Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Rock fluidization during peak-ring formation of large impact structures

Nature volume 562, pages 511–518 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

An Author Correction to this article was published on 13 November 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Large meteorite impact structures on the terrestrial bodies of the Solar System contain pronounced topographic rings, which emerged from uplifted target (crustal) rocks within minutes of impact. To flow rapidly over large distances, these target rocks must have weakened drastically, but they subsequently regained sufficient strength to build and sustain topographic rings. The mechanisms of rock deformation that accomplish such extreme change in mechanical behaviour during cratering are largely unknown and have been debated for decades. Recent drilling of the approximately 200-km-diameter Chicxulub impact structure in Mexico has produced a record of brittle and viscous deformation within its peak-ring rocks. Here we show how catastrophic rock weakening upon impact is followed by an increase in rock strength that culminated in the formation of the peak ring during cratering. The observations point to quasi-continuous rock flow and hence acoustic fluidization as the dominant physical process controlling initial cratering, followed by increasingly localized faulting.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Typical impact structures on the Moon (http://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu) and the geophysical characteristics of the Chicxulub impact structure.
Fig. 2: Modelled formation of the Chicxulub impact structure.
Fig. 3: Spatial distribution of major lithological units and deformation structures in target rock of M0077A drill core.
Fig. 4: Deformation structures in target rock at site M0077A.
Fig. 5: Images illustrating rock types found between 1,220 and 1,316 m.b.s.f.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published Article. Other Expedition 364 data are available online (https://doi.org/10.14379/iodp.proc.364.2017).

Change history

  • 13 November 2018

    In this Article, the middle initial of author Kosei E. Yamaguchi (of the IODP–ICDP Expedition 364 Science Party) was missing and his affiliation is to Toho University (not Tohu University). These errors have been corrected online.

References

  1. Croft, S. K. The modification stage of basin formation: conditions of ring formation. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 12A, 227–257 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Grieve, R. A. F., Robertson, P. B. & Dence, M. R. Constraints on the formation of ring impact structures, based on terrestrial data. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 12A, 37–57 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Neumann, G. A. et al. Lunar impact basins revealed by gravity recovery and interior laboratory measurements. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500852 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ivanov, B. A. Numerical modelling of the largest terrestrial meteorite craters. Sol. Syst. Res. 39, 381–409 (2005).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Melosh, H. J. & Ivanov, B. A. Impact crater collapse. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 27, 385–415 (1999).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Keefe, J. D. & Ahrens, T. J. Planetary cratering mechanics. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 17011–17028 (1993).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wünnemann, K. & Ivanov, B. A. Numerical modelling of the impact crater depth-diameter dependence in an acoustically fluidized target. Planet. Space Sci. 51, 831–845 (2003).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Grady, D. E. & Kipp, M. E. in Fracture Mechanics of Rock (ed. Atkinson, B. K.) 429–475 (Academic Press, London, 1987).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Fujiwara, A., Kamimoto, G. & Tsukamoto, A. Destruction of basaltic bodies by high-velocity impact. Icarus 31, 277–288 (1977).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ahrens, T. J. & Rubin, A. M. Impact-induced tensional failure in rock. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 1185–1203 (1993).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Buhl, E. et al. Particle size distribution and strain rate attenuation in hypervelocity impact and shock recovery experiments. J. Struct. Geol. 56, 20–33 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Collins, G. S. Numerical simulations of impact crater formation with dilatancy. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 2600–2619 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Melosh, H. J., Ryan, E. V. & Asphaug, E. Dynamic fragmentation in impacts: hydrocode simulation of laboratory impacts. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 14,735–14,759 (1992).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kenkmann, T. Folding within seconds. Geology 30, 231–234 (2002).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kenkmann, T. Dike formation, cataclastic flow, and rock fluidization during impact cratering: an example from the Upheaval Dome structure, Utah. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 214, 43–58 (2003).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Collins, G. S., Melosh, H. J. & Ivanov, B. A. Modeling damage and deformation in impact simulations. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39, 217–231 (2004).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Senft, L. E. & Stewart, S. T. Dynamic fault weakening and the formation of large impact craters. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 287, 471–482 (2009).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Spray, J. G. Superfaults. Geology 25, 579–582 (1997).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Melosh, H. J. Acoustic fluidization: a new geological process? J. Geophys. Res. 84, 7513–7520 (1979).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Melosh, H. J. Dynamical weakening of faults by acoustic fluidization. Nature 379, 601–606 (1996).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Grieve, R. A. F. & Therriault, A. Vredefort, Sudbury, Chicxulub: three of a kind? Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 28, 305–338 (2000).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. Grieve, R. A. F., Reimold, W. U., Morgan, J., Riller, U. & Pilkington, M. Observations and interpretations at Vredefort, Sudbury and Chicxulub: towards a composite kinematic model of terrestrial impact basin formation. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 43, 855–882 (2008).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Collins, G. S., Melosh, H. J., Morgan, J. V. & Warner, M. R. Hydrocode simulations of Chicxulub crater collapse and peak-ring formation. Icarus 157, 24–33 (2002).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Morgan, J. V. et al. The formation of peak rings in large impact craters. Science 354, 878–882 (2016).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Morgan, J. V., Warner, M. R., Collins, G. S., Melosh, H. J. & Christeson, G. L. Peak-ring formation in large impact craters: geophysical constraints from Chicxulub. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 183, 347–354 (2000).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Morgan, J. V. et al. Full waveform tomographic images of the peak ring at the Chicxulub impact crater. J. Geophys. Res. 116, B06303 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gulick, S. P. S. et al. Importance of pre-impact crustal structure for the asymmetry of the Chicxulub impact crater. Nat. Geosci. 1, 131–135 (2008).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Morgan, J. V. et al. Chicxulub: drilling the K-Pg impact crater. In Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program 364 https://doi.org/10.14379/iodp.proc.364.2017 (International Ocean Discovery Program, College Station, 2017).

