Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the scaling of crater dimensions: 2. Impact processes

Holsapple, K. A., Schmidt, R. M.·1982·Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth

Abstract

Existing theoretical and empirical scaling rules for cratering phenomena are commonly based upon implicit assumptions regarding the roles of the impactor conditions and the target properties. It is common, for example, to assume that only the kinetic energy of the impactor and the work against gravity in the target govern large impact craters. A more general case is considered here. A spherical impactor is characterized by its kinetic energy, momentum, and various material properties of both the impactor and the target. Under these general assumptions, scaling among both similar and nonsimilar events is studied. Similar events always satisfy the cube‐root mass scaling rule. The dependence on energy varies according to how the similarity is achieved. For constant mass or constant velocity tests, variations in gravity are required, and cube‐root energy scaling is obtained. For a strengthless material only, quarter‐root energy scaling is possible, but only for restricted variations in both impactor mass and velocity, which imply that the mass is proportional to the three‐quarters power of the energy. Scaling rules for the more common and more useful application to nonsimilar events (e.g., variable energy and/or velocity at constant gravity) are shown to be bounded by certain well defined limits. Dimensional analysis is used with plausible assumptions on the sign of the partial derivative of the crater volume with regard to each of the independent variables. Distinctions are made among different forms of cube‐root scaling obtained from strength‐dominated phenomena. Quarter‐root scaling is shown to be a distinct limit to gravity domination, occurring only when there is no dependence upon impactor velocity and target strength. Special cases of the general scaling obtained correspond to degenerate forms common in the literature. Of these, energy scaling, momentum scaling, strength scaling, and gravity scaling are shown to be the bounds for all permissible scaling rules. This result is shown to be in agreement with a comprehensive collection of data obtained from a survey of the literature. Included are experimental results for both geological materials and metals, analytical models, and finite difference code calculations.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/jb087ib03p01849

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 15 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Holsapple, K. A., & Schmidt, R. M.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth
Published
1982-03-10
Volume
87
Issue
B3
Pages
1849-1870
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2091846845
Cited by
313
References
15
FWCI
13.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: On the scaling of crater dimensions: 2. Impact processes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/jb087ib03p01849
The paper
Holsapple, K. A., & Schmidt, R. M. (1982). On the scaling of crater dimensions: 2. Impact processes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. https://doi.org/10.1029/jb087ib03p01849

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.