Laboratory and numerical cratering experiments into sandstone and quartzite targets were carried out under conditions ranging from pure strength– to pure gravity–dominated crater formation. Numerical models were used to expand the process of crater formation beyond the strength-dominated laboratory impact experiments up to the gravity regime. We focused on the effect of strength and porosity on crater size and determined scaling parameters for two cohesive materials, sandstone and quartzite, over a range of crater sizes from the laboratory scale to large terrestrial craters. Crater volumes and diameters of experimental and modeling data were measured, and scaling laws were then used to determine μ values for these data in the strength and gravity regimes. These μ values range between 0.48 and 0.55 for sandstone and between 0.49 and 0.64 for quartzite. The scaled crater dimensions in numerical models agree quite well with experimental observations. An accurate definition of the strength parameter in pi-group scaling is crucial for predicting the crater size, in particular, in the transitional regime from strength to gravity scaling. We determined an effective strength value that accounts for the weakening of target material due to the accumulation of damage. Using the numerical models, we found an effective strength of 4.6 kPa for quartzite and 3.2 kPa for sandstone, which are almost five orders smaller than the quasi-static experimental strength values that only account for the intact state of the target material.

The combination of petrographic analysis of drill core from the recent International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP)–U.S Geological Survey (USGS) drilling project and results from numerical simulations provides new constraints for reconstructing the kinematic history and duration of different stages of the Chesa-peake Bay impact event. The numerical model, in good qualitative agreement with previous seismic data across the crater, is also roughly consistent with the stratigraphy of the new borehole. From drill core observations and modeling, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) The lack of a shock metamorphic overprint of cored basement lithologies suggests that the drill core might not have reached the parautochthonous shocked crater floor but merely cored basement blocks that slumped off the rim of the original cavity into the crater during crater modification. (2) The sequence of polymict lithic breccia, suevite, and impact melt rock (1397–1551 m) must have been deposited prior to the arrival of the 950-m-thick resurge and avalanche-delivered beds and blocks within 5–7 min after impact. (3) This short period for transportation and deposition of impactites may suggest that the majority of the impactites of the Eyreville core never left the transient crater and was emplaced by ground surge. This is in accordance with observations of impact breccia fabrics. However, the uppermost part of the suevite section contains a pronounced component of airborne material. (4) Limited amounts of shock-deformed debris and melt fragments also occur throughout the Exmore beds. Shard-enriched intervals in the upper Exmore beds indicate that some material interpreted to be part of the hot ejecta plume was incorporated and dispersed into the upper resurge deposits. This suggests that collapse of the ejecta plume was contemporaneous with the major resurge event(s). Modeling indicates that the resurge flow should have been concluded some 20 min after impact; hence, this also likely marked the end of the major episode of deposition from the ejecta plume.