  29. Christeson, G. L. et al. Extraordinary rocks from the peak ring of the Chicxulub impact crater: P-wave velocity, density, and porosity measurements from IODP/ICDP Expedition 364. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 495, 1–11 (2018).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Petit, J. P. Criteria for the sense of movement on fault surfaces in brittle rocks. J. Struct. Geol. 9, 597–608 (1987).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Berthé, D., Choukroune, P. & Jegouzo, P. Orthogneiss, mylonite and non-coaxial deformation of granites: the example of the South Armorican Shear Zone. J. Struct. Geol. 1, 31–42 (1979).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ivanov, B. A. & Artemieva, N. A. in Catastrophic Events and Mass Extinctions: Impact and Beyond (eds C. Koeberl, C. & MacLeod, K. G.) Geological Society of America Special Paper 356, 619–630 (GSA, 2002).

  33. Johnson, B. C., Campbell, C. S. & Melosh, H. J. The reduction of friction in long runout landslides as an emergent phenomenon. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 881–889 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kring, D. A., Kramer, G. Y., Collins, G. S., Potter, R. W. K. & Chandnani, M. Peak-ring structure and kinematics from a multi-disciplinary study of the Schrödinger impact basin. Nat. Commun. 7, 13161 (2016).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ivanov, B. A., Kocharyan, G. G. & Kostuchenko, V. N. Puchezh-Katunki impact crater: preliminary data on recovered core block structure. In Proc. 27th Lunar and Planetary Science Conf. 589–590, https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc1996/pdf/1295.pdf (1996).

  36. Kenkmann, T., Collins, G. S. & Wünnemann, K. in Impact Cratering: Processes and Products (eds Osinski, G. R. & Pierazzo, E.) 60–75 (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2013).

  37. Rae, A. S. P., Collins, G. S., Grieve, R. A. F., Osinski, G. R. & Morgan, J. V. Complex crater formation: insights from combining observations of shock pressure distribution with numerical models at the West Clearwater Lake impact structure. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 52, 1330–1350 (2017).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. Gulick, S. et al. in Proceedings of the International Ocean Discovery Program Volume 364 (eds Morgan, J. et al.) 1–46 (IODP, 2017).

