Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Review article
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 22 May 2013
Received in revised form
9 January 2014
Accepted 25 January 2014
Available online 13 February 2014
The formation of impact craters is a highly dynamic and complex process that subjects the impacted
target rocks to numerous types of deformation mechanisms. Understanding and interpreting these styles
of micro-, meso- and macroscale deformation has proved itself challenging for the eld of structural
geology. In this paper, we give an overview of the structural inventory found in craters of all size ranges
on Earth, and look into the structures of craters on other planetary bodies. Structural features are discussed here that are caused by i) extremely high pressures and temperatures that occur during the initial
passage of the shock wave through the target rock and projectile, ii) the resulting ow eld in the target
that excavates and ejects rock materials, and iii) the gravitationally induced modication of the crater
cavity into the nal crater form. A special focus is put on the effects that low-angle impacting bodies have
on crater formation. We hope that this review will help both planetary scientists and structural geologists understand the deformation processes and resulting structures generated by meteorite impact.
2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords:
Impact cratering
Simple crater
Complex crater
Shock metamorphism
Oblique impact
1. Introduction
The heavily cratered surfaces of almost all solid planetary
bodies in the solar system emphasize the important role
hypervelocity impacts have played in the formation and subsequent evolution of planets and satellites. The present structure of
planetary crusts has been inuenced by collision processes.
Hypervelocity impacts also pose a threat to human civilization.
The 15-m meteorite impact crater, formed 2007 in Carancas, Peru,
(Kenkmann et al., 2009) or the recent encounter of a 19 m bolide
that exploded in the atmosphere near Chelyabinsk, Russia on Feb.
15, 2013 (Popova et al., 2013) together with the near yby of
asteroid 2012 DA14 on the same day caused a worldwide sensation, and indicate the continued threat we face from impact
events.
The number of impact craters discovered on Earth so far continues to increase; currently 184 are known (Earth impact data
base: http://www.passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase). It is assumed
that hundreds to thousands of impact craters are still undetected
due to their poor state of morphological preservation and their
destruction via erosion. Together with craters that have been
identied, these buried or partly eroded crater structures may
signicantly contribute to the overall structure of the earths crust.
The recognition of these hidden impact structures requires
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Thomas.kenkmann@geologie.uni-freiburg.de (T. Kenkmann).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2014.01.015
0191-8141/ 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
157
kinetic energy of the impacting projectile is instantaneously partitioned into internal energies of projectile and target and
remaining kinetic energies of both the projectile and target. This
conversion results in the generation of shock waves that develop at
the interface of the projectile and target. Shock waves are characterized by an abrupt, nearly discontinuous change in pressure,
temperature and density. They travel through media at a higher
158
159
Fig. 2. Shock-metamorphic features and their corresponding shock stages. A) Close-spaced fracture network in quartzite of the Matt Wilson crater, Australia. Such fracture networks, often displaying stair-stepping displacements, form at pressures below shock metamorphism and are typical for craters but provide no evidence for an impact. B) Shatter
cone from the Steinheim crater, Germany. C) Micrograph of quartz from a sandstone in the Matt Wilson structure, Australia, exhibiting a set of planar fractures and feather features.
D) Micrograph of shocked quartz in a granitic clast from suevite of the Nrdlinger Ries crater, Germany. Multiple sets of planar deformation features (PDFs) along with a planar
fracture and feather features are visible. Crossed polarizers. E) TEM image of shocked quartz from a shock-recovery experiment into quartzite. The quartz grain shows amorphous
PDF lamellae. F) Coesite crystals and diaplectic glass in a suevite sample from the Nrdlinger Ries, Germany. G) EDX element mapping superimposed on SEM-secondary electron
image. The image shows the intensive intermingling of melted iron projectile with welded and comminuted sandstone particles (image courtesy of Tobias Salge). The sample is from
a cratering experiment with a 1 cm steel projectile impacting Seeberger sandstone at 5300 ms1 (Kenkmann et al., 2011). H) Melted quartz (lechatelierite) with schlieren textures
and vesicles. Suevite sample from Seelbronn, Ries.
160
Table 1
Overview of shock-metamorphic features and the shock classication scheme for non-porous rocks. The table data are from Stfer (1984); Stfer and Langenhorst (1994) and
French (1998).
Postshock temperature [ C]
Shock stage
0e8
Ia
8e20
>100
Ib
20e35
>170
II
III
35e45
45e60
>300
>900
IV
V
60e80
>80e100
>1500
>2500
Physical effects
Features
Fracturing
Twinning
Fracturing
Localized amorphization
Growth of high pressure polymorphs
Localized amorphization
Bulk reduction of refractive indices and birefringence
Growth of high pressure polymorphs
Complete amorphization
Complete amorphization
Melting
Bulk melting
Bulk vaporization
Coesite
Diaplectic qtz and fsp glasses
Diaplectic qtz glasses
Vesiculated fsp melt
Melted qtz and fsp
Condensed glass
For non-porous rocks. Data from Stfer (1984), Stfer and Langenhorst (1994) and French (1998).
