Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Low Speed Oblique Impact Behavior On Granular Media Across Gravitational Conditions; The role of cohesion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Grain cohesion dominates low-speed impact outcomes on low-gravity granular surfaces, and the standard additive Froude–Bond scaling fails to predict it.

desk verdict A solid DEM study showing cohesion matters more at low gravity, but the negative result against Bond scaling is undercut by uncalibrated DRFT coefficients. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14645 v1 pith:64HQKH5F submitted 2025-07-19 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.space-ph

Seungju Yeo , Rachel Glade , Alice Quillen , Hesam Askari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.space-ph PACS 45.70.-n
keywords granularimpactcohesiondiscreteelementmethoddynamicresistiveforcetheoryBondnumberFroudelowgravityasteroidregolith
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Grain-by-grain simulations of a disc striking a loose granular bed across Earth, Moon, and Bennu gravity show that inter-particle cohesion changes the outcome of a low-speed oblique impact—full stop, roll-out, or ricochet—far more strongly when gravity is weak. The paper establishes that cohesion acts through its ratio to gravity, $\gamma_s/g$, rather than as an independent additive stress, and that behavior maps can be fitted by a modified Froude number. It then tests an analytic extension of dynamic resistive force theory in which a cohesive traction is simply added to frictional and inertial forces and scaled by Bond number; the simulations do not follow that prediction. The authors conclude that cohesion and friction are coupled, so a new dimensionless parameter is needed. If the paper is right, impact trajectories on asteroid surfaces carry a direct signal of surface cohesion, and existing scaling laws for low-speed impacts are incomplete.

What carries the argument

Two complementary tools carry the argument. The first is discrete element method simulation of roughly 6900 polydisperse soft discs in a 2D bed, with a Hertzian normal repulsion, a JKR/DMT cohesive traction proportional to surface energy density $\gamma_s$, and a damping term; impacts are classified as full-stop, roll-out, or ricochet and summarized as color-coded behavior maps over Froude number and impact angle. The paper converts grain-scale $\gamma_s$ into a bulk tensile strength $\sigma$ by simulated tensile tests, giving the four cohesion levels used in the maps. The second tool is dynamic resistive force theory, in which the force on the intruding disc is written as a quasi-static traction $\alpha(\beta,\gamma)H(-\bar{z})|\bar{z}|$ plus an inertial traction $\lambda \rho |V|^2 \hat{n}$; the paper's proposed extension adds a cohesive traction $c\hat{n}$ and predicts trajectory collapse across gravities when $c$ is scaled by $g/g^*$, i.e., by Bond number. The mismatch between that analytic prediction and the DEM trajectories is the evidence for the paper's call for new dimensionless parameters.

What would settle it

Run the same DEM protocol but measure $\alpha(\beta,\gamma)$ and $\lambda$ by plate-drag tests at each cohesion level and gravity condition, insert those recalibrated values into the additive dynamic resistive force theory, and check whether trajectories at equal Bond number collapse across Earth, Moon, and Bennu gravity. If they collapse, the additive Bond-number scaling is not falsified; if they still diverge, the claimed cohesion–friction coupling is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central positive claim is that cohesion becomes a dominant control on low-speed oblique impact outcomes as gravity decreases. Under Earth and Moon gravity, the boundaries between ricochet, roll-out, and full stop barely move as bulk cohesive strength rises from 0 to 26.9 Pa, but under Bennu gravity those boundaries expand sharply: the ricochet and roll-out regions grow, and at the highest cohesion the full-stop region disappears from the studied range. The behavior is organized by a modified Froude number, $\pi_5=\rho v^2 a/(\rho g a^2 + c_g \gamma_s)$, which reduces to the ordinary Froude number when $\gamma_s=0$. The paper's central negative claim is that dynamic resistive force theory, extended by adding a cohesive traction and scaling it across gravities with Bond number, fails to reproduce the simulated trajectories: with Bond-number-scaled cohesion, Earth and Moon runs ricochet while the Bennu run rolls out. The authors attribute this failure to cohesion acting as an inter-granular pressure that raises friction, so that cohesion cannot be added independently to frictional and inertial resistance.

