1111111111111 mm: L 293 01087 3754 llBRARY Itchigan State University PLACE ll RETURN BOX to roman this chockout from your record. TO AVOID F INES Mum on or More data duo. EATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE “071311999 ll l___| l I! L} 5 ||__J- II N | J MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Instituton .Fd IQ}. .- I. 2 4EF....:.H chh‘u . “llama“.tl-n. t. GENESIS AND DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY OF THE EATON SANDSTONE, GRAND LEDGE, MICHIGAN .a by Richaro James Hudson AN'ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Science and Arts of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Geology 1957 Approved . a AN.ABSTRACT RICHARD JAMES HUDSON This paper presents the results of a mechanical, sta- tistical and petrographic analysis of the Eaton sandstone of the Pennsylvanian system. This formation, very limited in outcrop area, is exposed in the immediate vicinity of Grand Ledge, Michigan. .As a consequence of this study, interpreta- tions as to the environmental and depositional aspects of the formation were made. These interpretations are subsequently compared with those of w..A. Kelly,professor of Geology at Michigan State University.1 Sieve analysis data revealed the excellent sorting of. the Eaten sandstone. In the insoluble residue determination, the insOlubles were almost exclusively predominant. Tfiuzheavy' mineral analysis was marked by a high proportion of zircon in each of the samples. The final phase of this study indicated generally progressive increases in sphericity and roundness in northeasterly and northwesterly directions. The interpretations drawn from this analysis are that the source of the Eaton sandstone lay in a southerly direc— tion, and that the Eaton was deposited in a continental en- vironment. The latter interpretation is in accord with that postulated by Kelly. ‘ V .1 p 4 I133 .. 5'3. . vthlt‘l Ir! . V . .. r ._.. .. . . t..- YCIIu , .. i . . . I‘lllut.ilutuwull lli J. .. .. J .. . aggflqa F1113..- I- III I I II I» I l I II III \ “4...; ‘ » H'k‘kfi‘ub... . I. ‘ — "' .1 ‘- '- .1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .At the outset, i would like to express my appreciatiori to the members of my guidance committee, Dr. Kelly and Dr. Sandefur. Dr. Kelly suggested this study, helped the author collect samples, and offered suggestions throughout the prog- I»ress of the paper. Dr. Sandefur supervised the mechanical: analysis, and also offered timely suggestions. - Dr. Bergquist, chairman of the Department of Geology and Geography, aided the author in an administrative role, and was a constant source of encouragement. The advice of Dr. Zinn and Dr. Trow in guiding the author to this type of study is also highly appreciated. ii I'Lgulo d- .0’ '0' 07' 00° 99’ W 09’ «q MICHIGAN ‘9‘ L SCAlI I T 20 0 20 ‘0 muss :0 o 20 4o —-=‘::-=a- (oopild I Inn by Mm I. hum Itch. ”I.“ m... Dori. of 610d. 8 600.. ¥ I.“ 0" '7' 00° Ila. sum to“... Mu WWI" "51 i i i I~1 INTRODUCTION GENERAL INFORMATION SAMPLE SELECTION . Source of Samples Location of Individual Samples Method of Sampling . LABORATORY PROCEDURE . General Disaggregation of Test Samples - Weighing of Test Samples Sieve Fractionation Insoluble Residue Determination TABLE OF CONTENTS Heavy Mineral Identification . ' Determination of Sphericity and Roundness ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA Sieve Analysis . " Insoluble Residues . Heavy Mineral Analysis . Sphericity and Roundness . SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY BIBLIOGRAPHY . iv Page ”a: -q «J -q ox (r 0‘ \n -F’ 4? -F' to HP H0 11 31 31 Ito #5 h? ‘ ‘l: 33"“ .h 1 o 1 v‘ o. _ *9 ‘ It, 'a‘ ~\ 1114.4 _ A W? '3? ‘J;; n . " ‘9 ."JJ - -!> A I O r .— . “ ‘l 'o -'. 5 . . I‘o . a. . ' ' ' o.“‘ _4’h_, >_ A} -_ -1. .o. ”-1_4-_-| r. I ‘. l . f‘.‘f;'~r -- “"ch ‘ H -_.._._- -- LIST or TABLES ' g I TABLE Page ’ I. SieveIAnalysis Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In ' I. Part 2 -- Quartile Calculations from Sieve Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . 30 II. Insoluble Residue Data Based on 5 Gm. Sample . . 32 ‘ ““ III. Relative Percentages of Heavy and Light Constituents of Eaton Sandstone Based on 1 Gm. saanle I O O O I I O O O O O O O I O O O O 0' O O 36 , IV} Heavy Mineral Frequency Distribution of Eaton 'r - . ‘- sandStone o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 37 ”51V; Sphericity and Roundness Data . . . . . . . . . . uh LIST OF FIGURES Page Map of Michigan Locating Grand Ledge Area . . . iii Cumulative Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-29 Map of Grand Ledge Area Locating Test Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. Pocket Part vi INTRODUCTION Investigation of coal bearing and related strata of the Pennsylvanian system in Michigan has been carried on since the discovery of coal near Jackson, Michigan in 1835. Down through the years, these strata have been classified ‘ and reclassified by.A. C. Lane, w. M. Gregory, w. E. Cooper, R. A” Smith, R. B. Newcombe and W. A" Kelly, among others.2 1 Throughout these classifications, degrees of uncertainty ~have existed as to problems of correlation, source rock .i;character, source rock location and sedimentary environment. Of the many Pennsylvanian horizons, one particularly : lending itself to sedimentary analysis is the Eaton sandstone‘ |§Igwhich outcrops in the vicinity 0f Grand Ledge, Michigan. ‘1 ‘_have thus chosen the Eaton sandstone as the object of this Egg study in an attempt to throw some light on the problems in- 'f_volved in the classification of the Pennsylvanian stratigraphy r"of Michigan. GENERAL INFORMATION Various methods of sedimentary analysis have been employed in the correlation, stratigraphic position, and classification of sediments. .At present, however, added emphasis is being placed on the adaptation of these methods to include environmental and depositional interpretation. 