The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Catastrophic Disruptions Revisited
Open accessAbstract
Abstract We use a smooth particle hydrodynamics method to simulate colliding rocky and icy bodies from centimeter scale to hundreds of kilometers in diameter in an effort to define self-consistently the threshold for catastrophic disruption. Unlike previous efforts, this analysis incorporates the combined effects of material strength (using a brittle fragmentation model) and self-gravitation, thereby providing results in the “strength regime” and the “gravity regime,” and in between. In each case, the structural properties of the largest remnant are examined. Our main result is that gravity plays a dominant role in determining the outcome of collisions even involving relatively small targets. In the size range considered here, the enhanced role of gravity is not due to fracture prevention by gravitational compression, but rather to the difficulty of the fragments to escape their mutual gravitational attraction. Owing to the low efficiency of momentum transfer in collisions, the velocity of larger fragments tends to be small, and more energetic collisions are needed to disperse them. We find that the weakest bodies in the Solar System, as far as impact disruption is concerned, are about 300 m in diameter. Beyond this size, objects become more difficult to disperse even though they are still easily shattered. Thus, larger remnants of collisions involving targets larger than about 1 km in radius should essentially be self-gravitating aggregates of smaller fragments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
THE YARKOVSKY AND YORP EFFECTS: Implications for Asteroid Dynamics
Bottke, W. F., Vokrouhlický, D., Rubincam, D. P., & Nesvorný, D. (2006) · Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences · doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.34.031405.125154 · Cited by 720
Planetary accretion in the inner Solar System
Chambers, J. E. (2004) · Earth and Planetary Science Letters · doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.04.031 · Cited by 341
Transience of Hot Dust around Sun‐like Stars
Wyatt, M. C., Smith, R., Greaves, J. S., Beichman, C. A., Bryden, G., & Lisse, C. M. (2007) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/510999 · Cited by 334
Contamination of the asteroid belt by primordial trans-Neptunian objects
Levison, H. F., Bottke, W. F., Gounelle, M., Morbidelli, A., Nesvorný, D., & Tsiganis, K. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08094 · Cited by 292
Debris disks as signposts of terrestrial planet formation
Raymond, S. N., Armitage, P. J., Moro-Martín, A., Booth, M., Wyatt, M. C., Armstrong, J. C., Mandell, A. M., Selsis, F., & West, A. A. (2011) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116456 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Benz, W.
- Venue
- Icarus
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999-11
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-20
- ISSN
- 0019-1035 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2014422618
- Cited by
- 826
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Catastrophic Disruptions Revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1006/icar.1999.6204
- The paper
- Benz, W. (1999). Catastrophic Disruptions Revisited. Icarus. https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1999.6204
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.