Load-bearing premise

The negative result rests on leaving the two coefficients of the resistive-force model, $\alpha(\beta,\gamma)$ and $\lambda$, at their cohesionless values instead of recalibrating them for cohesive beds; if recalibration restores the trajectories at equal Bond number, the paper's conclusion that a fundamentally new dimensionless parameter is needed would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At Bennu-level gravity, a given cohesive strength changes the projectile from full stop to roll-out to ricochet at low Froude numbers, so the observed trajectory can serve as a measure of the surface's cohesive strength.
  • Future impact scaling laws must weight cohesion by gravity, e.g. through $\gamma_s/g$, rather than treating cohesion as an environment-independent additive stress.
  • Dynamic resistive force theory requires cohesion-dependent $\alpha(\beta,\gamma)$ and $\lambda$; a constant additive cohesive traction is insufficient.
  • Design of landing and sampling operations on rubble-pile asteroids should treat even weak surface cohesion as a dominant factor at those gravities.
  • The fitted separation lines based on the modified Froude number $\pi_5$ give a practical engineering criterion for classifying impact outcomes on cohesive regolith.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's negative result would not rule out an additive model whose coefficients are re-fitted per cohesion level; the new dimensionless parameter is one possible repair, not the only one.
  • A direct testable consequence is that for any regolith there should be a crossover gravity where the full-stop/roll-out boundary starts shifting with cohesion; locating that crossover experimentally would confirm the maps.
  • Because the modified Froude number uses a single empirical constant $c_g$, the same functional form could be transferred to 3D beds and natural polydisperse regolith if $c_g$ is rescaled by particle and impactor radii.
  • The local surface void seen in the high-cohesion Bennu runs suggests cohesive beds can fail internally rather than at the impact point, which would alter how crater dimensions are interpreted on asteroid surfaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies low-speed oblique impacts of a disc into a 2D polydisperse granular bed using DEM simulations under Earth, Moon, and Bennu gravity, with four levels of cohesion. Impact outcomes are classified as full-stop, roll-out, or ricochet and presented as behavior maps (Figure 5). The authors introduce a modified Froude number π5 with a cohesion term (Eq. 4) and fitted separation lines (Eqs. 6-9), and they test an additive cohesive extension of Dynamic Resistive Force Theory (Eqs. 10-15). The central positive finding is that cohesion has a larger effect on impact behavior at lower gravity, and the central negative finding is that DEM trajectories do not collapse under Bond-number scaling of cohesion, leading the authors to call for a new dimensionless parameter.

Significance. If the qualitative finding holds, it is relevant for spacecraft-surface interactions on small bodies such as Bennu and Ryugu, where cohesion is significant relative to gravity. The study has notable strengths: a large simulation campaign (1716 cases), calibration of bulk tensile strength via tensile tests (Eq. 2), and direct measurement of the DRFT coefficients α and λ for cohesive and cohesionless beds (Table 3). The negative result against a constant-coefficient additive Bond scaling is potentially useful, but as discussed below it does not yet establish that additive scaling fails once the coefficients are recalibrated for cohesion. The quantitative fitting apparatus in Eqs. 4-9 is currently descriptive rather than predictive, since the constants are fit to the same data they are used to describe.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (13)-(15), Fig. 7] The central negative claim—that DEM results are incongruent with additive DRFT and hence a new dimensionless parameter is needed—is not yet demonstrated, because the comparison fixes α and λ at their cohesionless values. The authors state in §3.2 that neither α(β,γ) nor λ is calibrated for this example, and Table 3 shows that α_x increases by 441% for the cohesive Bennu bed while α_z changes by 611%. Figure 7 therefore tests only a constant-coefficient additive model, not the additive model itself. The authors' own plate-drag measurements provide the missing coefficients; inserting them into Eqs. 13-15 would either restore or robustly falsify the additive Bond scaling. As written, the incongruence can be read as a calibration artifact, and the appeal for a new dimensionless number rests on this unresolved point.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (4) and Eqs. (6)-(9)] The modified Froude number π5 is introduced with a fitted dimensionless constant c_g=100,000, and the separation-line coefficients A_rc, B_rc, A_ro, and B_ro are fitted to the same behavior maps they are used to describe. No out-of-sample test or uncertainty estimate is provided. The qualitative observation that cohesion shifts behavior more strongly at Bennu gravity does not depend on these fits, but the claim that π5 'successfully matched' the simulations is weakened by the fitting-to-the-data circularity. I ask the authors to either validate the scaling on held-out conditions or present Eqs. 4-9 as descriptive fits with appropriate caveats.
  3. [§2, Fig. 5] The behavior maps are computed as averages over only three impactor locations, and no measure of run-to-run variability or statistical uncertainty is reported. The Earth-row anomaly at 40° is explicitly attributed to one specific impact point, indicating sensitivity to local packing. Without error bars or a variance map, the strength of the qualitative low-gravity cohesion trend and the claimed critical-angle shifts (e.g., 50° to 60° on Bennu) are hard to evaluate. Please report per-location outcomes or a variance measure for at least the key comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The phrase 'granular granular surfaces' should be corrected to 'granular surfaces'.
  2. [§1] 'as a ration of ρga2/γs' should read 'as a ratio of ρga2/γs'.
  3. [§2 and Fig. 5] The text reports packing fractions 0.83, 0.82, and 0.82 in one place, while Figure 5 reports 0.812 and 0.811; please reconcile these values or clarify which quantity is being reported.
  4. [Fig. 7 caption] Writing 'Bond number of ∞' for the cohesionless case is notationally confusing; consider writing 'no cohesion (Bo → ∞)' instead.
  5. [Availability] No data or code availability statement is provided; adding one would improve reproducibility of the DEM workflow and fitting procedures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims rest on direct DEM observations and an explicitly labeled empirical fit; the DRFT comparison is a falsification attempt, not a construction.