1 In spite of numerous studies, there remains much dis- agreement and uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the various statistical curves,3 and in the application of sphericity and roundness studies to sedimentary problems.” However, the rigorous examination of quantitative data gath-. I ered from the analyses of sediments of known origin is con-‘. tinually rendering greater validity to interprefations based‘ on statistical criteria. Synthetic studies of sedimentary conditions are also proving valuable in this regard. . One type of study related to the quantitative deters minations referred to above involves the analysis of sedimen- tary features of formations visible in surface exposure. Here, the cross-bedding, ripple marks, fossils and other criteria often establish the directional and environmental aspects of deposition. The latter mode of analysis serves as a basis of comparison for conclusions based on quantita- tive laboratory determinations. 2 ww— ‘— The Pennsylvanian outcrops in the Grand Ledge area are the most extensive of the system in Michigan. Numerous stratigraphic and environmental studies of its composite formations, including the Eaton sandstone, have been made by Kelly. In such studies, the criteria mentioned in the preceding paragraph, i.e., cross-bedding, fossils and ripple marks, were the basis for the interpretation of the deposi- tional aspects of these strata. The formation involved in this investigation forms the ledges, or bluffs, of the Grand River and its tributaries in the northern part of Eaton and the southern part of Clinton counties. The name, Eaton sandstone, was proposed for this formation by Kelly. .According to him, it is post-Saginaw and' a member of the Grand River Group. its true stratigraphic _relation to other sandstones, such as the Woodville;'ionia 'or other strata of this group outcropping elsewhere, has not been determined. Exposures of the Eaton sandstone have not been found outside the Grand Ledge area. I The Eaton is a porous, buff-colored sandstone, having a maximum thickness in outcrop of 50 feet. The lower contact - of this formation with the channel shale of the underlying -Saginaw group is highly undulating, the elevation of this contact varying between 795 and 830 feet above sea level.5 The upper surface of the Eaton is bounded by glacial drift. SAMPLE SELECTION Source of Samples The sandstone samples used in this study were obtained from the bluffs of the Grand River and its tributaries in the ' northern part of Eaton county. The area encompasSing this study lies in Section 2 and 3, TIIN, RESW (map in pocket part). Location of Individual Samples Sample 1‘ Section 2 Location: Corner of bluff at intersection of Grand River and tributary. Sample 2 Section 2 Location: Ten feet southeast of sample 1. rj_. Sample 3 Section 2 i I! Location: 80 feet southeast of sample 1. Sample a Section 2 Location: 300 feet southeast of sample 1. . | '4 I "I v ‘1' 1 El __‘..4”_ 52:. Sample 5 - Section 2 -u—ou -v w . 3 ’ ~q_~ LM‘JL—n‘nd—C‘.= Location: 100 feet southwest of sample 1. -.~ A “Lang-T. 7:1? “W‘I-w‘rr‘iv ' ' ‘. 1 Sample 6 Section 2 Location: 200 feet southwest of sample 1. Sample 7 _ Section 3 Location: Quarry of Grand Ledge Face Brick Company, 3/LI miles N 32°w of sample 1. Sample 8 ' ‘ Section 3 Location: In narrow ravine formed by one of the tributaries of Grand River, 1 mile NSOOW of sample 1. Method of Sampling .As this study includes the directional aspects of deposition, samples were selected in a manner which would provide control in two directions lying approximately at .- ,right angles to each other. The close proximity of samples 1 and 2 was deemed advisable in view of the selection of sample 1 as the reference base. Throughout the selection, an attempt was made to secure samples similar in lithology and vertical position in the formation. ... “Hon-1m“ uu'lr hmr a mum Mia. mam- auMoh-au «adorn.- aiming-a «:‘4! 1'32. “What: ‘L'fii‘s'flig'éd'cii-liiflidkf :9 flirt-I In. 2112?: Fr? 33-1-9 -‘ -::- - - - i -_ _ ~----. ~ - - : \m.erv—. w‘vrwv“ v5! vv-v_v- 7r - .6 ’V ' ' :‘. V |Q ‘ x. ‘ a ' I ‘ . . . -i.: . . . . . _ i . ‘I I ‘ r . -. ‘ u ' . , . ‘ ’ . » . 1 ' V‘ . x _ .. .. , . p . n,- vl‘I—‘v—VV.VT— ’-. "" . .. . ' g.' I '1 ', LABORATORY PROCEDURE General Mechanical, petrographic and statistical methods of study were employed in this analysis. Included are the de-' termination of weight percentages and quartile measures of sorted sieve sizes; roundness and sphericity measurement of quartz grains; insoluble residue determination; and a heavy mineral analysis, including frequency distribution and per— centage of heavy as against light constituents in each sample. Disaggregation of Test Samples .As all of the samples were highly indurated, a pestle served as the primary means of disaggregation.. In this process, grinding was avoided as a precaution against the possibility of fracturing of the individual grains. Further disaggrega- tion was effected by treating the samples with 6b! hydrochlo- ric acid and 30 percent hydrogen peroxide solutions. The samples, thus immersed, were then heated gently for a period of two hours. .Alkalies were not added to the samples for disaggregation purposes because of their possible effect on the mineral grains.6 Subsequent microscopic examination re- vealed the absence of fracture or aggregation of the individ- ual mineral grains. Weighing of Test Samples .A chemical