Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 419

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

COLLISIONS BETWEEN GRAVITY-DOMINATED BODIES. I. OUTCOME REGIMES AND SCALING LAWS

Open access
Leinhardt, Zoë M., Stewart, Sarah T.·2012·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

Collisions are the core agent of planet formation. In this work, we derive an analytic description of the dynamical outcome for any collision between gravity-dominated bodies. We conduct high-resolution simulations of collisions between planetesimals; the results are used to isolate the effects of different impact parameters on collision outcome. During growth from planetesimals to planets, collision outcomes span multiple regimes: cratering, merging, disruption, super-catastrophic disruption, and hit-and-run events. We derive equations (scaling laws) to demarcate the transition between collision regimes and to describe the size and velocity distributions of the post-collision bodies. The scaling laws are used to calculate maps of collision outcomes as a function of mass ratio, impact angle, and impact velocity, and we discuss the implications of the probability of each collision regime during planet formation. Collision outcomes are described in terms of the impact conditions and the catastrophic disruption criteria, Q * RD —the specific energy required to disperse half the total colliding mass. All planet formation and collisional evolution studies have assumed that catastrophic disruption follows pure energy scaling; however, we find that catastrophic disruption follows nearly pure momentum scaling. As a result, Q * RD is strongly dependent on the impact velocity and projectile-to-target mass ratio in addition to the total mass and impact angle. To account for the impact angle, we derive the interacting mass fraction of the projectile; the outcome of a collision is dependent on the kinetic energy of the interacting mass rather than the kinetic energy of the total mass. We also introduce a new material parameter, c *, that defines the catastrophic disruption criteria between equal-mass bodies in units of the specific gravitational binding energy. For a diverse range of planetesimal compositions and internal structures, c * has a value of 5 ± 2; whereas for strengthless planets, we find c * = 1.9 ± 0.3. We refer to the catastrophic disruption criteria for equal-mass bodies as the principal disruption curve, which is used as the reference value in the calculation of Q * RD for any collision scenario. The analytic collision model presented in this work will significantly improve the physics of collisions in numerical simulations of planet formation and collisional evolution.

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 · 10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/79

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 419

Metadata

Authors
Leinhardt, Z. M., & Stewart, S. T.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2011-12-29
Volume
745
Issue
1
Pages
79
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2159723795
Cited by
419
References
6
FWCI
11.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: COLLISIONS BETWEEN GRAVITY-DOMINATED BODIES. I. OUTCOME REGIMES AND SCALING LAWS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/79
The paper
Leinhardt, Z. M., & Stewart, S. T. (2012). COLLISIONS BETWEEN GRAVITY-DOMINATED BODIES. I. OUTCOME REGIMES AND SCALING LAWS. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/79

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.