4.3 Article

Full waveform tomographic images of the peak ring at the Chicxulub impact crater

Journal

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2010JB008015

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. NERC
  3. Leverhulme Trust
  4. NERC [NE/E013589/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/E013589/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Peak rings are a feature of large impact craters on the terrestrial planets and are generally believed to be formed from deeply buried rocks that are uplifted during crater formation. The precise lithology and kinematics of peak ring formation, however, remains unclear. Previous work has revealed a suite of bright inward dipping reflectors beneath the peak ring at the Chicxulub impact crater and that the peak ring was formed from rocks with a relatively low seismic velocity. New two-dimensional, full waveform tomographic velocity images show that the uppermost lithology of the peak ring is formed from a thin (similar to 100-200 m thick) layer of low-velocity (similar to 3000-3200 m/s) rocks. This low-velocity layer is most likely composed of highly porous, allogenic impact breccias. Our models also show that the change in velocity between lithologies within and outside the peak ring is more abrupt than previously realized and occurs close to the location of the dipping reflectors. Across the peak ring, velocity appears to correlate well with predicted shock pressures from a dynamic model of crater formation, where the rocks that form the peak ring originate from an uplifted basement that has been subjected to high shock pressures (10-50 GPa) and lie above downthrown sedimentary rocks that have been subjected to shock pressures of <5 GPa. These observations suggest that low velocities within the peak ring may be related to shock effects and that the dipping reflectors underneath the peak ring might represent the boundary between highly shocked basement and weakly shocked sediments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available