球动力学模型应用岩石静压力到深度转换。如果它们这样做，构造偏离岩石静压力的可能性也应该考虑到其他情况下的岩性不同（超）高压单位，无论是在运动学和地球动力学模型。我们将考虑潜在的构造超压时，约束的Koralpe-Saualpe-Pohorje复杂的造山带平行横截面的运动学恢复的最大埋深。通过这种恢复，我们的目标是专门估计的运动速率的Koralpe-Saualpe-Pohorje复杂的白垩纪阿尔卑斯俯冲带和大陆地壳的数量，可能已经俯冲而不返回到表面。这些对Eo-Alpine俯冲带的估计也可以让我们了解阿尔卑斯山下成像的板块中大陆地壳的比例，并将在SPP 2017中通过地震学方法更详细地解决。

The rheological properties control how rocks deform in a non-uniform stress field. Large differences in the strengths of neighbouring rocks inevitably lead to a deviation of the mean normal stress (i.e. the pressure) from lithostatic pressure. Several theoretical studies have shown that such deviations may reach hundreds of MPa in which case they may influence the petrological pressure record. Since pressures recorded by rocks are commonly used for estimating their burial depth according to a lithostatic pressure-to-depth conversion, such estimates may be biased. On the other hand, unambiguous evidence for tectonic deviations from lithostatic pressure is very scarce and their magnitude and scale at which they occur are poorly known. We propose a novel approach of evaluating the magnitudes by systematically comparing peak pressures of different rock types (mostly eclogites and metapelites) along an orogen-perpendicular transect through an Alpine ultrahigh-pressure nappe. For each rock type, we will determine peak pressure profiles as a function of distance along the transect. If these profiles coincide, there will be no evidence for significant tectonic pressures. If they show a systematic shift, this can be interpreted as an effect of the rheological properties of the different lithologies and can easiest be explained by tectonic pressures. Previous literature data suggest that this may indeed be the case in the Austroalpine Koralpe-Saualpe-Pohorje Complex. A second approach is to investigate if there are outcrop-scale structurally controlled tectonic pressure variations in the near field of rigid lenses and layers surrounded by a weaker matrix. We will investigate samples of the Koralpe-Saualpe-Pohorje Complex with a straightforward thermobarometric methodology that relies as little as possible on complex mineral reactions. If the rock record does not provide evidence for tectonic pressures, this would comply with geodynamic models applying lithostatic pressure-to-depths conversion. If they do, the possibility of tectonic deviation from lithostatic pressure should also be considered for other cases of lithologically diverse (ultra)high-pressure units, both in kinematic and geodynamic models. We will account for potential tectonic overpressure when constraining the maximum burial depth of the Koralpe-Saualpe-Pohorje Complex in a kinematic restoration of an orogen-parallel cross section. By this restoration we aim specifically at estimating the rates of motion of the Koralpe-Saualpe-Pohorje Complex in the Cretaceous Alpine subduction zone and the amount of continental crust that may have been subducted without returning to the surface. These estimates for the Eo-Alpine subduction zone may also give us an idea of the proportion of continental crust in slabs that were imaged below the Alps and are to be resolved in greater detail by seismological methods in SPP 2017.