full rationale

The paper's central positive claim—that cohesion increasingly controls impact outcome as gravity decreases—is read directly off the DEM behavior maps (Fig. 5) and does not depend on any fitted formula. The modified Froude number pi5 (Eq. 4) and the separation lines (Eqs. 5-9) are explicitly introduced as fits ('The fitted lines suggest the behavior difference of each map'), so their agreement with Fig. 5 is a curve fit, not a prediction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent result. The DRFT analysis is an openly stated additive ansatz (Eq. 10); Eqs. 13-15 are a mathematical consequence of that ansatz, and Fig. 6 only illustrates the ansatz by solving Eq. 14. The disagreement with DEM in Fig. 7 is therefore a genuine falsification attempt of a specific model, not a circular restatement. The admitted uncalibrated values of alpha and lambda ('neither of the experimental value alpha(beta, gamma) or the shape factor lambda is calibrated for this example') weaken the negative conclusion, but that is a missing calibration or limitation, not a circularity, because the subsequently measured Table 3 values are not fed back into the model and no prediction is constructed from them. Self-citations to Wright et al. and Miklavcic et al. are to prior experimental data and scaling used for validation, not as an external uniqueness theorem, and are not load-bearing in a circular way.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on 2D DEM with JKR cohesion, an empirical mapping to bulk tensile strength, a fitted constant in the proposed π5 scaling, and an assumed additive structure in DRFT that the paper itself shows fails. These are the main inputs the reader does not get externally verified.