balance was employed for the weighing out of 100.00 gram portions of each sample. Sieve Fractionation In the initial procedure, sieve size 28 was the first to retain any sample material. Thus, sieve sizes 28, 3S, hB, 65, l00 and 150 were used in the first fractionation. .As more than 10 grams of samples 2 and 3 passed through sieve size 150, sieve sizes 200, 230, 270 and 325 were employed to complete the fractionation. .All of the samples were subjected to this second fractionation to effect uniformity in the ac— curacy of the cumulative curves based on this analysis. Each grade size was then weighed and recorded, and the fractions below sieve size 65 were retained in separate containers for possible future reference. Insoluble Residue Determination Five grams of each sample, previously subjected only to the initial crushing process, were placed in a 250 ml. beaker and treated with 25 ml. of oil hydrochloric acid and i 1 ml. of methyl alcohol. The beakers were then covered, and the samples thus treated were left undisturbed for 30 minutes. One hundred ml. of distilled water were then added to each Sample, and the resulting mixture heated to the boiling point. . a-vtmtm‘xn‘ ' : v. v r a i 3, v ’3 , A . “‘4. I .f . -" 495:." ,5; .:.- a] . _ ‘. , _ - 1" ‘:._§3§c-:~ 3m _*W‘flm .v . .' H - ~ - .. A ‘r‘if‘fi‘ ‘J " . “-i c 7‘ vi.) The contents of each beaker were allowed to cool, after which they were passed through separate filter papers which had previously been weighed. The residue remaining on the filter paper was then washed several times with 6DJhydrochloric acid and distilled water. After complete drying the filter papers and associated residue were weighed, the weights being re- corded. Heavy Mineral Identification This phase of the analysis involved a primary separa- tion of the heavy and light constituents which passed through Tyler sieve size 65, but were retained on sieve size 100. This separation was effected with pure bromoform (CHBrs), a heavy liquid having a specific gravity of 2.87 at 20°C.? This is quite sufficient for a separation of quartz (sp.¢gr. 2.66) and feldspar (sp. gr. 2.70) from the heavy minerals. The apparatus employed in the above separation included an upper funnel with attached rubber tubing and stop-cock. .A lower funnel, fitted with filter paper, previously weighed, to retain the heavy minerals and a beaker to collect the bromo- form completed the apparatus. The individual samples were initially dispersed in the upper funnel which had been half filled with pure bromoform. Following thorough agitation of the samples, more bromoform was added to release any mineral grains which had adhered to the sides of the funnel during the stirring process. The samples were subsequently allowed to remain undisturbed until the "heavies" had settled to the bottom of the.funnel. The stop-cock was then loosened allowing the heavies to pass through the upper funnel onto the filter paper emplaced in the lower funnel. .After the contents of the lower funnel had been thoroughly washed with ethyl alcohol, sufficient time was alloted for complete drying of this portion of the sample. The filter papers and the included heavy constituents were then weighed, these weights also being recorded. The remaining bromoform and suspended light constitu- ents were then decanted into clean filter paper which had been weighed before being fitted into the lower funnel. The light fractions were then washed thoroughly with ethyl alco- hol, dried and weighed. These weights were also recorded. The heavy constituents were mounted on separate slides in a medium of piperine (n = 1.66). Excess piperine was re- moved from the edges of the cover glasses with xylol. The prepared slides were then carefully examined with the aid of a polarizing microscope. The main purposes of this examina- tion were the identification of the constituent minerals and the percentage determination of each species present. The primary objectives of this phase of the study were determina- tions of source rock and environmental factors rather than correlation. 10 Determination of Sphericity and Roundness The light minerals collected from the heavy mineral separations were also mounted in piperine, Employing a petrographic microscope and mirror, the grain images were then projected onto a white surface preparatory to measure- ment with Wadell' s circular scale. This scale consists of a series of concentric circles differing in radius by 2 mm. The magnification and projection faCilitated the measurement of the diameter of the smallest circumscribing circle (I), the diameter of the largest inscribed circle (1), and the radius of curvature of the various Corners (r) of the grains examined. These values were then substituted into the. round- ness and sphericity formulas of Riley} According to Riley, the spheric; 11/ of a quartz grain is expressed by the ratio -i-Wh€1‘e I an: i are the circle diameters referred to in the precedxxg ;aragraph Roundness is calculated by the fez-W13 £72.11, where r is the radius of curvature of a give: corner of the quartz grain under consideration, 1 the diam/,2: of the largest in- scribed ci'rcle as above, and N the $3.27 of corners in a given plane. The sphericity and roundness :5 1:12 various samples were thus determined in a procedure 3:31:31 involved the measurement of I, 1, and I‘ for 100 grain of each sample. .. .-.-—-‘-ko—.-n ‘CoobJ._-..L__.‘..' ; . A . . .- . All; “2"!st 54-: I _. .. ‘.I ~D- A r I 1 ' I. ‘ ‘ d I I - I C b. {759;}. 93‘. a?” if; trek: 3191:}. 11-4: 3 . 9 ~ . -so . I.