(Fig. 3A). These numerical results are supported by cratering experiments that demonstrate that shock-induced damage beneath
craters formed by oblique impacts is stronger in the downrange
direction than in up range direction (Ai and Ahrens, 2005). Likewise, the uneven distribution of impact melt in impact structures
like the Ries crater (Stfer et al., 2002) was interpreted to be an
effect of an oblique impact. Stress wave measurements in oblique
impact experiments showed that the magnitude of peak stress is
about twice as large in the target in the downrange direction (Dahl
and Schultz, 2001). Elevated peak stresses also suggest enhanced
damage in the downrange region. For very low-angle impacts
frictional shear heating is strongly enhanced along the projectile/
target interface and increases the amount of vaporization (Schultz,
1996).
Fig. 3. A) Numerical simulations of a 10 km dunite asteroid striking a granitic target at 20 km/s at different angles. Regions of high shock pressures are located downrange relative to
the point of impact. A general reduction of the volume of shocked material occurs at lower impact angles. B) Peak shock pressures calculated from the simulations in A) decrease
with decreasing impact angle, following a simple sinusoidal dependence. (Modied from Pierazzo and Melosh, 2000).
161
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the initial impact, and subsequent formation of the transient crater cavity during the excavation stage. Upon impact, a hemispherical shock wave
passes through the target rocks. Close to the point of impact, rocks are melted or turned to vapor. With increasing distance, the pressure of the shock wave decays and deforms the
rock to different stages of shock metamorphism (SIVeS0). For details of these shock stages see Table 1. The passage of the shock wave sets the target material in motion, following
specic particle paths that either lead to the excavation and ejection of the material in the top third of the transient crater, or to the displacement and downward deection of target
rocks in the bottom two thirds of the transient crater.
162
Fig. 5. Schematic cross-section of a mid-sized impact crater with lithologies formed through the impact cratering process. Near-surface or ejected lithologies include lithic breccias
that can be either monomict or polymict. If a polymict breccia with a clastic matrix contains melt fragments, it is referred to as a suevite. If the matrix itself is composed of melt, it
is referred to as an impact melt rock. In the crater subsurface, monomict breccias commonly are generated through fracturing, faulting and the formation of megablocks. Clastic
breccia dikes are found injected into the crater walls, and melt veins with clastic components, i.e., pseudotachylites, occur in many larger impact structures.
Fig. 6. Impact breccia lithologies. A) Monomict quartzite breccia of the central uplift of the Matt Wilson crater, Australia. B) Polymict lithic breccia (Bunte breccia) of the continuous
ejecta blanket of the Ries crater at Gundelngen, Germany. C) Suevite containing SIV-type melt lumps (black), SIIeIII crystalline fragments, and a lithic groundmass, Ries crater,
Seelbronn, Germany. D) Impact melt rock consisting of a variety of variously shocked crystalline fragments embedded in a melt matrix from the Ries crater, Polsingen, Germany.
163
Injection can either occur via dike formation or by the emplacement of intact rock masses. Dikes usually consist of intensively
cataclastically deformed and uidized rock debris with or without
contribution of melted material (e.g., Wittmann et al., 2004). Such
dikes have sharp contacts with the host rock, and display numerous
branching points with blind terminations. A second type of injection can be observed, e.g., at Meteor Crater (Barringer Crater), AZ,
USA, where coherent blocks are injected into the cavity walls
(interthrust wedges; Poelchau et al., 2009). The emplacement of
dikes and interthrust wedges is a mechanism of thickening and
uplift of the transient crater rim, and leads to an anticlinal doming
of the rock layers above interthrust wedges (Figs. 7 and 8C).
The total elevation of transient crater rims is the sum of uplift
induced by the injection of material into the crater walls and the
deposition of ejecta at the edge of the transient crater. This ejecta is
only moderately displaced and therefore often forms coherent and
intact masses with inverted stratigraphy or monomict breccias. The
proximal ejecta forms an overturned ap (Fig. 7, Fig. 8A and B). In
structural terms this overturned ap is the upper limb of an isoclinal recumbent fold with a circumferential fold hinge.
The excavation ow eld is affected by pre-existing target heterogeneities such as joints. For instance the rectangular joint and
ssure pattern at Barringer Crater, AZ, USA, resulted in a more
efcient excavation ow along the ssures (Eppler et al., 1983;
Poelchau et al., 2009; Watters et al., 2011) than between them
and consequently increased the radius of the cavity along this direction. This led to a strong deviation in circularity and resulted in a
more rectangular planform of crater cavities (Eppler et al., 1983;
Fig. 7. Schematic prole of a crater rim showing macroscopic structures formed during the excavation stage. The excavation ow eld is directed outwards and upwards and leads
to the ejection of target material, which forms an ejecta curtain that is ballistically deposited outside of the crater at progressively further distances. At the crater rim, the most
proximal ejecta forms an overturned ap of coherent to semi-coherent overturned layers, while further outwards the ejecta is sheared and brecciated upon initial deposition due to
the horizontal component of momentum of the ejecta curtain. In the crater wall, material of the excavation ow can be injected into the target rock either in the form of dike
breccias, melt or as coherent blocks, termed interthrust wedges, that lead to an uplift of the target surface. These injections can exploit weaknesses in the target rock that were
formed through spallation effects caused by the interaction of the shock wave with the target surface. Further displacements are observed in top outwards and bottom outwards
thrusting.