free parameters (5)
  • c_g (Eq 4) = 100000
    Dimensionless constant in π5 that sets the cohesion contribution relative to gravity. Stated to depend on impactor radius, grain radius, and density, and chosen for this system. It is fitted to make behavior-map separation lines match.
  • Separation-line coefficients in Eqs 6-9 = Multiple (e.g., 0.0001540, 0.8751, 55, 26, 2440.6, 1.1292, 0.0017, 0.6128, 0.85, 54.9925, 828.8175, 1.0423)
    All parameters in the A and B functions are fitted to the DEM behavior maps (Figure 5). No out-of-sample validation is given.
  • Tensile strength fit (Eq 2) = slope 1.4354, intercept 1.4303
    Regression of bulk tensile strength σ on surface energy density γ_s from tensile-test simulations. The paper notes it applies only to this particular system.
  • Normal damping coefficient η_n0 = 500 (used for Figure 3; likely for all runs)
    Chosen empirically to match experimental ricochet behavior of cohesionless granular media (Section 2, Figure 3 caption).
  • DRFT coefficients α and λ (Table 3) = α_x, α_z, λ for cohesive and cohesionless beds
    Calibrated from constant-velocity plate intrusion DEM simulations, only for two gravity-cohesion combinations. The paper states they are not calibrated for the main impact comparisons.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption JKR cohesion force with surface energy γ_s (Eq 1) accurately models interparticle cohesion in regolith-like grains.
    The DEM force law is a standard contact model, but its fidelity for low-gravity regolith is not validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption The 2D polydisperse disc bed is a sufficient analog for 3D granular surfaces of asteroids.
    All conclusions are from 2D DEM; no 3D comparison or experimental validation is provided for cohesive beds.
  • domain assumption Tensile strength σ can be mapped from particle-scale cohesion via the fitted Eq 2 despite size dependence.
    The paper itself cites Sánchez et al. [30] noting tensile strength depends on grain size, and Eq 2 is only for this system.
  • ad hoc to paper The additive decomposition of DRFT with an independent cohesive traction c (Eq 10) is a valid starting point.
    The derivation in Eqs 11-15 assumes cohesive traction is additive. The paper later shows this fails against DEM, so the premise is adopted and then rejected.
  • domain assumption The bed configuration is effectively the same across gravity conditions because gravity was reduced gradually.
    Packing fractions for Earth, Moon, and Bennu are similar (0.83, 0.82, 0.82), but the beds are not identical; small configurational differences may affect impact outcomes.
  • standard math The linear time scaling t* = t sqrt(g/g*) and the algebra in Eqs 11-15 are correct.
    The derivation is straightforward but assumes the equations of motion are governed by the three specified traction terms.
invented entities (1)
  • Modified Froude number π5 (Eq 4)
    purpose: A dimensionless group intended to collapse impact behavior maps across cohesion and gravity conditions.
    Defined with a fitted constant c_g=100,000 tuned to the same simulation data. No independent prediction or experimental test is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low Speed Oblique Impact Behavior On Granular Media Across Gravitational Conditions; The role of cohesion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64HQKH5F

@misc{pith2026250714645,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low Speed Oblique Impact Behavior On Granular Media Across Gravitational Conditions; The role of cohesion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64HQKH5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14645}
}
read the original abstract

Analyses of impact provide rich insights from the evolution of granular bodies to their structural properties of the surface and subsurface layers of celestial bodies. Although chemical cohesive bonding has been observed in asteroid samples, and low-speed impact has been a subject of many studies, our understanding of the role of cohesion in these dynamics is limited, especially at small gravities such as those observed on asteroid surfaces. In this work, we use numerical discrete element method (DEM) and analytical dynamic resistive force theory (DRFT) modeling to examine the effect of cohesion on the outcome of the impact into loose granular media and explore scaling laws that predict impact behavior in the presence of cohesion under various gravitational conditions and cohesive strengths. We find that the effect of cohesion on the impact behavior becomes more significant in smaller gravitational acceleration, raising the need to scale the cohesion coefficient with gravity. We find that due to an insufficient understanding of confounding between cohesion and friction-induced quasi-static and inertial resistance, the outcomes of the DEM simulation models are incongruent with a suggested analytic model using Froude and Bond number scaling based on an additive contribution of frictional and inertial forces. Our study suggests that new dimensionless parameters and scaling are required to accurately capture the role of cohesion, given its ties to frictional behavior between the grain particles at different gravities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14645 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Initial configuration of granular bed settled under Earth gravity. The impact disc with radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convention of impact condition. The angle of the initial velocity varies from 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Behavioral map of impacts on cohesion-less bed under Bennu gravity condition, using damping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Peak tensile strength σ (N m−2 ) at different cohesive surface energy density γs (J m−2 ) under Bennu (red circle) and Earth (blue triangle) gravity conditions. The granular bed is assigned different surface energy densities ranging from γs=0.01 J m−2 to 10,000 J m−2 .…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Behavioral map of impacts on cohesion-less granular bed (left column), cohesive bed with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of matching impact trajectory based on Eq. 14 with cohesion coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact trajectory of DEM at impact angle 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    White, Jeffrey M

    Oliver L. White, Jeffrey M. Moore, Paul M. Schenk, Donald G. Korycansky, Andrew J. Dombard, Martina L. Caussi, and Kelsi N. Singer. Large impact features on ganymede and callisto as revealed by geological mapping and morphometry.Icarus, 426:116357, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Broquet and J.C