- ‘ - 4:102, ("R'flf—f". a 3 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 0? :ATA Sieve Analysis The method empIOYed in this statistical summary of sieve analysis data is based on quartiles citained graphi- cally from the cumulative curve.9 The quasi-.23 are deter- mined by following the 25, 50, and 75 percent lines on the graph to the right until they intersect the cumulative curve, and then reading the values on the size 5: -e .rhich lie di- rectly below the intersections, The graph :3?” used in Figures 2 to 9 is semi-logarithmic to faci-i:ete reading of interpolated values. The second quartile, associated wit: Ste 50 peggzent ’line, is termed the ’median fi-ameter. Since :13 median diam- eter represents the middleomgt grain, w t2: 3: equal weight frequency of grains on both sides, it is tce :rerage grain diameter of the sediment. The degree of sorting is defined statistically as the extent to which grains SPI’ ea: on either side :5 the average diameter. The wider the 3;fead, the poorer 2:2 sorting. The, sorting coefficient, 50, as developed by Tris}: 11932) is de- fined as the square root Of the ratio of tie lager quartile (the 25 percent value, 01) 2’, the smaller :;.=::ile (the 75 percent value, Q3): 11 $4-'- < J .v‘m“ “-‘I .vm..-.—¢-.HM’H_L4.L IQ-Lml-LA “- A L. _— 'h; 12 SO =VQ1/Q3 The median diameter and sorting coefficient give some indication of the conditions under which a given clastic sediment is formed. The former value, although conclusive authority is still lacking, is generally associated with current capacity. The sorting coefficient is an index of the range of conditions present in the transporting fluid (range of vel- ocity, rate of change of velocity, degree of turbulence, et cetera) and to some extent reflects the distance of transpor- tation. .According to Trask (1932),10 well sorted marine sediments have So values less than 2.5; moderately sorted sediments, values ranging from 2.5 to u.0; and poorly sorted sediments, values larger than u.0. A third statistical measure, skewness, indie'ates the relative degree to which the grains spread out on either side of the median diameter. The significance of this factor, as is the case with the median diameter, remains subject to controversy. In the Eaton sandstone, the sorting coefficient varies from 1.11 to 1.25 (Table 1). .According to Trask these values would normally indicate well sorted marine sediments. It is possible, however, that such excellent sorting might result from channel deposition where lengthy transportation and moderate loads were accompanied by a low rate of decrease of ‘-. ._ :4.‘ I . -u A . . _ s" 5:121; . cu- 13 velocity.11 The Pottsville sandstone, also Pennsylvanian, outcropping in Powell county, Kentucky, illustrates this possibility. Though generally considered to be a channel deposit,12 the Pottsville displays a high degree of sorting in this locality. In regard to classification of the Eaton sandstone, the predominant grain size in all of the test samples lies between .250 and .500 millimeters. Thus, according to Wentworth's classification, the Eaton would be termed a medium sand.13 M1“.- J-t. - ILIJMlir-J w.m‘g‘wd'. [‘5- I. I , i' e a 1 u ' 44:- .s. i '. ‘ —-—'——’ fl is . t i 11» i TABLE 1 g ;~ SIEVE ANALYSIS DATA 3 g) Included in this table are the weights of that part g i of the sample retained by each sieve, the percentage those E E‘ weights bear to the total sample, and the cumulative percent- ; age or total weight percentage that would be retained on a 3‘ given sieve if those above had been removed. 2 5 it Sample 1: 1 1 Weight of test sample: 100 gms. { Weight Retained Weight Cumulative E,{ :. Mesh,/in. gms. % % 1;; 35 ll.u90 11.53 20.85 j' 118 119.835 50.06 70.91 i } 65 18.510 18.59 89.50 ‘;1 100 6.u20 8.15 95.95 i; .150 2.u35 2.uu 98.39 i’fi 1 a 200 1.100 1.11 99.39 :_E 230 .205 .20 99.73 132 '270 .095 .10 99.61 31% . ' 1 -Q1 325 .100 .10 99.73 . 111 l 4 >325 .090 .10 100.20 ‘ ‘5: 99.550 gms. 100.00% 'fi Sieve Loss .h50 gms. *} 1. Per Cent Loss: .h5% 15 Sample 2: Weight of test sample: 100 gms. Weight Retained Weight Cumulative Mesh /in. gms. % % _. 28 1.865 1.88 1.88 i} 35 7.105 7.11 9.02 i uB 88.135 88.58 75.58 E §~ 85 10.810 10.90 86.86 i 100 11.810 11.611 91.10 E 150 3.005 3.02 98.12 '200 1.355 1.38 95.88 i 230 .850 .85 98.1; 270 .5110 .511 96.67 325 .870 .87 97.311 >325 2.6110 2.88 100.00 99-h15 gms. 100.00% Sieve Loss .585 gms. Per Cent Loss: .59% ' 3A- ‘ a 4 — ‘ '. o‘A-L‘I.J - . - 11.1.50; Hcefufl '13. . . . 113': $5191 4'1: ">33? “.1 111.:- '1. . .w.-..e. .u... .L n-«A—‘Z-cL—ltfiragf-w - . e .. - v . ', 4 _ .. n“- . . _. _ I . ..- ... “-4 Ln... .‘g’. l-..2..4 1‘. f. - ._ f. {ab-33 V qnv" -. 1"“;- . x. ,T'P' "'Ql m "-1-“ , .. Sample 3: Weight of Test Sample: 16 100 gms. . Weight Retained Weight Cumulative Mesh /in. 91113. % % 28 3.815 3.83 3.83 35 2.800 2.81 6.28 88 35.800 35.58 81.82 85 37.880 '38.05 79.87 100 10.155 10.20 90.07 150 3.800 3.82 93.89 200 1.805 1.80 95.29 230' .180 .18 95.87 .1. 270 -895 .50 95.97 325 .710 .71 96.68 :>325 3.315 3.32 100.00 99.535 gms. 100.00% Sieve Loss .865 gms. Per Cent Loss: .87% . . '. -‘.u.’ .. . - s \l ‘. ' ......uu..t-_If;.| .- .. I." it :: Jam-II ‘a-i- '. wi- H LIE- 23.1219: $.39 18-05.".‘1: - .1 a ' _ ... .ilmtiéiuésxridzcsss: gamma.“ 1:11. .1114 , Q a“ Sample 8: Weight of Test Sample: 100 gms. . Weight Retained Weight Cumulative Mesh/ in. gms. % % 28 9.825 9.88 9.88 35 6.775 6.80 16.86 88. 11.730 11.93 61.89 65 17.855 17.93 79.82 100 6.580 8.58 85.98 150 8.325 8.38 . 90.32 200 2.070 2.08 92.80 230' .890 .89 92.82 270 .885 .88 93.73 325 1.200 1.20 ’ 98.93 :>325 5.155 5.17 100.00 99.610 gms. 100.00% .Sieve Loss: .390 gms.. Per Cent Loss: .39% Sample 5: Weight of Test Sample: 100 gms. Mesh,/in. Weighémgetained Weéght Cumuéative 28 6.355 6.38 6.38 35 5.785 5.79 12.17 88 . 