164
Fig. 8. Structural features of the excavation stage observed at Barringer Crater, Arizona,
USA (1.2 km diameter). A) Along the crater wall, autochthonous beds of the Kaibab and
Moenkopi Formation are overlain by the allochthonous ejecta, composed mainly of
overturned Kaibab beds. The rock layers are displaced by a radial corner fault by
several tens of meters. Talus covers the lower parts of the crater wall. B) Close up of the
overturned ap, showing uplifted, outwards dipping Moenkopi beds (red color) and
overturned Moenkopi and Kaibab units that were folded along a hinge that strikes
parallel to the crater wall. The crater center is to the left. C) Competent blocks were
thrust into the crater as an interthrust wedge, causing anticlinal doming and localized
uplift in the crater rim. D) Close up of a radial corner fault. The shear displacement
occurs along sub-vertical fault planes that lead to local drag folds of the layered
bedrock. Note the step-wise displacement of the Kaibab-Moenkopi contact in the
anastomosing system of faults.
165
Fig. 9. Typical exposure of the continuous ejecta blanket of the Ries crater on top of target rocks outside the crater. A) Radial striations are observed outside of the crater rim on the
target surface, caused by the outward ow of the ejecta blanket. In the sub-surface, top-outwards directed shearing displaces karst cleavages at the Gundelsheim quarry 7 km
outside the Ries crater. The detachment exploits weaknesses of the rock layers that were opened during spallation processes. B) Numerical simulation of the ejecta curtain of the
Ries crater shows a strong horizontal velocity component of up to 240 m/s at 13 km distance from the crater center. (Impact crater is to the left) C) After a rst pulse of motion
induced by spallation the ejecta curtain drag in the simulation induces horizontal velocities of w10 m/s in the target rocks at 75 m depth after 50 s (Modied from Kenkmann and
Ivanov, 2006).
exceed the yield stress. Thus, fractures which develop early in the
cratering process, when strain rates are very high, tend to be short
and very closely spaced. Fractures associated with the passage of
the shock wave usually have lengths of less than a centimeter and
displacements of less than a millimeter. Often irregular to parallel
fracture networks develop (Fig. 2A) that are pervasive and transgranular. During the excavation ow fractures coalesce and
become longer. Faults of hundreds of meters to even kilometers
length with single-slip off-sets of up to several kilometers (Spray,
1997) are always formed during the nal stage of cratering, the
modication stage.
166
The most probable impact angle for all planetary bodies is 45
(Gilbert, 1893; Shoemaker, 1962) regardless of the magnitude of
the gravitational eld. The probability of incidence angles follows
a Gaussian distribution (Gilbert, 1893; Shoemaker, 1962). In spite
of the prevalence of oblique impacts, the crater shape remains
circular for impact angles above 10e15 from the target surface
(Gault and Wedekind, 1978; Bottke et al., 2000) and thus can
rarely give implications for the impact direction or angle. The
reason for this apparently puzzling circumstance is that the
asymmetric region controlled by the transfer of momentum and
energy in oblique impacts may become an insignicant fraction of
the nal crater, which is eventually about twenty times larger in
diameter than the impactor. However, the distribution of the
ejecta blanket is a good indicator for oblique impacts. It loses its
radial symmetry at angles below 45-35 (Fig. 11A) with a preferred
downrange ejection and at lower angles forms forbidden zones
in the uprange sector (Fig. 11B). With the expansion of the
forbidden zone and the preferred distribution of ejecta in
Fig. 11. Examples of Martian impact craters that illustrate the inuence of obliquity on ejecta emplacement. A) Unnamed non-oblique impact crater (17.79N 313.56E) with a
symmetric ejecta pattern (mosaic of THEMIS VIS and CTX data). B) Unnamed oblique impact crater (2.29N 64.83E) with an asymmetric ejecta pattern including an uprange
forbidden zone that indicates an impact from NE (black arrow) (CTX mosaic). C) Highly oblique impact crater from NW (black arrow) with a crossrange concentration of ejecta and
additional uprange and downrange forbidden zones forming a buttery ejecta pattern (CTX mosaic).
167
Fig. 12. Comparison of simple and complex crater morphologies. a) Unnamed simple crater on Mars (38.7 N/316.1 E) displaying an elevated crater rim and steeply dipping upper
cavity walls. The mid and lower part of the wall is covered by talus deposits (HiRISE image). b) The complex impact crater Aristarchus on the Moon, showing a central peak, a at
crater oor and an extensive slump terrace zone (Kaguya/SELENE image). Note the different scale bars in the two images.