    A. Broquet and J.C. Andrews-Hanna. The moon before mare.Icarus, 408:115846, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    SPH–DEM modelling of hypervelocity impacts on rubble-pile asteroids.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527(4):10348–10357, 12 2023

    Yifei Jiao, Xiaoran Yan, Bin Cheng, and Hexi Baoyin. SPH–DEM modelling of hypervelocity impacts on rubble-pile asteroids.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527(4):10348–10357, 12 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Quillen, Juliana South, Randal C

    Esteban Wright, Alice C. Quillen, Juliana South, Randal C. Nelson, Paul S´ anchez, John Siu, Hesam Askari, Miki Nakajima, and Stephen R. Schwartz. Ricochets on asteroids: Experimental study of low velocity grazing impacts into granular media.Icarus, 351:113963, November 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Ralaiarisoa, P

    V. Ralaiarisoa, P. Dupont, A. Ould El Moctar, F. Naaim-Bouvet, L. Oger, and A. Valance. Particle impact on a cohesive granular media.PHYSICAL REVIEW E, 105, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Collision process between an incident bead and a three-dimensional granular packing.PRE, 75(6):061305, June 2007

    Djaoued Beladjine, Madani Ammi, Luc Oger, and Alexandre Valance. Collision process between an incident bead and a three-dimensional granular packing.PRE, 75(6):061305, June 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Experimental study of the collision process of a grain on a two-dimensional granular bed.Phys

    Fran ¸ cois Rioual, Alexandre Valance, and Daniel Bideau. Experimental study of the collision process of a grain on a two-dimensional granular bed.Phys. Rev. E, 62:2450–2459, Aug 2000

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Crassous and A

    J. Crassous and A. Valance. Granular Medium Impacted by a Projectile: Experiment and Model.AIP Conference Proceedings, 1145(1):771–774, 06 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Housen and Keith A

    Kevin R. Housen and Keith A. Holsapple. Ejecta from impact craters.Icarus, 211(1):856–875, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Cline II and Mark J

    Christopher J. Cline II and Mark J. Cintala. The effects of target density, porosity, and friction on impact crater morphometry: Exploratory experimentation using various granular materials.Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 57(7):1441–1459, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    A. C. Charters. High-speed impact.Scientific American, 203(4):128–143, 1960

    1960

  4. [12]

    Scaling impact crater dimensions in cohesive rock by numerical modeling and laboratory experiments.Geological Society of America Special Papers, 518:17–29, 2015

    N G¨ uldemeister, K W¨ unnemann, and MH Poelchau. Scaling impact crater dimensions in cohesive rock by numerical modeling and laboratory experiments.Geological Society of America Special Papers, 518:17–29, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Study on cohesion and adhesion of high-viscosity modified asphalt.International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 8(4):394–402, 2019

    Tan Yourong, Haiyan Zhang, Dongwei Cao, Lei Xia, Rongjie Du, Zhaoqiang Shi, Rui Dong, and Xi- anhe Wang. Study on cohesion and adhesion of high-viscosity modified asphalt.International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 8(4):394–402, 2019. Advances in Permeable ...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Israelachvili.Intermolecular and surface forces

    Jacob N. Israelachvili.Intermolecular and surface forces. Academic Press, Waltham, MA, 3rd ed. edition, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Nakamura

    Masato Kiuchi, Takaya Okamoto, Yuuya Nagaashi, Yukari Yamaguchi, Sunao Hasegawa, and Akiko M. Nakamura. Impact experiments on granular materials under low gravity: Effects of cohesive strength, internal friction, and porosity of particle layers on crater size.Icarus, 404:115685, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    A. P. Thompson, H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, D. S. Bolintineanu, W. M. Brown, P. S. Crozier, P. J. in ’t Veld, A. Kohlmeyer, S. G. Moore, T. D. Nguyen, R. Shan, M. J. Stevens, J. Tranchida, C. Trott, and S. J. Plimpton. LAMMPS - a flexible simulation tool for particle-based mater...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Walsh, Ronald-Louis Ballouz, Erica R

    Kevin J. Walsh, Ronald-Louis Ballouz, Erica R. Jawin, Chrysa Avdellidou, Olivier S. Barnouin, Ca- rina A. Bennett, Edward B. Bierhaus, Brent J. Bos, Saverio Cambioni, Harold C. Connolly, Marco Delbo, Daniella N. DellaGiustina, Joseph DeMartini, Joshua P. Emery, Dathon R. Golis...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Kubota, H

    Hajime Yano, T. Kubota, H. Miyamoto, T. Okada, D. Scheeres, Y. Takagi, K. Yoshida, M. Abe, S. Abe, O. Barnouin-Jha, A. Fujiwara, S. Hasegawa, T. Hashimoto, M. Ishiguro, M. Kato, J. Kawaguchi, T. Mukai, J. Saito, S. Sasaki, and M. Yoshikawa. Touchdown of the hayabusa spacecraft...

    2006

  11. [19]

    Parker, Cecilia Tubiana, and Holger Sierks

    Laurence O’Rourke, Philip Heinisch, J¨ urgen Blum, Sonia Fornasier, Gianrico Filacchione, Hong Van Hoang, Mauro Ciarniello, Andrea Raponi, Bastian Gundlach, Rafael Andr´ es Blasco, Bj¨ orn Grieger, Karl-Heinz Glassmeier, Michael K¨ uppers, Alessandra Rotundi, Olivier Groussin,...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Scheeres, Shinsuke Abe, Olivier Barnouin-Jha, Andrew F

    Hideaki Miyamoto, Hajime Yano, Daniel J. Scheeres, Shinsuke Abe, Olivier Barnouin-Jha, Andrew F. Cheng, Hirohide Demura, Robert W. Gaskell, Naru Hirata, Masateru Ishiguro, Tatsuhiro Michikami, Akiko M. Nakamura, Ryosuke Nakamura, Jun Saito, and Sho Sasaki. Regolith migration a...

    2007

  13. [21]

    Dworkin, and Hiroshi Naraoka

    Yasuhiro Oba, Yoshinori Takano, Jason P. Dworkin, and Hiroshi Naraoka. Ryugu asteroid sample return provides a natural laboratory for primordial chemical evolution.Nature Communications, 14:3107, May 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Lauretta, Harold C

    Dante S. Lauretta, Harold C. Connolly, Joseph E. Aebersold, Conel M. O’D. Alexander, Ronald-L. Ballouz, Jessica J. Barnes, Helena C. Bates, Carina A. Bennett, Laurinne Blanche, Erika H. Blumenfeld, Simon J. Clemett, George D. Cody, Daniella N. DellaGiustina, Jason P. Dworkin, ...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Timms, Tomoki Nakamura, William D

    Fred Jourdan, Nicholas E. Timms, Tomoki Nakamura, William D. A. Rickard, Celia Mayers, Steven M. Reddy, David Saxey, Luke Daly, Phil A. Bland, Ela Eroglu, and Denis Fougerouse. Rubble pile asteroids are forever.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(5):e2214353120, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Effect of contact deformations on the adhesion of particles.Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 53(2):314–326, 1975

    B.V Derjaguin, V.M Muller, and Yu.P Toporov. Effect of contact deformations on the adhesion of particles.Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 53(2):314–326, 1975

    1975

  17. [25]

    Miklavcic, Ethan Tokar, Esteban Wright, Paul Sanchez, Rachel Glade, Alice Quillen, and Hesam Askari

    Peter M. Miklavcic, Ethan Tokar, Esteban Wright, Paul Sanchez, Rachel Glade, Alice Quillen, and Hesam Askari. Froude number scaling unifies impact trajectories into granular media across gravitational conditions.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2307.10998, July 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    C. G. Hoover, K. J. Jardine, A. J. Ryan, P. Sanchez, J. Biele, R. L. Ballouz, R. J. Macke, Z. A. Landsman, J. M. Long-Fox, H. C. Connolly, and D. S. Lauretta. Bennu Sample Physical Properties from Multi-Scale Measurements of Strength and Indentation Hardness. InLPI Contributio...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Modelling and measuring of cohesion in wet granular materials.Powder Technology, 133(1):203–215, 2003

    Torsten Gr¨ oger, Ugur T¨ uz¨ un, and David M Heyes. Modelling and measuring of cohesion in wet granular materials.Powder Technology, 133(1):203–215, 2003

    2003

  20. [28]

    Michael Salerno, Dan S

    K. Michael Salerno, Dan S. Bolintineanu, Gary S. Grest, Jeremy B. Lechman, Steven J. Plimpton, Ishan Srivastava, and Leonardo E. Silbert. Effect of shape and friction on the packing and flow of granular materials.Phys. Rev. E, 98:050901, Nov 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Blair, Nathan W

    Daniel L. Blair, Nathan W. Mueggenburg, Adam H. Marshall, Heinrich M. Jaeger, and Sidney R. Nagel. Force distributions in three-dimensional granular assemblies: Effects of packing order and interparticle friction.Phys. Rev. E, 63:041304, Mar 2001

    2001

  22. [30]

    S´ anchez and D

    P. S´ anchez and D. J. Scheeres. The strength of regolith and rubble pile asteroids.Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 49(5):788–811, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Jardine, C

    K. Jardine, C. G. Hoover, P. Haenecour, J. J. Barnes, D. Hill, A. J. Ryan, P. Sanchez, J. Biele, R. L. Ballouz, R. J. Macke, Z. A. Landsman, J. Long-Fox, H. C. Connolly, and D. S. Lauretta. Nano- Mechanical AFM Cohesion Measurements of Bennu Particles: Implications for Asteroi...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Burns, Petri T

    Shane J. Burns, Petri T. Piiroinen, and Kevin J. Hanley. Critical time step for DEM simulations of dynamic systems using a Hertzian contact model.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 119(5):432–451, August 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Royer, Eric I

    John R. Royer, Eric I. Corwin, Andrew Flior, Maria-Luisa Cordero, Mark L. Rivers, Peter J. Eng, and Heinrich M. Jaeger. Formation of granular jets observed by high-speed X-ray radiography.Nature Physics, 1(3):164–167, December 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    K. L. Johnson, K. Kendall, and A. D. Roberts. Surface Energy and the Contact of Elastic Solids. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 324(1558):301–313, September 1971

    1971

  27. [35]

    Connolly, H C, S R Schwartz, O C ¸ elik, M Baba, and D S Lauretta

    R-L Ballouz, K J Walsh, P S´ anchez, K A Holsapple, P Michel, D J Scheeres, Y Zhang, D C Richardson, O S Barnouin, M C Nolan, E B Bierhaus, Jr. Connolly, H C, S R Schwartz, O C ¸ elik, M Baba, and D S Lauretta. Modified granular impact force laws for the osiris-rex touchdown o...

    2021

  28. [36]

    A terradynamics of legged locomotion on granular media.science, 339(6126):1408–1412, 2013

    Chen Li, Tingnan Zhang, and Daniel I Goldman. A terradynamics of legged locomotion on granular media.science, 339(6126):1408–1412, 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    Maladen, Yang Ding, Paul B

    Ryan D. Maladen, Yang Ding, Paul B. Umbanhowar, Adam Kamor, and Daniel I. Goldman. Mechanical models of sandfish locomotion reveal principles of high performance subsurface sand-swimming.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 8(62):1332–1345, 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    Tingnan Zhang and Daniel I. Goldman. The effectiveness of resistive force theory in granular locomo- tiona).Physics of Fluids, 26(10):101308, 10 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Intrusion rheology in grains and other flowable materials.Nature materials, 15(12):1274–1279, 2016

    Hesam Askari and Ken Kamrin. Intrusion rheology in grains and other flowable materials.Nature materials, 15(12):1274–1279, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Surprising simplicity in the modeling of dynamic granular intrusion.Science Advances, 7(17):eabe0631, 2021

    Shashank Agarwal, Andras Karsai, Daniel I Goldman, and Ken Kamrin. Surprising simplicity in the modeling of dynamic granular intrusion.Science Advances, 7(17):eabe0631, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Deniz Kerimoglu, Eloise Marteau, Daniel Soto, and Daniel I. Goldman. Extending granular resistive force theory to cohesive powder-scale media, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Behringer

    Jacques Duran and Robert P. Behringer. Sands, Powders, and Grains: An Introduction to the Physics of Granular Materials.Physics Today, 54(4):49–52, April 2001. 13

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.