On models of meteoroid disruption into the cloud of fragments

I.G. Brykina, M.D. Bragin

Planetary and Space Science
In Press, Journal Pre-proof, Available online 27 April 2020



• Proposed and accepted models of meteoroid disruption into fragment cloud are compared.
• Ablation is modeled using proposed formula for radiative heat transfer coefficient.
• Energy deposition of Chelyabinsk meteoroid is modeled using various pancake models.
• Proposed model gives the best agreement with observational energy deposition curve.”

“The meteoroid disruption into a large number of fragments when they move with a common shock wave before dispersion to a sufficient distance to move independently is considered. Disrupted meteoroid under the action of pressure forces is deformed: it is compressed in a flight direction and expands in a lateral one. Four models of the meteoroid disruption into a cloud of fragments moving as a single body are considered: two models developed by the authors and two models used in the literature (Grigoryan, 1979; Hills and Goda, 1993). The principal differences between the proposed and accepted models are shown. Numerical solutions of the meteor physics equations are obtained using the above models to simulate the interaction of the Chelyabinsk meteoroid with the atmosphere. To model the meteoroid ablation, an approximate formula is used for the radiative heat transfer coefficient as a function of the meteoroid velocity and size and the atmospheric density. The influence of the heat transfer coefficient uncertainty (including its constant value) on the meteoroid mass loss, energy deposition and initial mass estimate is studied. Solutions using different fragmentation models are compared with each other and with observational data and the results of comparisons are discussed.”

Corrigendum to “On models of meteoroid disruption into the cloud of fragments” [Planet. Space Sci. 187 (2020) 104942]

I.G. Brykina, M.D. Bragin

Planetary and Space Science
Available online 10 September 2020, 105085


“The authors regret the accidental errors:


The second formula (9) should not contain the Greek letter Tau.


In section 4, when estimating the entry mass of the Chelyabinsk meteoroid, the power exponent should be everywhere 10 (9), without minus sign, and not −10 (−9). >

The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.”