168
Fig. 13. Numerical simulation of crater modication using the SALE-2D hydrocode
(Image courtesy of B. A. Ivanov). Note that the initial 12 km diameter cavity transforms
into a 24e26 km wide crater structure with a central uplift in its center. Model parameters are given in Kenkmann et al. (2000a).
collapse. The collapse occurs rst at the deepest point of the transient cavity. The cavity oor starts to rise upward and inward,
causing a rotational ow eld underneath the cavity. The greatest
total uplift and uplift rate exist in the center, pushing the cavity
oor upward (Fig. 13). The upward and inward ow creates a mass
decit in the subsurface beneath the cavity rim, which ultimately
169
Fig. 14. Typical terrestrial examples of simple and complex impact craters. A) Panorama view of Meteor (Barringer) Crater, AZ, USA, B) Panorama view of the recently discovered
Jebel Waqf as Suwwan crater, Jordan. (Modied from Kenkmann et al., 2012).
delimits the outer crater rim terrace is used for dening the crater
size (Turtle et al., 2005).
4.2.3. The simple-to-complex transition
The concept of classifying crater morphology into simple and
complex applies for all planetary bodies in the solar system. The
crater diameter at which the simple-to-complex transition occurs
varies between planetary bodies and is inversely proportional to the
surface gravity (Pike, 1988) indicating that gravity is the main
driving force for crater modication. On the Moon (surface gravity:
1.62 ms2) the largest impact craters with simple geometries have
diameters of 16 km, on Mars (3.69 ms2), simple craters reach
maximum diameters of w8 km on average, and on Earth
(9.81 ms2), the largest simple craters were formed in crystalline
targets and have diameters of up to 4 km (Brent, Canada). The sizemorphology progression is also controlled by strength as the mechanical property of the target material working against the
modication of the transient crater. For instance, in sedimentary
targets the size limit for simple craters on Earth is about 2 km
diameter. On icy bodies (i.e., Europa, Ganymede, Callisto) the transition lies at 2e3 km diameter and is nearly an order of magnitude
smaller than the transition diameter of the Moon, despite similar
gravitational elds (Schenk, 2002; Barnouin et al., 2012).
4.3. Macroscopic structures related to the modication stage
The deformation inventory formed during the modication
stage is in some respect comparable to that of landslides and also to
certain tectonic environments. Major differences between gravitydriven collapse of large impact craters and upper crustal tectonics
occur in the slip behavior and the particle trajectory eld. As a rst
approximation, particle paths are radially symmetric during inward
ow with respect to the impact center, which results in the conditions for plane-strain deformation not being fullled (Kenkmann,
2002). Shear displacements occur as single-slip events, with
170
claried. Crater rim faults typically undergo unconstrained (freesurface) dip-slip (Spray, 1997). The main faults are often associated
with synthetic or antithetic faults. Pre-existing faults and joints can
be reactivated during crater modication. Such craters often appear
as polygonal craters with straight rim segments that run along the
pre-existing joints (Eppler et al., 1983).
Very deeply eroded impact structures are typically not dened
by concentric normal faults. Instead circumferential monoclines or
a combination of inward dipping normal faults and monoclines are
common, particularly if the target is a sedimentary and stratied
one (Fig. 15). The inner limb of a crater rim monocline usually dips
downward towards the crater, and the crater rim can be dened by
the trace of the monoclines hinge (Kenkmann et al., 2012). Examples for this type of crater rim are present at Upheaval Dome, UT,
U.S.A. (Kriens et al., 1999), or Matt Wilson, NT, Australia (Kenkmann
and Poelchau, 2009). If the craters formed underwater, resurging
water degrades and modies the crater rim area (e.g., Orm and
Lindstrm, 2000).
4.3.2. The crater moat
The moat between the crater rim and the central uplift is often
termed ring syncline (Figs. 14B and 15). Ring synclines are mostly
asymmetric in radial cross section, with a steeply dipping or even
Fig. 15. Schematic block diagram illustrating the structural inventory and the locations of certain structures in the sub-surface of a complex impact crater. Note that the letters AeF
also correspond to Fig. 16. A) Low-angle normal fault and detachment within the ring syncline. B) Lateral thrust ramps. C) Radial transpression ridge/positive ower structure. D)
Radial folding with outward plunging fold hinges. E) Radial syncline with vertical to overturned plunging fold axis within the central uplift. F) Imbrication of blocks thrust onto each
other in the core of the central uplift. (Sketch modied from Kenkmann et al., 2012).
overturned inner limb (Fig. 13) that transitions into the central
uplift and a more gently dipping outer limb that is often
segmented by normal faulting. In all known terrestrial complex
impact craters, the ring syncline is not a simple synform. It is
subdivided radially and concentrically into numerous faultbounded segments or disintegrated into blocks (if fault zones
completely frame and isolate a certain rock volume). Between the
crater rim and the axis of the ring syncline, normal faults of more
or less concentric strike are frequent. Normal faulting along nonplanar faults is commonly associated with antithetic or synthetic
rotation of the hanging-wall unit. These faults often develop listric
171
Fig. 16. Field observations of structural deformation in complex craters. A) A low-angle normal fault merges into a bedding-parallel detachment within the ring syncline of the
Upheaval Dome crater, UT, USA. Note that the section is parallel to the fault strike. B) Lateral thrust ramps in the periphery of the central uplift of Matt Wilson crater, NT, Australia. C)
Radial transpression ridge (positive ower structure) in the periphery of the central uplift of Matt Wilson crater, NT, Australia. D) Radial syncline with steeply outward plunging fold
hinges within the central uplift of the Serra da Cangalha crater, Brazil. The fold axes are bent over to almost vertical plunge with increasing elevation. E) Open radial folds with gently
outward dipping axes characterize the periphery of the Upheaval Dome crater, UT, USA). F) Imbrication of blocks thrust onto each other in the core of the central uplift (Matt Wilson,
NT, Australia).
