Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Collins, G. S. Articles by Wünnemann, K. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

How big was the Chesapeake Bay impact? Insight from numerical modeling

¹ Impacts and Astromaterials Research Centre, Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
² Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA

The Chesapeake Bay impact structure, Virginia, is the largest impact crater in the United States. The important question of how large the impactor was that formed the crater remains unanswered. This is primarily due to peculiarities of the crater structure, revealed by seismic exploration, that complicate comparisons with other terrestrial and extraterrestrial craters. One potential explanation for the unusual structure of the Chesapeake Bay crater is that the cratering process was affected by rheologic variations in the target at the time of impact. Using numerical modeling, we find that for a sufficient contrast in material strength between the sedimentary and crystalline units at the Chesapeake Bay impact site, we can produce a model of the final crater that is consistent with observational constraints, and hence we can infer the energy released during the impact, 1.75 x 10⁶ Mt. In the absence of target strength variations, the final crater diameter is likely to have been 40 km, rather than the observed 80–90 km.

Key Words: Chesapeake Bay • impact crater • numerical modeling • impact cratering • target strength

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. S. Gohn, C. Koeberl, K. G. Miller, W. U. Reimold, J. V. Browning, C. S. Cockell, J. W. Horton Jr., T. Kenkmann, A. A. Kulpecz, D. S. Powars, et al. Deep Drilling into the Chesapeake Bay Impact Structure Science, June 27, 2008; 320(5884): 1740 - 1745. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. S. Paquay, G. E. Ravizza, T. K. Dalai, and B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink Determining Chondritic Impactor Size from the Marine Osmium Isotope Record Science, April 11, 2008; 320(5873): 214 - 218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Hayden, M. Kominz, D. S. Powars, L. E. Edwards, K. G. Miller, J. V. Browning, and A. A. Kulpecz Impact effects and regional tectonic insights: Backstripping the Chesapeake Bay impact structure Geology, April 1, 2008; 36(4): 327 - 330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Lana, C.R. S. Filho, Y.R. Marangoni, E. Yokoyama, R.I.F. Trindade, E. Tohver, and W.U. Reimold Insights into the morphology, geometry, and post-impact erosion of the Araguainha peak-ring structure, central Brazil Geological Society of America Bulletin, September 1, 2007; 119(9-10): 1135 - 1150. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Horton Jr., G. S. Gohn, D. S. Powars, and L. E. Edwards Origin and emplacement of impactites in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure, Virginia, USA Geological Society of America Special Papers, January 1, 2007; 437(0): 73 - 97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]