NASA NTRS1996
The origin of the Sudbury Structure and of the associated heterolithic breccias of the Onaping Formation and the Sudbury Igneous Complex have been controversial. While an impact origin of the structure has gained wide acceptance over the last 15 years, the origin of the recrystallized Onaping Formation glasses and of the igneous complex is still being debated. Recently the interpretation of the breccias of the Onaping Formation as suevitic fall-back impact breccias has been challenged. The igneous complex is interpreted either as a differentiated impact melt sheet or as a combination of an upper impact melt represented by the granophyre, and a lower, impact-triggered magmatic body consisting of the norite-sublayer formations. The Onaping Formation contains glasses as fluidal and nonfluidal fragments of various shapes and sizes. They are recrystallized, and our research indicates that they are petrographically heterogeneous and span a wide range of chemical compositions. These characteristics are not known from glasses of volcanic deposits. This suggests an origin by shock vitrification, an interpretation consistent with their association with numerous and varied country rock clasts that exhibit microscopic shock metamorphic features. The recrystallized glass fragments represent individual solid-state and liquid-state vitrified rocks or relatively small melt pods. The basal member lies beneath the Gray and Black members of the Onaping Formation and, where not metamorphic, has an igneous matrix. Igneous-textured melt bodies occur in the upper two members and above the Basal Member. A comparison of the chemical compositions of recrystallized glasses and of the matrices of the Basal Member and the melt bodies with the components and the bulk composition of the igneous complex is inconclusive as to the origin of the igneous complex. Basal Member matrix and Melt Bodies, on average, are chemically similar to the granophyre of the Sudbury Igneous Complex, suggesting that they are genetically related. Our chemical results allow interpretation of the entire igneous complex as a differentiated impact melt. However, they are also consistent with the granophyre alone being the impact melt and the nofite and quartz gabbro beneath it representing an impact-triggered magmatic body. This interpretation is preferred, as it is consistent with a number of field observations. A re-evaluation and extension of structural field studies and of geochemical data, as well as a systematic study of the contact relationships of the various igneous phases of the igneous complex, are needed to establish a Sudbury impact model consistent with all data and observations