172
173
Fig. 17. Structure map of the central uplift of the Jebel Waqf as Suwwan impact structure, Jordan. The oldest rocks exposed in the core of the uplift (Cenomanian) are strongly
brecciated. Limestone and marl beds (purple) have Campanian age. Chert beds (blue) of Maastrichtian/Paleogene age are strongly folded and segmented into w100 m blocks. Note
that synclines with overturned fold axes occur in the northeast, whereas the southwest is characterized by outward-plunging anticlines and synclines. The symmetry axis of the
central uplift trends SWeNE, and suggests an impact trajectory from the SW. For more details the reader is referred to Kenkmann et al. (2010).
174
175
Fig. 18. Pseudotachylite vein indicating a weak right-lateral offset with an extensional component (Vaal river banks, 6 km W of Parys, Vredefort crater, South Africa).
melt pool above into tensional fractures during central uplift formation (Lieger et al., 2009; Riller et al., 2010). Pseudotachylitic
breccias are abundant in the central uplift of the Vredefort structure
and are particularly pervasive in the central core rocks, which were
uplifted furthest and from the greatest depths (Reimold and
Gibson, 2006).
176
177
Fig. 19. A) The structural arrangement of imbricate thrust stacks in the central uplift of Spider crater, WA, Australia, shows a bilateral symmetry and indicates a transport in
southerly direction. The thrust stacks surround the core of the central uplift. B) The arrangement of thrust faults is explained by combining a pure radially converging ow eld
(idealized collapse ow eld for vertical impacts) with parallel trajectories that transport material from uprange to downrange (as suggested for an oblique impact).
178
Table 2
Compilation of structural features observed in terrestrial and Martian impact craters that are characteristic for oblique impacts.
Structural criteria to infer the impact
trajectory in complex impact craters
Martian craters
Martin
Bacau
Arima
Ejecta pattern
Crater shape
Central uplift
Central uplift
Central uplift
Central uplift
Central uplift
Central uplift
Central uplift
References
Terrestrial craters
Matt Wilson
Upheaval Dome
Spider
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Wulf et al.,
2012. Icarus
Wulf et al.,
2012. Icarus
Wulf et al.,
2012. Icarus
Kenkmann
and Poelchau
2009. Geology
Waqf as Suwwan
x
(x)
Shoemaker and
Shoemaker, 1985.
Meteoritics
Kenkmann et al.,
2010. GSA-SP
Fig. 20. Snapshot of a three-dimensional numerical model of a 45 oblique impact. (Image courtesy of Dirk Elbeshausen, Museum of Natural History, Berlin). Modeling shows that
the crater collapse starts uprange and progressively shifts downrange. This leads to the formation of an asymmetrical central uplift that displays a downrange vergency and contains
an imbricated inner structure. For further details concerning model parameters the reader is referred to Elbeshausen et al. (2009).
179
Fig. 21. Example of a Martian impact crater showing the strong inuence of obliquity on the internal structure of the central uplift. A) Topographical overview of Martin crater
(21.38 S 290.73 E) in Thaumasia Planum (superposed HRSC DTM over HRSC nadir). B) The mean strike trend of all measured layers of the central uplift is NWeSE (red line) and thus
nearly perpendicular to the assumed impact direction (modied after Wulf et al., 2012). C) Perspective view of the central part of the central upift showing imbrication of layered
bedrock perpendicular to the impact direction (vertical exaggeration is 1.5, superposed HiRISE DTM (1 m/px) over HiRISE image (25 cm/px)).
180
Eppler, D.T., Ehrlich, R., Nummedal, D., Schultz, P.H., 1983. Sources of shape variation
in lunar impact craters. Fourier shape analysis. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 94, 274e291.
Fiske, P.S., Nellis, W.J., Lipp, M., Lorenzana, H., Kikuchi, M., Syono, Y., 1995. Pseudotachylites generated in shock Experiments: Implications for impact cratering
products and processes. Science 270, 281e283.
French, B.M., 1998. Traces of Catastrophe: a Handbook of Shock-metamorphic Effects in Terrestrial Meteorite Impact Craters. Lunar and Planetary Institute,
Houston, TX. Contribution CB-954.
French, B.M., Koeberl, C., 2010. The convincing identication of terrestrial
meteorite impact structures: what works, what doesnt, and why. Earth-Sci.
Rev. 98, 123e170.
Gault, D.E., Wedekind, J.A., 1978. Experimental studies of oblique impact. In: Proceedings, 9th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, pp. 3843e3875.
Gault, D.E., Quaide, W.L., Oberbeck, V.R., 1968. Impact cratering mechanics and
structures. In: French, B.M., Short, N.M. (Eds.), Shock Metamorphism in Natural
Materials. Mono Book Corp., Baltimore, pp. 87e99.
Gibson, R.L., Reimold, W.U., 2000. Deeply exhumed impact structures: a case study
of the Vredefort structure, South Africa. In: Gilmour, I., Koeberl, C. (Eds.), Impacts and the Early Earth: Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, vol. 91. Springer,
Berlin, pp. 249e277.
Gilbert, G.K., 1893. The Moons face; A study of the origin of its features. Bull. Philos.
Soc. Lond. 12, 241e292.
Goeritz, M., Kenkmann, T., Wnnemann, K., van Gasselt, S., 2009. Asymmetric
structure of lunar impact craters due to oblique impacts? (Abstract #2096).
Lunar Planet. Sci. 40 (CD-ROM).
Grady, D.E., Kipp, M.E., 1993. Dynamic fracture and fragmentation. In: Asay, J.R.,
Shahinpoor, M. (Eds.), High-pressure Shock Compression of Solids. Springer,
New York.
Grieve, R.A.F., 1987. Terrestrial impact structures. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 15,
245e270.
Grieve, R.A.F., 1991. Terrestrial impact: the record in the rocks. Meteoritics 26,
175e194.
Grieve, R.A.F., Dence, M.R., Robertson, P.B., 1977. Cratering processes: as interpreted from the occurrence of impact melts. In: Roddy, J., Pepin, R.O.,
Merill, R.B. (Eds.), Impact and Explosion Cratering. Pergamon Press, New
York, pp. 791e814.
Grieve, R.A.F., Robertson, P.B., Dence, M.R., 1981. Constraints on the formation of
ring impact structures based on terrestrial data. In: Schultz, P.H., Merill, R.B.
(Eds.), Multi-ring Basins. New York Pergamon Press, pp. 37e57.
Grieve, R.A., Reimold, W.U., Morgan, J., Riller, U., Pilkington, M., 2008. Observations
and interpretations at Vredefort, Sudbury, and Chicxulub: towards an empirical
model of terrestrial impact basin formation. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 43, 855e882.
Grifth, A.A., 1920. Phenomena of rupture and ow in solids. Philos. Transact. Royal
Soc. Lond. 221A, 163e198.
Gldemeister, N., Durr, N., Wnnemann, K., Hiermaier, S., 2013. Propagation of
impact-induced shock waves in porous sandstone using mesoscale modeling.
Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 48, 115e133.
Herrick, R.R., Hessen, K.K., 2006. The planforms of low-angle impact craters in the
northern hemisphere of Mars. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 41, 1483e1495.
Holsapple, K.A., 1987. The scaling of impact phenomenon. Int. J. Impact Eng. 5,
343e355.
Holsapple, K.A., 1993. The scaling of impact processes in planetary sciences. Annu.
Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 21, 333e373.
Hrz, F., 1968. Statistical measurements of deformation structures and refractive
indices in experimentally shock loaded quartz. In: French, B.M., Short, N.M.
(Eds.), Shock Metamorphism of Natural Materials. Mono Book Corp, Baltimore,
MD, pp. 243e253.
Huffman, A.R., Reimold, W.U., 1996. Experimental constraints on shock-induced
microstructures in naturally deformed silicates. Tectonophysics 236, 165e217.
Ivanov, B.A., Kocharyan, G.G., Kostuchenko, V.N., Kirjakov, A.F., Pevzner, L.A., 1996.
Puchezh-Katunki impact crater: preliminary data on recovered core block
structure (abstract). Lunar Planet. Sci. 27, 589e590.
Ivanov, B.A., Melosh, H.J., Pierazzo, E., 2010. Basin-forming impacts: reconnaissance
modeling. Geological Society of America Special Papers 465. In: Gibson, R.L.,
Reimold, W.U. (Eds.), Large Meteorite Impacts and Planetary Evolution IV, pp. 29e49.
Jahn, A., Riller, U., 2009. A 3D model of rst-order structural elements of the Vredefort Dome, South Africa e importance for understanding central uplift formation of large impact structures. Tectonophysics 478, 221e229.
Kenkmann, T., 2002. Folding within seconds. Geology 30, 231e234.
Kenkmann, T., 2003. Dike formation, cataclastic ow, and rock uidization during
impact cratering: an example from the Upheaval Dome structure, Utah. Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 214, 43e58.
Kenkmann, T., von Dalwigk, I., 2000. Radial transpression ridges: a new structural
feature of complex impact craters. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 35, 1189e1202.
Kenkmann, T., Ivanov, B.A., 2006. Target delamination by spallation and ejecta
dragging: an example from the Ries Craters periphery. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
252, 15e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2006.08.024.
Kenkmann, T., Schnian, F., 2006. Ries and Chicxulub: impact craters on Earth provide
insights for Martian ejecta blankets. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 41, 1587e1603.
Kenkmann, T., Poelchau, M.H., 2009. Low-angle collision with Earth: the elliptical
impact crater Matt Wilson, NT, Australia. Geology 37, 459e462.
Kenkmann, T., Ivanov, B.A., Stfer, D., 2000a. Identication of ancient impact
structures: low-angle normal faults and related geological features of crater
basements. In: Gilmour, I., Koeberl, C. (Eds.), Impacts and the Early Earth:
Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, vol. 91. Springer, Berlin, pp. 279e309.
181
Melosh, H.J., 1979. Acoustic uidization: a new geologic process? J. Geophys. Res. 84,
7513e7520.
Melosh, H.J., 1984. Impact ejection, spallation, and the origin of meteorites. Icarus
59, 234e260.
Melosh, H.J., 1989. Impact Cratering: a Geological Process. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Melosh, H.J., 1996. Dynamical weakening of faults by acoustic uidization. Nature
379, 601e606.
Melosh, H.J., 2005. The mechanics of pseudotachylite formation in impact events.
In: Henkel, H., Koeberl, C. (Eds.), Impact Tectonics. Springer, Berlin, pp. 55e80.
Melosh, H.J., Ivanov, B.A., 1999. Impact crater collapse. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci.
27, 385e415.
Mohr-Westheide, T., Reimold, W.U., 2011. Formation of pseudotachylitic breccias in
the central uplifts of very large impact structures: scaling the melt formation.
Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 46, 543e555.
Morgan, J., Warner, M., Collins, G.S., Melosh, H.J., Christeson, G.L., 2000. Peak-ring
formation in large impact craters: geophysical constraints from Chicxulub.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 183, 347e354.
Mouginis-Mark, P.J., Boyce, J.M., 2012. Tooting crater: geology and geomorphology
of the archetype large, fresh, impact crater on Mars. Chem. Erde-Geochem. 72,
1e23.
Ofeld, T.W., Pohn, H.A., 1979. Geology of the Decaturville Impact Structure. Professional Paper 1042. U.S. Geological Survey, p. 48.
hman, T., Aittola, M., Korteniemi, J., Kostama, V.P., Raitala, J., 2010. Polygonal
impact craters in the solar system: observations and implications. Geological
Society of America Special Paper 465. In: Gibson, R.L., Reimold, W.U. (Eds.),
Large Meteorite Impacts and Planetary Evolution IV, pp. 51e65.
OKeefe, J.D., Ahrens, T.J., 1975. Shock effects from a large impact on the moon. In:
Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings, vol. 6, pp. 2831e2844.
OKeefe, J.D., Ahrens, T.J., 1999. Complex craters: relationship of stratigraphy and
rings to impact conditions. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 27091e27104.
Orm, J., Lindstrm, M., 2000. When a cosmic impact strikes the sea bed. Geol. Mag.
137, 67e80.
Osinski, G.R., Spray, J.G., 2005. Tectonics of complex crater formation as revealed by
the Haughton impact structure, Devon Island, Canadian High Arctic. Meteorit.
Planet. Sci. 40, 1813e1834.
Ostertag, R., 1983. Shock experiments on feldspar crystals. J. Geophys. Res. Solid
Earth 88, B364eB376.
Pearce, S.J., Melosh, H.J., 1986. Terrace width variations in complex lunar craters.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 13, 1419e1422.
Pierazzo, E., Artemieva, N.A., Asphaug, E., Baldwin, E.C., Cazamias, J., Coker, R.,
Collins, G.S., Crawford, D.A., Davison, T., Elbeshausen, D., Holsapple, K.A.,
Housen, K.R., Korycansky, D.G., Wnnemann, K., 2008. Validation of numerical
codes for impact and explosion cratering: impacts on strengthless and metal
targets. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 43, 1917e1938.
Pierazzo, E., Melosh, H.J., 2000. Understanding oblique impacts from experiments,
observations, and modeling. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 28, 141e167.
Pike, R.J., 1985. Some morphologic systematics of complex impact structures. Meteoritics 20, 49e68.
Pike, R.J., 1988. Geomorphology of impact craters on Mercury. In: Mercury. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, pp. 165e273.
Pilon, J.A., Grieve, R.A.F., Sharpton, V.L., 1991. The subsurface character of Meteor
Crater, Arizona, as determined by ground-probing radar. J. Geophys. Res. Planets
96, 15563e15576.
Poelchau, M.H., Kenkmann, T., 2008. Asymmetric signatures in simple craters as an
indicator for an oblique impact vector. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 43, 2059e2072.
Poelchau, M.H., Kenkmann, T., 2011. Feather features: a low shock pressure indicator in quartz. J. Geophys. Res. 116, B02201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2010JB007803.
Poelchau, M.H., Kenkmann, T., Kring, D.A., 2009. Rim uplift in simple craters: the
effects of target heterogeneities and trajectory obliquity. J. Geophys. Res. Planets
114, E01006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JE003235.
Popova, O.P., Jenniskens, P., Emelyanenko, V., Kartashova, A., Biryukov, E.,
Khaibrakhmanov, S., Shuvalov, V., et al., 2013. Chelyabinsk airburst, damage
assessment, meteorite recovery, and characterization. Science. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1242642.
Reimold, W.U., Stfer, D., 1978. Experimental shock metamorphism of dunite. In:
Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings, vol. 9, pp. 2805e2824.
Reimold, W.U., Gibson, R.L., 2005. Pseudotachylites in large impact structures. In:
Koeberl, C., Henkel, H. (Eds.), Impact Tectonics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp.1e53.
Reimold, W.U., Gibson, R.L., 2006. The melt rocks of the Vredefort impact structure
e Vredefort Granophyre and pseudotachylitic breccias: implications for impact
cratering and the evolution of the Witwatersrand Basin. Chem. Erde e Geochem. 66, 1e35.
Riller, U., Lieger, D., Gibson, R.L., Grieve, R.A.F., Stfer, D., 2010. Origin of largevolume pseudotachylite in terrestrial impact structures. Geology 38, 619e621.
Robinson, M.S., Brylow, S.M., Tschimmel, M., Humm, D., Lawrence, S.J., Thomas, P.C.,
Denevi, B.W., Bowman-Cisneros, E., Zerr, J., Ravine, M.A., Caplinger, M.A.,
Ghaemi, F.T., Schaffner, J.A., Malin, M.C., Mahanti, P., Bartels, A., Anderson, J.,
Tran, T.N., Eliason, E.M., McEwen, A.S., Turtle, E., Jolliff, B.L., Hiesinger, H., 2010.
Lunar reconnaissance orbiter camera (LROC) instrument overview. Space Sci.
Rev. 150, 81e124.
Roddy, D.J., 1977. Large-scale impact and explosion craters: comparisons of
morphological and structural analogues. In: Roddy, J., Pepin, R.O., Merill, R.B.
(Eds.), Impact and Explosion Cratering. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 185e246.
182
Sagy, A., Reches, Z.E., Fineberg, J., 2002. Dynamic fracture by large extraterrestrial
impacts as the origin of shatter cones. Nature 418, 310e313.
Sagy, A., Fineberg, J., Reches, Z.E., 2004. Shatter cones: branched, rapid fractures
formed by shock impact. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 109, B10209. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003016.
Sagy, A., Cohen, G., Reches, Z.E., Fineberg, J., 2006. Dynamic fracture of granular
material under quasi-static loading. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 111 (B4). http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JB003948.
Sammis, C.G., Biegel, R.L., 1989. Fractals, fault-gouge, and friction. Pure Appl. Geophys. 131, 255e271.
Schenk, P.M., 1995. The geology of Callisto. J. Geophys. Res. 100 (E9), 19023e19040.
Schenk, P.M., 2002. Thickness constraints on the icy shells of the Galilean satellites
from a comparison of crater shapes. Nature 417, 419e421.
Scherler, D., Kenkmann, T., Jahn, A., 2006. Structural record of an oblique impact.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 248, 28e38.
Schmitt, R.T., 2000. Shock experiments with the H6 chondrite Kernouv: pressure
calibration of microscopic shock effects. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 35, 545e560.
Scholz, C.H., 2002. The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schultz, P.H., 1996. Effect of impact angle on vaporization. J. Geophys. Res. 101,
21117e21121.
Schultz, P.H., Anderson, R.R., 1996. Asymmetry of the Manson Impact Structure:
Evidence for Impact Angle and Direction. Geological Society of America Special
Papers, 302, pp. 397e417.
Schultz, P.H., Eberhardy, C.A., Ernst, C.M., AHearn, M.F., Sunshine, J.M., Lisse, C.M.,
2007. The deep impact oblique impact cratering experiment. Icarus 191, 84e
122.
Senft, L.E., Stewart, S.T., 2009. Dynamic fault weakening and the formation of large
impact craters. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 287, 471e482.
Shand, S.J., 1916. The pseudotachylyte of Parijs (Orange Free State) and its relation to
trap-shotten gneiss and inty crush-rock. Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 72, 198e221.
Sharpton, V.L., Burke, K., Camargo-Zanoguera, A., Hall, S.A., Lee, D.S., Marin, L.E.,
Suarez-Reynoso, G., Quezada-Mueton, J.M., Spudis, P.D., Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J.,
Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J., 1993. Chicxulub multiring impact basin: size and other
characteristics derived from gravity analysis. Science 261, 1564e1567.
Shoemaker, E.M., 1960. Penetration mechanics of high velocity meteorites, illustrated by Meteor Crater, Arizona. In: International Geological Congress, 21st,
Copenhagen, Norden, Part XVIII, pp. 418e434.
Shoemaker, E.M., 1962. Interpretation of lunar craters. In: Kopal, Z. (Ed.), Physics and
Astronomy of the Moon. Academic, New York/London, pp. 283e359.
Shoemaker, E.M., Kieffer, S.W., 1974. Guidebook to the Geology of Meteor Crater,
Arizona. Center for Meteorite Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, p. 66.
Shoemaker, E.M., Shoemaker, C.S., 1985. Impact structures of Western Australia.
Meteoritics 20, 754.
Shoemaker, E.M., Macdonald, F.A., Shoemaker, C.S., 2005. Geology of ve small
Australian impact craters. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 52, 529e544.
Short, N.M., 1968. Experimental microdeformation of rock materials by shock
pressures from laboratory-scale impacts and explosions. In: French, B.M.,
Short, N.M. (Eds.), Shock Metamorphism of Natural Materials. Mono Book Corp,
Baltimore, MD, pp. 219e241.
Shuvalov, V.V., Dypvik, H., 2004. Ejecta formation and crater development of the
Mjlnir impact. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39, 467e479.
Spray, J.G., 1988. Generation and crystallization of an amphibolite shear melt: an
investigation using radial friction welding apparatus. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol.
99, 464e475.