38.205 38.35 50.52 85 25.755 25.88 , 76.80 100 . 8.230 8.28 » 88.66 150 8.765 8.79 89.85 200. ' 2.235 2.25 91.70 230 ° .875 .88 9238 270 .780 .78 93.18 325 2.355 2.37 95.53 ;>325 . 8.850 8.87 100.00 99.565 gms. 100.00% Sieve Loss: .835 gms. Per Cent Loss: .88% 19 Sample 6: Weight of Test Sample: 100 gms. Weight Retained Weight Cumulative Mesh /in. gms. % % 28 5.275 5.30 5.30 35 9.380 9.82 18.72 88 88.965 89.16 . 63.88 85 29.885 29.95 93.83 100 2.315 2.32 96.15 150 1.365 1.38 ' 97.53 200 1.105 1.11 98.68 230 .350 .35 98.99 270 .800 .80 99339 325 .195 .20 99.59 :>325 .810 .81 1 100.00 99.605 gms. 100.00% Sieve L655: .395 gms. Per Cent Loss: .80% fw-rgh-Jg-Qdm-IIl-‘ijflagfl Lu: mags-.24, - . .. 20 Sample 7: Weight of Test Sample: 100 gms. Weight Retained Weight Cumulative Mesh/in. ' gms. % % 28 3.200 3.21 3.21 35 8.820 8.88 12.07 88 81.280 61.58 73.81 65 11.050 11.10 88.71 100 5.080 . 5.11 89.82 150 3.285' 3.28 93.10 200 1.980 1.97 95.07 230 .370 .37 _ 95.88 270 .390 .39 95.83 325 .630 .63 96.86 :>325 3.520 3.58 100.00 99.565 gms. 100.00% Sieve L055: .835 gms. Per Cent Loss: -88% 21 Sample 8: Weight of Test Sample: 100 gms. Weight Retained Weight ‘ Cumulative Mesh /in. gms. ’ % % 28 1.395 1.81 1.81 35 1.865 1.88 3.29 88. 15.085 15.13 18.82 85 511.915 55.20 73.82 100 15.8110 15.92 . 89.58 150 . 8.530 8.55 98.09 200 1.585' 1.56 95.65 230 1.035 1.011 98.89 _ .- 270 .280 .28 96.93 325 .1170 .117 97.110 :>325 2.590 2.60 100.00 99.870 gms. 100.00% Sieve Loss: .530 gms. Per Cent Loss: .53% dd Figure 2 mo. 75: couofign. N. no. 13. 0N tillmm o: "N.“ mcfiuuow oo ow 00H Aoév hwflflsdn . mo. Ho . No no :0 O. . no._e: ao . . _ _ 8 G ON 23~ Figure 3 oo.~ meaaeow Percent Weight - l, -.1: A . ooa “‘- ~..‘ ..-.~ 28 Figure 8 mo. A.szv.eoawsaan NW 8:, on rlllllu AH.H meaaeom - JL._'- - ..._ -._ -.L .1 I 1 n unassm 0N mm o: om 00 mp ow 00H 'Percent Weight C? Figure 5 m. ~.§1w|ll.l:(..3~§31 - - - - Jb -- \ -» n 1.1..1. cm 7111!! MN mm; mdauuom _ o: oo 1 I I 1 c> In Percent Weight 111.2 om : umgsmm cod s1 v.- {flu .sfis.m 1 I!!!" . 1.... «5.0.1.. I. u unlit .I I... v. .-\.. us... \a 6.. l (J ‘Inli . . .vuiil. .0 E - 8.5.1... u... . ... Illi .1. . . (Illi 1 . 4 . 4 I141 . 2. 5.. Ol'l'l .1; - . all... I: . H” 1. 1 iii . . - .. s . .91 1.1 . 9 I 4 1 1.5.8.»: .I . 4 . 1.. :1. .3111! i . 1 . .Mmiiocprfludrnflaf... ...I.n1..m.1u.1.(m..l x .Jit.1fl§1uue¥. 1.118....LME189H811HN11ulxrvlsimlla .... 0.. .11 . «4.1. . . .1 -1|.. . -11- .1 (1:11, 1 1 11-111 I1((1-..1111!- - 111} 1.1.. «H1. 1.1.1.... 4.- . -. .08....L1111... .3- - .1 1H .11.“, am-.. .81.... w :i n r. 1 1'1 1 1| :1 E .1 ‘. N1 ’8 ' 26' “.529 uuuosdma mo. 3. .‘ m. n. s. e. 8 . u ON .. t. _ 0: Figure 6 mm." meaaeom ._ 00 Percent Weight 1 ll. OOH V m ofiasaw 27 Figure 7 mo. A353 .2533 an N. qb — ¢ - _-- : . w mcaauom l"l ow o vfigsdw OOH Percent'Weight 3.0:. . .3 (31...: . 28 ..i. . I. u .1111111llillllulin ”...: .. ‘ ... . . . ,. ., ...: . 'v .. . i L ‘5 .Lr KI I .x . v y .. firyilW.‘ a. ‘I . .1. .IaLhNh. ...aflflu. s. r. ti .. 3.. “II.“ II Figure 8 is: $353 mo. , . H. No no . :0 00 no. E. .5 d . . \ _ . _ . . . _ T _ — I. ll .0 0| III II. I ’ ll . . _ . E «1 1| . . . . v in ...! .1 Li I! III II I. mm." acapuow _. b . . _|I\\\. F 233 ON mm o: om 00 mp ow OOH Percent Weight 1.....-.:....................-eii:- --fii- - ff] u . .3qu -1 -753 uuawmda .. 1.5-1:.-- - I mo. H. No we do 0. firo 4w: . “.0 C L . _ _ a . -.-... ..-- 1-21.5.7.-. Y _ . I.‘z|.-a||!.l-lil-ls ..... -i . .Y t 9 _. m. 9 m w. 2 m. . t 1 .2.” 9.33m . n F e C r n T i . \ ------........--..m... om IIIIIIIII‘I «.1 00H w 3955 LE — nun. . ' mvr-_._ 30 TABLE I Part 2 The values in this part of Table I, referred to under "Analysis and Interpretation of Data" were obtained by plotting cumulatiue percentage against sieve size on semi-logarthmic graph paper. Samples Md Q1 03 So 5kg Log 50 1 .362 .ulo .280 1.21 1.07 .083 2 .310 .351 .295_ 1.09 1.07 .038 3 .285 .311 .225 1.17 1.08 .071 u .317 .382 .2hh 1.25 1.03 .098 5 .297 .310 .218 1.25 1.09 .097 6 .296 .350 .286 1.11 .936 .ouu 7 .390 ..820 .283 1.22 1.11 .086 8 .258 .287 .208 1.19 1.05 .07h 31 Insoluble Residues The quantity of soluble material in the Eaton serves as a measure of the calcareous cement in this sandstone. In. the Eaton, the soluble material varied from .5 to 5.6 percent of the entire sample (Table II). Thus, as previously indicated in the disaggregation process, as well as in sphericity and roundness determination, the cement is largely siliceous. Heavy Mineral Analysis The heavy constituents of the Eaton sandstone varied from 1.5 to 3 percent of the entire sample (Table III). This. 6 small proportion of ”heavies" would tend to indicate a Second-. ary source for the_Eaton.¥u .As the components of a particular rock type are reworked, unstable minerals, such as hornblende_ and biotite tend to break down as a result of the weathering process, and thus the heavy mineral content of a sediment is inversely proportional to the sedimentary generation. 1 Another important consideration in the heavy mineral analysis involves the mineral suites present and the frequency of the individual suite minerals (Table IV). Zircon is the predominant ”heavy" in each of the samples, varying from 66.7 percent of the "heavy" content in sample 1 to 88.6 percent in sample 8. ‘Tourmaline is also quite prominent in each of the samples, ranging from 6.9 percent in sample 2 to 16.1 percent in sample 1. Garnet and cassiterite are the only other ‘* __._. ~Efi_ . iul<.q 11.14 . 