  39. Ortner, H., Reiter, F. & Acs, P. Easy handling of tectonic data: the programs Tectonics FP for Mac and Tectonics FP for Windows. Comput. Geosci. 28, 1193–1200 (2002).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. Collins, G. S. et al. Dynamic modeling suggests terrace zone asymmetry in the Chicxulub crater is caused by target heterogeneity. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 270, 221–230 (2008).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Priority Programs 527 and 1006 of the German Science Foundation (grants Ri 916/16-1 and PO 1815/2-1), National Science Foundation grants (OCE-1737351, OCE-1450528 and OCE-1736826), and Natural Environment Research Council (grants NE/P011195/1 and NE/P005217/1). The Chicxulub drilling expedition was funded by the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD) and the IODP as Expedition 364 with co-funding from the ICDP. The Yucatan State Government and Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) provided logistical support. This research used samples and data provided by IODP. Samples can be requested at http://web.iodp.tamu.edu/sdrm. We are grateful for assistance from the staff of the IODP Core Repository in Bremen, Germany, during the Onshore Science Party. We thank B. Ivanov and C. Koeberl for constructive reviews and S. Teuber for assistance in figure preparation. This is UTIG contribution number 3,278.

Reviewer information

Nature thanks B. Ivanov and C. Koeberl for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Author information

Author notes

  1. A list of participants and their affiliations appears at the end of the paper.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Geologie, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Ulrich Riller, Felix M. Schulte & Ulrich Riller

  2. Department of Geology, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Michael H. Poelchau

  3. Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Auriol S. P. Rae, Gareth S. Collins, Joanna V. Morgan & Joanna V. Morgan

  4. Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    H. Jay Melosh

  5. Centre for Planetary Science and Exploration, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

    Richard A. F. Grieve

  6. Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    Sean P. S. Gulick, Naoma McCall, Sean P. S. Gulick, Gail L. Christeson, Christopher M. Lowery & Cornelia Rasmussen

  7. Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    Sean P. S. Gulick, Naoma McCall, Sean P. S. Gulick, Christopher M. Lowery & Cornelia Rasmussen

  8. Géosciences Montpellier, CNRS, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Johanna Lofi, Abdoulaye Diaw & Johanna Lofi

  9. Universities Space Research Association, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX, USA

    David A. Kring & David A. Kring

  10. British Geological Survey, The Lyell Centre, Research Avenue South, Edinburgh, UK

    Sophie L. Green

  11. Université de Bourgogne-CNRS, Biogeosciences Laboratory, Dijon, France

    Elise Chenot

  12. Analytical, Environmental and Geochemistry (AMGC), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium

    Philippe Claeys

  13. School of Physics and Astronomy, UK Center for Astrobiology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Charles S. Cockell

  14. Western Australia Organic and Isotope Geochemistry Centre, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia

    Marco J. L. Coolen

  15. Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria

    Ludovic Ferrière

  16. Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre of Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany

    Catalina Gebhardt

  17. International Research Institute of Disaster Science, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

    Kazuhisa Goto

  18. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Heather Jones & Timothy J. Bralower

  19. China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), School of Earth Sciences, Planetary Science Institute, Wuhan, China

    Long Xiao

  20. National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), Groupe de Physico-Chimie de l’Atmosphère, Institut de Chimie et Procédés pour l’Energie, l’Environnement et la Santé ICPEES, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Rubén Ocampo-Torres

  21. Instituto de Geofísica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma De México, México City, Mexico

    Ligia Perez-Cruz & Jaime Urrutia Fucugauchi

  22. School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Annemarie E. Pickersgill

  23. Argon Isotope Facility, Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre (SUERC), East Kilbride, UK

    Annemarie E. Pickersgill

  24. Department of Geology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Michael H. Poelchau

  25. Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Auriol S. P. Rae

  26. Unidad de Ciencias del Agua, Mérida, Mexico

    Mario Rebolledo-Vieyra

  27. Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokosuka, Japan

    Honami Sato

  28. Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Jan Smit

  29. Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University—New Brunswick, Piscataway, NJ, USA

