A PJrl'ROGRA?HIC STUDY OF THE COLUDt13 A1m :mll.AWAlUI LIHESTODS IN FRANKLIN A!fD DELAWARE OOUNTIES A The.l. Presented ln Partial FUlfillment of the Requlrement. tor the Degree Kaster of Sclenoe B7 CLARElroE VICTOR MOORE, JR.. B.A. The Ohio state UnlVdrsit7 1961 Approved 'b71 Adviser ACltNOWl..EDOY'lmTS The writer wishes to acknowledge tbe aid and counsel of Dr. Charles H. Summe~aon. of the Department ot Geology, the Oh10 State Unl~er81t7, who suggested thie problem and who supervised the pre~arat1on of the manusoript. The writer is also indebted to Dr. George Koore tor the Iden­ tifioation of certain minerals and to Dr. C. A. Lamey to~ valuable augaeetion8 as to arrange.ent of the text. Thanks are also due the quarry ownerB who gave permls810n to study and oollect samples from their Quarries. 1 878125 CONTEftS Aoknowledpent...................................... Page .. Introduction••••••••••••••••••• II ••••••••••••••• II • • • • 1 Statement 01 the pro'lem......................... 1 Area co.ered..................................... 2 Pb7aiogra.ph1•••••••• II.. •• ••• • ••• •• •• ••• • ••• •• •• •• 2 Stratigraphy•••••••••••••••••••••••• II............ 2 General statement............................. 2 Columbus limestone............................ 3 Delaware liae6~D............................. 6 Location ot Seotion................................. , scioto quarry BeotloD............................ , Dublin quarr7 8eetloD............................ 8 Hill Creek section............................... 8 Klondlke quar~ aeotlen.......................... 8 Petrographic Methods Applieable to this Problem••••• 13 Sampling metbod.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13 Laboratory techniqu•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13 PrepAration of insoluble residues••••••••••••• 16 Etching m.thod•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 16 Kloro8copl0 examination•••••••••••••••••••••••••• l' Types ot insoluble residue•••••••••••••••••••• 18 S1lioa••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 18 il OO~NTS (cont.) Pas­ Shale aDd 811t ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 20 Pyrlte . 23 Yo.ell••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23 Other .in.ral•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 26 Etched a~rtaeea•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29 Dl.tr1butloDa of Insoluble Residue••••••••••••••••••.. 36 OOBolu.1ona '. • 46 Appendix.. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .. • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • 48 Keaeured 8eet10D••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 46 Reterencea 01\84••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 64 lti ILLUSTRATIONS Page Plat. I. Correlation chart of the Columbus and Delaware 1~e5tones••••••••••••••••••••• 10 II. i1". 1. Exposure ot the Scioto quarry eeetion••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12 '1g. 2. ExpoQure ot the Dublln quarr, ~ection••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12 III. FiS. 1. Expoz:;ure of the Klondike quarry .eotioD••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 IV. Fig. 1. A '7Plcal apealmen ot quartz•••••• 22 FiS- 2. AuthigeniC quartz crystals•••••••• 22 V. Fig. 1. A typical specimen ot pyrit•••••••• 25 Y1S' ~. Specimena of silicified crinoid stems . 25 VI. Fig. 1. s;Jher leal fora.minife:.c'8 and a spiral gastropod•••••••••••••••••••••••• 28 Yil' 2. Jragmente of fiah teeth and spores 28 VII. FiS' 1. Etohed apeolmen from zone »••.••• 31 FtC' 2. Etched specimen from upper COlurrlbu8 limestone•••••••••••••••••••••• 31 VIII. Fl~. l. ~tohed s~ecimen from uppex Columbus li.eston••••••••••••••••••••••• 33 Flg. 2. Etched. specimen trom upper ColumbuB lime~~on@ •••••••••••••••••••••• 33 IX. Fii' 1. I: t ened epe c lmen fl'om upper Columbua 1Ime8ton••••••••••••••••••••••• 35 X. Graph of the Scioto quarry section••••••••• 38 XI. Graph ot the Dublin quarry section•••••••• 39 XIX. Graph ot the Klondike quarry section••••• 40 i'Y ILLUSTRATIOBS (cont.) Pase XIII. Graph of tbe Kill Creek section••••••••• 41 71sure 1. Index map at Hldd1e Devonian of Ohio...... 5 2. Kap .howlns colleoting s1t................ , • A PETROGRAPHIC STUDY OF THE COLIDlBUS AND DELAWARE LIMESTONES IN FRAllKLllf AND DELAWARE cousrrss l!T110DQCT;I°1 At the lusseetion of Dr. Charles H. Summerson. a p.t~ographic study of the Columbus and Delaware 11me­ atones has been undertaken. Preltminary etudie. were made with samples colleoted from tbe Harble Clitf quarry. The purpose was twofold: firet, to determine the potential reSUlts of a petro­ graphic study, and second. to work out a satisfaotory procedure for the two l~estone formations involved. §IAI!.I§1il 01 TI§ Pij01ItB Thia petrographic investigation cODsists primarily ot a study and description of insoluble residues. AD attellpt was made to reoognize the stratigraphic su'bdi­ vie10Ds by use of insoluble residues. Histograms showing tbe peroentage and description of the insoluble residues ••re plotted for the two limeatone formations. It i8 boped tbat the insoluble residue data may be useful 1n oo~relatini other exposures and subaurface limestones .1th the Columbus and Delaware limestones in Franklin and Delaware Counties. Ettorts were also made to determine the texture and distribution ot insoluble rea1dueo by etohins a number of specimens tram each scction oollected. 1 2 AUA gOYIm The area covered 1s in Franklin and Delaware Ooun­ t1••, extending from Columbus north to Delaware. Th. orisinal and tbe moat intensive work on the Columbus and Delaware 11mestones bas been done in this area; therefore, it was chosen for the first ot several petrographio 8tudies of the.e ltmeston... Samples were COllected from several quarries and stream beds within the area under investigation. fJ1I§I°P1W:HI The region under discussion 18 in the eastern part ot the Tl11 Plains section of the Central Lowland prov­ IDce. Pleistoaene ice sheet. lett a cOYer ot drift whioh vari•• 1n thickness tram aeveral feet to more than 100 te.t In places. However, the bedrock is exposed 1n quar­ ries, road cut., and along east and west-flowing tribu­ taries of the Sc10to and Olentangy Rivers. Tbis region, whioh 18 part ot the Scloto drainage ~.ln. bas an average relief ot only 36 teet. This gives a relatively level topographic express10n to the surfaco. §!BATIGRAPBl General Statement The stratigraphic section discussed in this paper 'elongB to the Kiddle Devonian of Ohio and has been Bub· J divided into the Columbus and Delaware limestones and the Olentangy shale. Field and laboratory work was restrioted to the limestone formations. The Middle Devonian 1n cen­ tral Ohio discontormably overlies the Monroe dolomite ot Silurian age and is dlsconformably overlain by the Ohio shale ot Upper Devonian age. The Columbus and Delaware l1me~tone5 are expoeed in three belts: the most prominent is a belt ten miles wide, extending through the oenter at the atate from Pickaway County to Lake Erie; a second belt 1s in the Bellefontaine district ot Logan and Chwspaign Counties; a third outs aeross the northwestern COrner of the state in abroad arc. The rocks ot the first and second belts have an aT­ erase easterly dip at 25 teet per mile, whereas those or the third belt bave a gentle northweater.ly dip. (See ttS' 1.) COLIDmUS LmESTOlm The Columbus limestone was named by v, \7. lttather 1Jl 18&9 for the limestone encountered While drilling an ar­ tesian well at the State House (Mather, 1859, p. 25.). The orlsinal term included both of the formations known today aa the Columbus and the Delaware l~eetoneB. Later Orton confined the name Columbus to the lower part, which baB a very high lime content. stauffer (1906) made a study ot the Middle Devonian 4 formations and on the basil of tossils and lithology sub­ divided the Columbus and Delaware limestones into zones ranging from A to M. For descriptive convenience, he di­ vided the Oolumbus limeatone into an upper and lower unit (StaUffer, 1911, pp. 25-38.). Westgate (1926. pp. 22-23.) made a stUdy of the Co­ lumbus limestone in Delaware County and found Stauffer'. ZODes uDreoognizable by anyone unac~ualnted with f08sila. He therefore divided the COlumbus l~estone into tour parts whiCh can be easily recognized by physical charao­ teristics. Westgate's divisions are as follows: Belle. point member, Stauffer's A and B zonea. Coral layer, Stauffer'. C zone. Spirifer macrothyria. Stauffer's lower R zone; and Klondike member. Stauffer's E to H zone•• The lower 40 feet, whioh includes Stauffer's A, B, and C zones, consists of a brown magnesian limestone con­ taining much bituminouB matter and scattered masses of Iray chert. Cleavage faces of oalcite can be eeen glis­ tening on freshly exposed durfaoes. The beds are massive and irregular. Fossils are usually rare. however. at the top of zone C there is a coral zone which is about four teet thick where it bas been oD~erved. The upper 65 feet consiets ot crystalline, gray limestone which is ver,y fossiliferous; layers of gray to whit. fossiliferous chert alternating with layers of gray , I •••• _I SfI!W" 0( 0 D' 3't1~S )f:)OWO 38 N Y'NOA]O b~§ d\1W X30NI .18 fl .,w .re .t' 9 6 to brawn limestone oocur in a echert zone N equivalent to zone D of Stauffer; and there are a few thin layers ot iray chert in zone H. The beds are maaoive and regUlar• . some show a north-south jointing. 'l'b.roughou t the thiok­ ness of the Columbus limestone, stylolites are common, •and there have been several ·smooth layers· reported. The most prominent 1s about nine teet below the top ot the formation (Orton. le7F~. p. 610.). Two fish... bone beds marked by aca~tered teeth. plates, and other fish frag­ ments are usually disoernible. The second bone bed 1s u8ually considered to be the top of the Columbus 11me­ stone; however, Westgate (19~3. p. 162.) includes it as ~e