32 TABLE II INSOLUBLE RESIDUE DATA BASED ON 5 GM. SAMPLE - V % Sample No. Gms. Insoluble Sample 1 Weight of filter paper 1.020 Weight of filter paper and residue 5.870 Weight of residue h.850 97 Sample 2- Weight of filter paper .030 Weight of filter paper and residue 5.8h5 - Weight of residue n.815 96.5 mm Weight of filter paper 1.020 Weight of filter paper and residue 5.995 Weight of residue >' , h.975 99.5 Sample E . ' Weight of filter paper 1.070 Weight of filter paper and residue 5.965 Weight of residue h.895 97.9 Sample 5 Weight of filter paper 1.030 Weight of filter paper and residue 5.750 Weight of residue u.720 9h.h Sample 6 weight of filter paper 1.055 Weight of filter paper and residue 5.825 Weight of residue n.770 95.h Sample 7 Weight of filter paper 1.020 Weight of filter paper and residue 5.8u5 Weight of residue 4.825 96.5 Sample 8 Weight of filter paper 1.030 Weight of filter paper and residue 5.9 0 Weight of residue n.920 98.8 33 ”heavies" occurring consistently in significant amounts, the 'former varying from 1 percent in sample n to in percent in sample 2, and the latter from 2 percent in sample 1 to 12 percent in sample 6. Kyanite and staurolite are present in minor amounts in all of the test samples, but monazite, also occurring sporadically, is absent from samples 2 and 3. The high proportion of zircon to the other heavy min- erals in each sample is likely an indication of thorough 'weathering, rather than a reflection of the mineral content in the original source rock. ZirCOn, as well as the rest of the above mentioned suite minerals, generally occurs in very’ minor amounts in igneous rocks, and an attempt to hypothesize an igneous rock with Zircon occurring in such relative promi- nence as indicated by the suite percentages, seems hardly 15 feasible. However, Dryden and Dryden, in a study of the comparative rates of weathering of heavy minerals, found that zircon is much more resistant to weathering than a number of other species. .Arbitrarily establishing the resistance of garnet as 1, they compiled the following table based on a study of the Maryland-Pennsylvania region. Zircon . . . . . . . . . 100 Tourmaline . . . . . . . 80 Sillimanite . . . . . . no Monazite . . . . . . . . no Chloritoid . . . . . . . 20 Kyanite . . . . . . . . 7 3’4 Hornblende . . . . . . . 5V Staurolite . . . . . . . 3 Garnet (taken as) . . . l Hypersthene . . . . . . 1- Thus, if resistance to weathering is accepted as the major determinant of the heavy mineral assemblage of the Baton sandstone, zircon occurred in considerably greater proportion than tourmaline or monazite in the original source Arock. In reference to Table IV, the proportion of zircon in the original source rook but slightlyexceededthat of kyanite‘ and staurolite, while that of garnet sizeably surpassed the original proportion of zircon. ..Another consideration involves the effect of trans-1 portation on a given heavy mineral assemblage. Prior to a 16 study by Russell, it was generally assumed that there also existed a definite, well defined transportation resistance series among the "heavies." In this series, garnet was be- lieved to be highly resistant to the effects of transporta- tion, while the amphiboles and pyroxenes were assumed to be rapidly eliminated by breakage and decomposition during transportation. In Russell's analysis, based on samples collected from the Mississippi River between Cairo, Illinois and the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 1100 miles), marked progressive downstream changes in mineral composition were lacking. Though a slight downstream decrease in pyroxene was noted, no trend whatever in the percentage of amphibole 35 was discernible. Russell concluded, therefore, that the pyroxenes and amphiboles were more resistant to abrasion and far more persistent than previously assumed. .Also, if they were absent from a Sediment, it is likely that this sediment-was derived from a source already free of these species, or that they had been dissolved from the sediment subsequent to its deposition. Thus, in general, preferential effects in regard to composition as a result-of transporta-. tion appear to be quite insignificant. Another application of the heavy mineral data deals with the consideration of whether the immediate sourcerock of the original sediment was an igneous or metamorphic rock. It also furnishes an indication of the mineral content ofthe original source rock. .Regarding the former, the presence of garnet, kyanite and staurolite indicates a period of dynamo- metamorphism in the ultimate conversion process. .As for mineral content of the original source rock, the occurrence .of'zircon and monazite attest to a rather acid igneous rock. Thorough reworking of the original sediment is postu- lated, due to the high degree of roundness expressed by the mineral zircon. The presence of relatively well-rounded 1? tourmaline grains supports this contention. 36 TABLE III RELATIVE PERCENTAGES OF HEAVY AND LIGHT CONSTITUENTS OF EATON SANDSTONE BASED ON 1 GM. SAMPLE (H-HEAVY.MINERALS, L-LIGHT MINERALS) H -% a: Sample No. Gms. H L Sample 1 Weight of filter paper 1.0h0 Weight of filter paper and constituent 1.065 Weight of constituent .025 2.5 97.5 . Sample 2 ' 'Weight of filter paper 1.060 Weight of filter paper and constituent 1.085 Weight of constituent - .025 2.5 97.5 . - Sample 3 Weight of filter paper 1.010 Weight of filter paper and constituent 1.030 “Weight of constituent .020 2.0 98.0 sample 4 Weight of filter paper 1.065 Weight of filter paper and constituent 1.085 Weight of constituent .020 2.0 98.0 Sample 5 Weight of filter paper 1.015 _Weight of filter paper and constituent 1.0h5 Weight of constituent .030 3.0 97.0 Sample 6 Weight of filter paper 1.015 Weight of filter paper and constituent 1.0u0 Weight of constituent .025 2.5 97.5 Sample 7 Weight of filter paper .995 Weight of filter paper and constituent 1.010 Weight of constituent .015 1.5 98.5 Sample 8 Weight of filter paper 1.0u0 Weight of filter paper and constituent 1.070 Weight of constituent .030 3.0 97.0 TABLE IV 37 HEAVY MINERAL FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF EATON SANDSTONE Included are the recorded values derived from the isolation and identification of the heavy mineralsin the eight samples on which conclusions relative'UDthe heavy mineral content of the Eaton are based. . Sample 1 Mineral Zircon -Tourmaline Garnet Cassiterite Kyanite StaurOlite~ Monazite Total Grains Sample 2 Mineral Zircon Tourmaline Garnet Cassiterite Kyanite Staurolite Total Grains No: of Grains . 58 1 nito F'TU 03;: No. of Grains MAB 35 111 Mineral % 66.7' 16.1 9.2 2.3 1.1 2.3 Mineral ..i.... 88.5 6.9 2.8 1.2 .11 .2 100.0 38 .v TABLE IV (Continued) Sample 3 ° ' ,f p ' Mineral Q; Mineral. No. of Grains- Zircon' 128 71.9 Tourmaline ' . ' 28 . 15.7 TZ; . Garnet 12 6.7 ”" ‘ Cassiterite 7 3.9 Kyanite 1 .6 Staurolite . '2 1 1.2 ' Total Grains 178—. 100.0 S_am£l_e_)+_ . > 1 Mineral Mineral , ' No. of Grains , % Zircon . , _ 370 p 87.1 Tourmaline ‘ 39 7 9.2 Garnet, ‘ ' '1 ‘ ' .2 Cassiterite 5 1.2 Kyanite 7 1.6 Staurolite 1 .2 Monazite 2 .5 Total Grains 1.1—25- 100.0 §2E212_§3 Mineral EEEEEEL No. of Grains .___£___ Zircon I 8&1 87.3 Tourmaline h2 8.h Garnet 8 1.6 Cassiterite 5 1.0 Kyanite 3 .6 Staurolite 2 .h Monazite __1_' .2 Total Grains 502 100.0 39 , ‘ TABLE IV (Continued) 7; L Sample 6 Mineral Mgpgppl_ No. of Grains X Zircon h63 87.3 Tourmaline MI 7.8 Garnet 5 .9 Cassiterite’ 12 2.3 Kyanite fl .2 Staurolite 6 1.1 Monazite 2 .h Total Grains 530' 100.0 BEEELE_Z Mineral Mipgpgl No. of Grains .__JE._2 Zircon #56 86.7 Tourmaline no 7.6 Garnet 9 1.7 Cassiterite 8 1.5 Kyanite 6 1.1 Staurolite 3 .6 Monazite h .8 Total Grains 526' 100.0 —E———5am 18 8 Mineral Mineral No. of Grains % Zircon h52 88.6 Tourmaline 39 7.7 Garnet 10 1.9 Cassiterite 3 .6 Kyanite 3 .6 Staurolite 2 .h Monazite l .2 Total Grains, 510— 100.0 :8 no Sphericity and Roundness ‘The sphericity and roundness of the Eaton sandstone should lend an indication as to the direction of deposition and as to the environment in which this sandstone was de- posited.” Sphericity, the first characteristic to be considered, .is, in part, a function of the relation between the surface, area and volume of a particle. A.sphere has the least sur- 'face area of any shaped particle for a given volume, and as the shape departs from that ofva sphere, the ratio of surface area to volume increases. This relation affects the resist- ance which the particle offers to movement by a fluid. If movement is by suspension, grains of low sphericity tend to be concentrated downcurrent and at the site of final deposi- tion. On the other hand, if movement is dominantly by rolling, there is a tendency toward the opposite result, as grains of high sphericity roll more easily and rapidly than flatter grains of low sphericity, and thus tend to outdistance the flatter ones.18 In general, the sphericity of pebbles increases with the distance of travel, thus giving an indication that rolling is the more prominent means of transport as a sediment ap-' proaches sand grade. Russell and Taylor (1937), however, observed a decrease in sphericity of Mississippi River sands downstream from Cairo.19 . 1 , y» J'. V. ‘F-‘W'V' _jlflm thaw-4"“ _ __;,__ .___ _ , _ , 1 . . ' '51" r'wyvxpr-r- pf'rrr‘l'fi‘t .' “ .ii. 1' 111 .As defined by Wadell (1932)20 roundness is expressed as: Average radius 0f corners and edges Radius of maximum inscribed circle When the corners and edges are sharp, the average radius is small and the roundness low; but when the average radius ofn the corners approaches that of the inscribed circle, the ' roundness value approaches its maximum of 1.0. Roundness of pebbles increases in the direction of . transport in the absence of severe breakage. Large angular particles, moreover, tend to round more rapidly than small ones. Rapidity of rounding is also influenced by the hard? ness of the particles under_consideration. Limestone pebbles thus tend to round quite rapidly, while chert pebbles may re- main quite angular for great distances of travel. In considering the directional aspect of deposition as interpreted from this particular analysis, the sphericity of the Eaton increased in a northwesterly direction, varying progresSively, with the exception of sample 2, from .572 in sample n to .6h7 in sample 1 (Table V). Sphericity also in- creased in a northeasterly direction, varying progressively from 559 in sample 6 to .687 in sample 1. The roundness in- creased successively in a northwesterly direction with a figure of .087 being recorded for sample n and that of .221 for sample 1 (Table V). As was the case in the sphericity determination, the roundness also increased toward the north- east, varying from .083 in sample 6 to .221 in sample 1. a ..f‘ j.“ ”H- rr‘fiv—y— [hp—V‘ . dc.“ ...-r -tr‘y v g- 6- - ... .-;—.. ha Sample 2 also as above, alone had an anomalous value. Samples 7 and 8 represent the only other known out- crops of the Eaton sandstone. Anomalous values were recorded for both samples, with the possible exception of a sphericity value of .656 for sample 8. The roundness in both cases was .103, while the sphericity of sample 7 was .605. Since, as noted above, sphericity and roundness gen- erally increase in the direction of transport, deposition of the Eaton would be inferred to have proceeded in a northerly, possibly a northeasterly, direction. This inference is based W on the fact that although sphericity and roundness increased in both northeasterly and northwesterly directions, the in- crease toward the northeast was slightly sharper. Thus, the relatively small sphericity increase in sample 8 may, in part, be attributed to a greater divergence from.the actual direc- tion of deposition than was the case in the consideration of samples 1 and A. .Any environmental interpretation would seemingly have to be based on sphericity and roundness studies of deposits 21 have compiled such of known origin. Krumbein and Sloss data covering a variety of depositional environments. In j their tabulation, however, roundness alone showed an environ- ' mental variation. The roundness of marine sediments evaluated therein varied from .60-.65, while that of sediments of con-- tinental origin ranged from .30-.35. Thus, using the above tabulation as a basis for evaluation, the Eaton sandstone, ...—b. __ -4- ¢ . ~‘. _ fi-ra‘wli. "‘ . .w'v-p—F “ F's—1" r viz—r - 5" .. '0- . 2.- h3 in which the roundness varied from .083 in sample 6 to .236 in sample 2, would be considered a continental, as opposed to a marine sediment. uh TABLE'V SPHERICITY.AND ROUNDNESS DATA Herein are recorded values of sphericity and roundness of the Eaton which serve as the basis for directional and en- vironmental interpretations. Sample 1 Sphericity:, .6u7 Roundness: .221 Sample 2 (Sphericity: '.613 ,Roundness: .236 Sample 3 Sphericity: .618 ' Roundness: .156 Sample 4 Sphericity: .572 Roundness: .087 Sample 5 Sphericity: .617 Roundness: .106 Sample 6 Sphericity: .559 . Roundness: .083, Sample 7 Sphericity: .605 . . Roundness: .103 Sample 8 Sphericity: .656 Roundness: .103 5111mm In Kelly's analysis of the Eaton sandstone, a conti- 22 This inter- nental origin was proposed for this formation. pretation, as referred to previously, was based on megascopic characteristics, such as cross-bedding, ripple marks, fossils, et cetera. In the quantitative analysiscompleted by the__7 -writer, a similar interpretation is_genera11yindicated. I I Sieve analysis data reveals the excellent degree of. ' sorting present in the formation. ‘However,,sorting such as Ipresent herein, although generally characteristic of sediments) ofmarine origin, might result from channel deposition where lengthy transportation and moderate loads were accompanied by a low rate of decrease of velocity. In the insoluble residue determination, negative values may be'of some significance. A substantial content of calcar- eous material, generally indicative of marine sedimentation, was not in evidence in any of the samples. The results of the heavy mineral analysis reveal that. either the Eaton sandstone is not a first generation sediment, or that if it is the result of a single cycle of sedimentation, its depositional environment was one receiving sediments from an area of thorough weathering. Transportational effects (Russell) are considered to be of minor importance in deter- mining the heavy mineral content of a sediment. 115 M6 The sphericity and roundness study made possible both Idepositional and environmental interpretations. Progressive changes in both sphericity and roundness indicated that dep- osition proceeded in a northerly direction. As for the'en; vironmental interpretation, roundness alone proved to be significant. Consistent with recorded values of roundness for the Eaton and the tabulation by Krumbein and 81053523‘ . would be an interpretation of this formation as having a T. ' continental origin.. . I I) . Thus, the." results gathered fromthe quantitative methods employed in the writer's analysis tend to support 5 Kelly's findings regarding the depositional environment of Ithe Eaton sandstone, and yield data indicating an inference as to the direction of deposition of this formation. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Further study of the Pennsylvanian formations near Grand Ledge should include quantitative analyses of the ‘ cyclical formations exposed in that area. The Ionia sand- stone, outcropping in the Grand River valley near Ionia, and the Woodville sandstone which outcrops in Jackson'countyTE Ishould also be studied quantitatively.) Interpretations res suiting from these analyses should provide additional bases ’ of comparison, which in turn may aid in alleviating sone‘ problems of classifiCation of the Pennsylvanian in Michigan. h? 10. 11. 12. 13. 1h. BIBLIOGRAPHY - Kelly, W. A" (1936). "Pennsylvanian System of Michigan,” Occasional Papers on the Geology of Michigan, Lansing, p. 207. . Kelly, W. A”, p. 156. . Krumbein, W. C., and Pettijohn, F. J. (1938). Manual of Sedimentary Petrography. New York:.Appleton-Century- Crofts,.Inc., p. 220. .7_ . . .' Krumbein, w. C., and Pettijohn, F. 1., p. 277. . Kelly, W,.Au, pp. 207-213. Krumbein, W. C., and Pettijohn, F. J., p. h9._ . Krumbein, W. C., and PettiJohn, F. J., p. 329; . Riley, N. A. (19hl). "Projection Sphericity," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. II, No. 2, pp. 9h-97. . Krumbein, W. C., and Sloss, 1.1. (1951). Stratigraphy ‘ and Sedimentation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, pp. 73-75. ‘ Krumbein, W. C., and Sloss, L. L. quoted: Trask, P. D. (1932). Origin and Development oijource Sediments of Petroleum. ‘Houston, Texas: Gulf Pub. Co. Twenhofel, w. H. (1950). Principles of Sedimentation. New York: McGrawbHill Book Company, Inc., p. 215? Twenhofel, W. H., p. 310; Krumbein, W. C., and Pettigohn, F. J. (1938) quoted: Wentworth, C. K. (1922 . RA-Scale of Grade and Class Terms for Clastic.Sediments,” Jour. Geology, Vol. 30, pp. 377-392. Pettijohn, F. J. (l9ul). "Persistence of Heavy Minerals and Geologic.Age," Jour. Geology, Vol. XLIX, No. 6, » August-September, pp. 610-625. MB MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES III" III! llll II III“ II ”III 9 1 7 5 312 30 08 37 4