    Sonia M. Tikoo-Schantz

  30. Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Kochi Institute for Core Sample Research, Kochi, Japan

    Naotaka Tomioka

  31. Department of Geosciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA

    Michael T. Whalen

  32. Eyring Materials Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Axel Wittmann

  33. Department of Chemistry, Toho University, Funabashi, Japan

    Kosei E. Yamaguchi

  34. NASA Astrobiology Institute, Mountain View, CA, USA

    Kosei E. Yamaguchi

Authors
  1. Ulrich Riller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael H. Poelchau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Auriol S. P. Rae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Felix M. Schulte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gareth S. Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H. Jay Melosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Richard A. F. Grieve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Joanna V. Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sean P. S. Gulick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Johanna Lofi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Abdoulaye Diaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Naoma McCall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. David A. Kring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

IODP–ICDP Expedition 364 Science Party

  • Joanna V. Morgan
  • , Sean P. S. Gulick
  • , Sophie L. Green
  • , Johanna Lofi
  • , Elise Chenot
  • , Gail L. Christeson
  • , Philippe Claeys
  • , Charles S. Cockell
  • , Marco J. L. Coolen
  • , Ludovic Ferrière
  • , Catalina Gebhardt
  • , Kazuhisa Goto
  • , Heather Jones
  • , David A. Kring
  • , Long Xiao
  • , Christopher M. Lowery
  • , Rubén Ocampo-Torres
  • , Ligia Perez-Cruz
  • , Annemarie E. Pickersgill
  • , Michael H. Poelchau
  • , Auriol S. P. Rae
  • , Cornelia Rasmussen
  • , Mario Rebolledo-Vieyra
  • , Ulrich Riller
  • , Honami Sato
  • , Jan Smit
  • , Sonia M. Tikoo-Schantz
  • , Naotaka Tomioka
  • , Michael T. Whalen
  • , Axel Wittmann
  • , Kosei E. Yamaguchi
  • , Jaime Urrutia Fucugauchi
  •  & Timothy J. Bralower

Contributions

U.R., M.H.P., A.S.P.R., J.V.M., S.P.S.G. and R.A.F.G. conceived the study. All authors participated in sampling and data collection offshore and/or onshore during IODP-ICDP Expedition 364, interpretation of the data as well as writing and/or editing of the manuscript. U.R. provided the first draft of the manuscript. U.R. and F.M.S. acquired structural data from line scans. J.L. and A.D. provided the downhole orientation data. A.S.P.R and G.S.C. performed and analysed the numerical models; G.S.C., A.S.P.R. and H.J.M. contributed the discussion on the implications for acoustic fluidization.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Riller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Lower-hemisphere, equal-area diagrams showing poles to pre-impact aplite, diabase and pegmatite sheet intrusions.

N, north. n, number of dykes.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Diagram showing pressure versus time as recorded by 100 Lagrangian tracer particles in the peak-ring rocks.

(See Supplementary Video for location of tracer particles). Grey circles show the pressure of each tracer particle at time intervals of 2 s. The black solid line shows average pressure (all tracer particles). We note the elevated pressures between T = 100 s and T = 250 s during central uplift formation and collapse.

Supplementary information

Video 1

Animation of the numerical simulation results. The target (and impactor) materials are indicated by colour, consistent with the individual frames shown in Fig. 2 (carbonate rock, grey; crust, pink; mantle, green). Large-scale deformation of the entire target is illustrated by a grid of Lagrangian tracer particles (black dots) with 2-km initial spacing. In addition, 100 tracer particles within the peak-ring rocks are highlighted in blue. The inset shows the same tracer particles in a Lagrangian reference frame centered on the average coordinates of the highlighted tracer particles.

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riller, U., Poelchau, M.H., Rae, A.S.P. et al. Rock fluidization during peak-ring formation of large impact structures. Nature 562, 511–518 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0607-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0607-z

Keywords

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing