
A second method of determining a point on the equi-
librium boundary line begins with an expression for
the free energy, , of Reaction 16.1 at the equi-
librium T
eq
and P
eq
relative to some reference state,
G° , such as 25°C (298.15K) and 1 bar. We first
integrate Equation 3.11, dG
P
SdT, at constant P,
and Equation 3.12, dG
T
VdP, at constant T, between
the reference state and the equilibrium T
eq
and P
eq
and
then combine to give
16.2
S(T
eq
T
ref
)
This expression assumes that V is independent of P
and S of T. Here we note that, at the equilibrium T
eq
and P
eq
, 0; furthermore, the calculations
are simplified if we evaluate P
eq
where T
eq
25°C
T
ref
. Equation 16.2 becomes
16.3
Using data in Table 16.2, V 3.262 J/bar and
G 28 900 J. Remembering that P
ref
1 bar,
we can solve for P
eq
, obtaining 8858.6 bar at 25°C.
Although this is a geologically unrealistic P, extrapola-
tion to higher P–T values along a properly sloping line
(18.7 bar/degree) is quite reasonable.
From the alternate reaction points at T
eq
498°C
and 1 atm and P
eq
8858.6 bar at 25°C on the field
boundary line determined by the two methods, a slop-
ing line can be plotted in Figure 16.4 by taking some
arbitrary “rise and run” of, say, (400 18.7) bar/400°C
7480 bar/400°C. This line based on thermodynamic
data deviates increasingly at higher P from the bound-
ary line based independently on laboratory synthesis
experiments. One reason for the discrepancy is a P de-
pendence on the V of the reaction, which we ignored.
In many cases, different approaches yield significantly
different results, forcing the petrologist to critically
examine the data, rejecting one or more or all sets, and
possibly performing additional experimental work to
try to resolve the discrepancies.
It may be noted that the boundary lines in Figure
16.4 are straight lines; that is, they are linear functions
of P and T. However, some solid–solid equilibria define
slightly curved lines where molar volumes and en-
tropies vary with respect to P and T; the andalusite–
sillimanite reaction line in Figure 16.3 is an example.
Using computer spreadsheets, it is easy to take into
account heat capacities, compressibilities, and so on to
T
ref
,P
ref
G
0
T
ref
,P
ref
V(P
eq
P
ref
)
G
T
eq
,P
eq
G
T
eq
,P
eq
G°
T
ref
,P
ref
V(P
eq
P
ref
)
T
ref
,P
ref
G
T
eq
,P
eq
47 100 J
61.1 J/K
771K 498°C
(4234 000 2{1634 800}) (6 640 000 910 700)
(199.30 163.4) (260.1 41.5)
T
eq
H
S
create more accurate reaction lines from thermody-
namic data (Nordstrom and Munoz, 1994, p.101).
It is important to note in Figure 16.4 that the stabil-
ity field of a phase, or phase assemblage, shrinks in the
presence of an additional reacting phase. Thus, the P–T
stability field of anorthite wollastonite lies within,
and at lower P and T than, the field of anorthite alone.
Where kyanite is present, grossular quartz is stable
only at pressures higher than in systems lacking kyan-
ite. Albite encompasses the more restricted stability
field of the assemblage albite nepheline, and the
stability field of jadeite quartz is a part of the larger
field of stable jadeite. This same concept explains why
olivine in basaltic systems is stable to only deep levels
of the continental crust (Figure 5.11), whereas in peri-
dotite it is stable to depths of a magnitude greater in
the mantle (Figure 1.3). In basaltic systems, olivine is
consumed in reactions with plagioclase at modest P,
whereas in peridotite olivine does not react with any of
the other coexisting phases. (Nonetheless, beginning
near 410 km depth in the mantle, olivine undergoes a
phase transformation into a denser spinel-like mineral.)
In the three component system SiO
2
–CaO–Al
2
O
3
,
the phase rule indicates that the boundary line repre-
sents a state of univariant equilibrium where all four
solid phases (grossular quartz anorthite wollas-
tonite) coexist in equilibrium (F 2 C 2
3 4 1). For P–T values off the univariant line, no
more than three phases can coexist stably in states of
divariant equilibrium where T and P can freely and
independently vary without affecting the phases in
equilibrium. Examination of reaction 16.1 indicates
which three phases can coexist. In the low-T divariant
field, grossular and quartz occur stably together but
wollastonite or anorthite may also be present, but not
both. In the high-T divariant field, wollastonite and
anorthite are stably coexistent but grossular or quartz
may also be present, but not both.
In most stability diagrams only the critical deter-
mining phases are indicated, such as the lower T
assemblage grossular quartz and the higher T
assemblage wollastonite anorthite in Figure 16.4. In
most instances, the molar proportions of grossular and
quartz would not be exactly the same in a rock under-
going prograde metamorphism at, say, 10 kbars and
900°C. So what happens is that the lesser of one of
these reactant phases, let’s say it is quartz, is entirely
consumed while the more abundant and excess grossu-
lar persists stably above 900°C, together with the prod-
uct phases wollastonite and anorthite. The reaction
at 10 kbar progresses at 900°C until quartz is entirely
consumed and only then can T increase in the heating
system, bringing it into the higher T divariant field.
In the very unusual instance where the number of
moles of grossular is exactly equivalent to that of
quartz in a rock, an increase in T above 900°C at
480 Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology