Finite volume convergence analysis and error estimation for non-linear collisional induced breakage equation

Rajesh Kumar; Sanjiv Kumar Bariwal

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Finite volume convergence analysis and error estimation for non-linear collisional induced breakage equation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A finite volume scheme for the collisional breakage equation is proven to converge to weak solutions and to be first-order accurate on uniform meshes.

desk verdict First numerical analysis for the nonlinear collisional breakage equation, with a clean scheme and plausible rates—but the central weak-convergence proof has a load-bearing gap in passing quadratic products to the limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16925 v1 pith:CCBKM2TW submitted 2024-11-25 math.NA cs.NA

Sanjiv Kumar Bariwal , Rajesh Kumar This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 45L0545K0565R10

keywords collisionalbreakageequationfinitevolumemethodweakconvergenceerrorestimatefirst-ordernon-conservativeschemepopulationbalanceL1compactness

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

The paper proves that a non-conservative finite volume scheme for the binary collisional breakage equation produces approximations that converge, along a subsequence, to a weak solution of the equation when the time step obeys a stated stability condition and the collision and breakage kernels are locally bounded. It also shows that on uniform meshes, when the kernels and initial data lie in a Sobolev space of bounded first derivatives, the error between the numerical and exact solutions is bounded by a constant times the mesh size plus the time step, so the method is first-order accurate. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a numerical method for a nonlinear integro-differential equation that appears in milling, asteroid distribution, and fluidized-bed studies, and previous work had not supplied a convergence or error analysis for finite volume discretizations of this equation. Numerical tests with two kernel combinations confirm the predicted first-order rate.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a finite volume discretization of the non-conservative form of the equation: cell-averaged concentrations $C_a^n$, midpoint-rule quadrature for the birth term using the cutoff $p_a^j$ (the cell midpoint for $j=a$ and the right cell edge otherwise), and cell-averaged kernels $K^{\hbar}$ and $B^{\hbar}$ that converge strongly in $L^1$. The convergence proof obtains weak $L^1$ compactness from equiboundedness plus equiintegrability, using a convex superlinear test function to control $\psi(C^{\hbar})$, and passes to the limit through the discrete weak formulation. The error estimate relies on $W^{1,\infty}_{\mathrm{loc}}$ regularity to bound kernel approximation errors, decomposes the total error into birth, death, space-truncation, and time-stepping pieces, and closes with an exponential bound.

What would settle it

On a uniform mesh with a locally bounded breakage kernel such as $B(m,n,z)=2/n$ for $m<n$, compute $D_j(\hbar)=\sum_{a=1}^{j} m_a B(m_a,m_j,m_l)\Delta m_a - m_j$ for fixed $j$; if $|D_j(\hbar)|$ fails to tend to zero as $\hbar\to 0$, or the discrete mass-loss inequality (34) fails under the stability condition (19), then the $L^1$ bounds needed for Theorem 3.1 do not follow from the paper's argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.1: under the time-step restriction $S(T,R)\Delta t \leq \theta < 1$, the fully discrete finite volume approximations $C^{\hbar}$ are nonnegative, satisfy $L^1$ and mass bounds, and a subsequence converges in $L^\infty([0,T]; L^1(0,R))$ to a weak solution of the collisional breakage equation. Theorem 4.1 adds that for uniform meshes with kernels in $W^{1,\infty}_{\mathrm{loc}}$ and initial data in $W^{1,\infty}_{\mathrm{loc}}$, the error satisfies $\|C^{\hbar}-C\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^1)} \leq H(T,R)(\hbar+\Delta t)$. Together the two theorems assert that this non-conservative finite volume scheme is a convergent, first-order method for the model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the composite midpoint sum $\sum_{a=1}^{j} m_a B(m_a,m_j,m_l)\Delta m_a$ equals the continuous moment $m_j$ exactly, although the last cell is truncated at $m_j$ and $B$ is only locally bounded, so the equality carries an unproven $O(\hbar)$ quadrature error; the discrete mass-loss bound (34) and the resulting $L^1$ estimates depend on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

When the stability condition (19) holds, the fully discrete finite volume approximation is nonnegative and has uniformly bounded total number and mass, so the scheme is usable for locally bounded breakage kernels and collision kernels growing at most like the product and sum forms in (7).
The limit of the approximations is a weak solution of the collisional breakage equation in the sense of the integral identity (21), so the scheme can approximate solutions in regimes where classical solutions are not known.
On uniform meshes with $W^{1,\infty}_{\mathrm{loc}}$ kernels and initial data, the error bound $H(T,R)(\hbar+\Delta t)$ makes the method first-order accurate in both space and time.
The numerical experiments with two collision kernels show experimental orders of convergence close to 1, matching the theorem.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the mass-loss inequality rests on a midpoint quadrature identity that is only approximate, the scheme likely has a small $O(\hbar)$ drift in total mass; computing total mass over time on coarse uniform grids would test whether that drift is visible in practice.
A conservative finite volume variant that enforces the moment identity $\int_0^n m B(m,n,z)dm = n$ cellwise would remove the weakest assumption and could extend the convergence proof to non-uniform meshes.
The error theorem's $W^{1,\infty}_{\mathrm{loc}}$ assumptions exclude singular breakage kernels such as power-law fragmentation, so extending the analysis to locally integrable but unbounded breakage kernels would require a different compactness estimate.
The convergence theorem guarantees only a subsequence; proving uniqueness of weak solutions for the kernel class considered would upgrade this to convergence of the whole sequence, a step the paper does not take.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is the first attempt I know at a rigorous convergence and error analysis for the nonlinear collisional breakage equation, and the scheme is clean and clearly described. The weak-convergence proof, however, has a genuine hole at the point where the quadratic products are passed to the limit, and that hole is load-bearing. If you plan to rely on Theorem 3.1 or the error estimate, don't yet.

What's new: the paper extends the Bourgade–Filbet finite volume compactness framework from coagulation–fragmentation to collision-induced breakage with locally bounded kernels, and it states explicit first-order error estimates under W^{1,∞}_loc assumptions. The scheme itself is straightforward FVM with midpoint quadrature and explicit Euler time stepping. The numerical examples show clean first-order rates, and the exposition is readable enough to reproduce.

Where it breaks: the passage from the discrete weak form (43) to the limit (49)–(50) invokes Lemma 3.7, which needs one factor uniformly L∞ and converging a.e. The proof only supplies weak L1 compactness of C^h via Dunford–Pettis (Proposition 3.5), and there is no L∞ bound at that stage. The standard oscillating example (1+sin(2πx/h) weakly converging to 1 while the square weakly converges to 3/2) shows exactly why weak compactness alone cannot pass products like C^h(t,n)C^h(t,z). So Theorem 3.1 as stated is not established. This is not a cosmetic gap; the rest of the paper depends on it.

There are also two smaller issues. The discrete mass identity (33) treats the midpoint-rule sum over the cut cell as exactly equal to ∫_0^{m_j} mB dm = m_j, which carries an O(ℏ) quadrature error that is ignored. And the numerical tests use delta-function breakage kernels, which lie outside the W^{1,∞}_loc hypothesis of Theorem 4.1, so the reported EOC doesn't actually test the error theorem. The worry about the Lyapunov coefficient in (41) being incompatible with (19) seems less serious to me: if R≥1, condition (19) does bound the denominator; the paper never states R≥1, but that's a minor fix.

Bottom line: this is a real subfield-level contribution in terms of problem choice and scheme design, but the central convergence theorem doesn't yet have a valid proof. I'd send it to a knowledgeable referee—the gaps might be repairable with an a priori L∞ estimate or a compensated-compactness argument—but I wouldn't accept it in this form.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a finite volume scheme for the non-linear collisional-induced breakage equation and claims two main results: (i) weak convergence of the discrete approximations to a weak solution of the continuous problem under a time-step stability condition and locally bounded kernels, and (ii) a first-order error estimate on uniform meshes for kernels and initial data in W^{1,∞}_{loc}. The proof strategy follows the work of Bourgade and Filbet, using weak L1 compactness via the Dunford-Pettis theorem and a De la Vallée Poussin equiintegrability argument, together with a Gronwall-type error estimate for the fully discrete scheme. Numerical experiments for two kernel combinations are reported to support the claimed first-order convergence.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would provide a rigorous numerical analysis for a class of collision-induced breakage equations where few finite volume convergence results exist. The authors correctly identify the non-conservative form of the scheme and attempt to handle locally unbounded kernels within an L1 compactness framework. Credit is due for engaging with a difficult nonlinear integral equation and for providing reproducible numerical experiments. However, the main convergence theorem rests on an invalid passage to the limit in the quadratic product terms: weak L1 compactness alone does not justify the limits asserted in Eqs. (49) and (50). This is a load-bearing gap, not a presentation issue. The error estimate in Theorem 4.1 also relies on unproven L∞ bounds for the discrete solution. As a result, the principal contributions of the paper are not established.

major comments (4)

[§3, Theorem 3.1, Eqs. (43)–(50)] The passage to the limit in the quadratic birth and death terms invokes Lemma 3.7, but the hypotheses of that lemma are not satisfied. Proposition 3.5 establishes only weak sequential compactness of C^h in L1((0,T)×(0,R)); it gives neither an L∞ bound nor a.e. convergence of a subsequence. Since both factors in C^h(t,n)C^h(t,z) are only weakly compact in L1, Lemma 3.7 cannot be applied. The standard example C^h = 1 + sin(2πx/h) shows the obstruction: C^h ⇀ 1 in L1, but C^hC^h ⇀ 3/2, not 1^2. Thus the limits in (49) and (50) are not justified, and the weak formulation (21) is not reached.
[§3, Proposition 3.3, Eq. (33)] The discrete mass-loss identity is asserted as an exact equality, but it is only a quadrature approximation. The step replaces ∑_{a=1}^j m_a B(m_a,m_j,m_l) Δm_a by ∫_0^{m_j} m B(m,m_j,m_l) dm = m_j. Because the last cell is cut at m_j and B is only assumed locally bounded, there is a quadrature error of order O(ℏ). This error propagates into the mass-loss bound (34) and the L1 bound (25), both of which are used throughout the convergence proof. Proposition 3.3 therefore does not establish the required a priori estimates.
[§3, Proposition 3.5, Eqs. (38)–(41)] The equiintegrability estimate requires the coefficient (1 − 2λΔt M_1^in ‖C_in‖_{L1} e^{2λR‖B‖∞M_1^in T}) to be positive and the induction to run with a uniform constant. The stability condition (19), as stated with S(T,R) in (20), does not imply this positivity; the bound (41) involves A^n and B(A^n−1)/(A−1), which may diverge if the denominator is not controlled uniformly in n. Moreover, the non-negativity of C^{n+1}, used in the first inequality of (38), is established via Proposition 3.3, whose mass-loss identity is itself not exact. The equiintegrability conclusion is therefore not justified.
[§4, Theorem 4.1, Prop. 4.2 and Eqs. (58)–(62)] The error estimate relies on Proposition 4.2, which asserts uniform L∞ bounds for both C^h and C and a W^{1,∞} bound for C. However, the bound for C is derived from an inequality that does not close without a Gronwall argument applied to the L1 norm, and the L1 norm of the exact solution is not established from the stated hypotheses. More seriously, the bound on (CB)_3 in (60) uses ‖C^h‖_{L∞}, but no such uniform L∞ bound for C^h follows from the assumptions of Theorem 4.1; the Lyapunov argument in Proposition 3.5 yields only L1 equiintegrability. Thus the error estimate (51) is not proven under the stated hypotheses.

minor comments (4)

[§1, Abstract and Introduction] There are several typographical issues: 'instrument tool' should be 'instrumental tool', 'representated' should be 'represented', and 'the following equation defines the jth moment' should be punctuated as a complete sentence.
[§2, Eq. (16) and §3, Theorem 3.1] The notation Ξ^h and ξ^h is used in the convergence proof but introduced only in Remark 3.6; it should be defined earlier, ideally when the mesh is introduced.
[§3, Theorem 3.1 statement] The theorem states C^h → C in L∞([0,T];L1), but the proof only establishes weak convergence in L1((0,T)×(0,R)); the claimed strong-in-time convergence is never addressed and should either be proved or removed from the statement.
[§5, Eq. (63) and Tables 1–2] The double-mesh EOC formula uses N_{2I} and N_{4I}, but the tables list cell counts 30, 60, 120, 240, 480; the notation should clarify which pair of solutions is compared for each row, and the rows for 30 and 60 cells should have EOC values if the formula is applied consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular dependency: the convergence and error proofs are standard compactness/Gronwall arguments, not reductions to the paper's own conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central results are Theorem 3.1 (weak L1 convergence under the CFL-type condition (19)) and Theorem 4.1 (first-order error estimate on uniform meshes). The proof proceeds by the standard Bourgade-Filbet route: non-negativity and L1 bounds from the explicit scheme, uniform integrability via a De la Vallee Poussin function, Dunford-Pettis weak compactness, passage to the limit in the linear and nonlinear terms, and a Gronwall-based error estimate. None of these stages defines the target weak solution or error bound in terms of the conclusion. The scheme's discrete birth/death terms are derived directly from the continuous equation by cell averaging and midpoint quadrature, not fitted to the expected answer. The cited [21] is an external convergence proof for a related coagulation-fragmentation scheme, and [22,23] are self-citations used only as references for FVM applications, not as load-bearing justifications of the present theorems. The suspect midpoint identity in Eq. (33) is a numerical approximation issue, not a circular one: an incorrect equality between a quadrature sum and the moment identity (3) would undermine the proof, but it does not make the theorem equivalent to its own assumptions. Likewise, any weakness in passing the quadratic terms to the limit (Lemma 3.7 vs. mere weak L1 compactness) is a mathematical gap rather than a self-referential derivation. I therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or new physical entities. Its assumptions are the kernel growth conditions, the initial-data class, and the time-step restriction, plus standard analytic tools.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The collision and breakage kernels satisfy H1-H2 as in (6)-(7): B ∈ L∞_{loc}, K piecewise defined as λmn, λmn^{-α}, λm^{-α}n, or λ(m^ζ n^η + m^η n^ζ).
These kernel assumptions are central to the stability, convergence, and error estimates throughout the paper.
domain assumption Initial condition Cin ∈ X_+ with finite total mass M_1^{in} and finite L1 norm.
Needed for the space (5) and for the bounds in Propositions 3.3, 3.5, and 4.2.
domain assumption Time step Δt satisfies the stability condition S(T,R)Δt ≤ θ < 1 from (19)-(20).
Used to prove non-negativity and equiintegrability of the discrete approximations.
standard math Standard theorems: Dunford-Pettis, De la Vallée Poussin, Gronwall's lemma, Young's inequality.
Invoked in Sections 3 and 4 for compactness and error bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite volume convergence analysis and error estimation for non-linear collisional induced breakage equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CCBKM2TW

@misc{pith2026241116925,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite volume convergence analysis and error estimation for non-linear collisional induced breakage equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CCBKM2TW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16925}
}

abstract

This article focuses on the finite volume method (FVM) as an instrument tool to deal with the non-linear collisional-induced breakage equation (CBE) that arises in the particulate process. Notably, we consider the non-conservative approximation of the CBE. The analysis of weak convergence of the approximated solutions under a feasible stability condition on the time step is investigated for locally bounded breakage and collision kernels. Subsequently, explicit error estimation of the FVM solutions in uniform mesh having the kernels in the class of $W_{loc}^{1,\infty}$ space. It is also shown numerically for the first-order convergent scheme by taking numerical examples.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

Applications of the linear mass-sectiona l breakage population balance to various milling process conﬁgurations,

R. B. Diemer, “Applications of the linear mass-sectiona l breakage population balance to various milling process conﬁgurations,” AAPS PharmSciTech, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1–17, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

A pplication of basic process mod- eling in investigating the breakage behavior of ug2 ore in we t milling,

G. Danha, D. Hildebrandt, D. Glasser, and C. Bhondayi, “A pplication of basic process mod- eling in investigating the breakage behavior of ug2 ore in we t milling,” Powder Technology, vol. 279, pp. 42–48, 2015. 21

work page 2015
[3]

On modelling the interacti on between two rotating bodies with statistically distributed features: an application t o dressing of grinding wheels,

A. Spampinato and D. Axinte, “On modelling the interacti on between two rotating bodies with statistically distributed features: an application t o dressing of grinding wheels,” Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 473, no. 2208, p. 20170466, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Collision-induced breakage of agglom erates in homogenous isotropic turbulence laden with adhesive particles,

S. Chen and S. Li, “Collision-induced breakage of agglom erates in homogenous isotropic turbulence laden with adhesive particles,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics , vol. 902, 2020

2020
[5]

Kudzotsa, Mechanisms of aerosol indirect eﬀects on glaciated clouds s imulated numeri- cally

I. Kudzotsa, Mechanisms of aerosol indirect eﬀects on glaciated clouds s imulated numeri- cally. University of Leeds, 2013

work page 2013
[6]

Explosive i ce multiplication by mechanical break-up in ice–ice collisions: a dynamical system-based s tudy,

J.-I. Yano, V. T. Phillips, and V. Kanawade, “Explosive i ce multiplication by mechanical break-up in ice–ice collisions: a dynamical system-based s tudy,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 142, no. 695, pp. 867–879, 2016

2016
[7]

Coeﬃcient of restitution for particles impacting on wet su rfaces: An improved experimen- tal approach,

B. Cr¨ uger, V. Salikov, S. Heinrich, S. Antonyuk, V. S. Su tkar, N. G. Deen, and J. Kuipers, “Coeﬃcient of restitution for particles impacting on wet su rfaces: An improved experimen- tal approach,” Particuology, vol. 25, pp. 1–9, 2016

work page 2016
[8]

Development of a multi-compartment population balance mo del for high-shear wet granu- lation with discrete element method,

K. F. Lee, M. Dosta, A. D. McGuire, S. Mosbach, W. Wagner, S . Heinrich, and M. Kraft, “Development of a multi-compartment population balance mo del for high-shear wet granu- lation with discrete element method,” Computers & Chemical Engineering , vol. 99, pp. 171– 184, 2017

2017

Show all 34 references

[9]

Scaling theory of fragmentation ,

Z. Cheng and S. Redner, “Scaling theory of fragmentation ,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 60, no. 24, p. 2450, 1988

1988
[10]

New solutions to the fragmentation equation,

R. M. Ziﬀ, “New solutions to the fragmentation equation, ” Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and General , vol. 24, no. 12, p. 2821, 1991

1991
[11]

The kinetics of cluster fragme ntation and depolymerisation,

R. M. Ziﬀ and E. McGrady, “The kinetics of cluster fragme ntation and depolymerisation,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , vol. 18, no. 15, p. 3027, 1985

1985
[12]

Similarity solutions for the populati on balance equation describing particle fragmentation,

T. W. Peterson, “Similarity solutions for the populati on balance equation describing particle fragmentation,” Aerosol Science and Technology , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 93–101, 1986

1986
[13]

A note on the self-simila r solutions to the spontaneous fragmentation equation,

G. Breschi and M. A. Fontelos, “A note on the self-simila r solutions to the spontaneous fragmentation equation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 473, no. 2201, p. 20160740, 2017

2017
[14]

Numerical simula tion of breakage of two-dimensional polygon-shaped particles using discrete element method,

E. S. Hosseininia and A. Mirghasemi, “Numerical simula tion of breakage of two-dimensional polygon-shaped particles using discrete element method,” Powder Technology, vol. 166, no. 2, pp. 100–112, 2006

2006
[15]

Discrete solution of the breakage equation using markov chains,

M. Catak, N. Bas, K. Cronin, J. J. Fitzpatrick, and E. P. B yrne, “Discrete solution of the breakage equation using markov chains,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research , vol. 49, no. 17, pp. 8248–8257, 2010

2010
[16]

A discrete population balance equation for binary breakage,

Y. Liao, R. Oertel, S. Kriebitzsch, F. Schlegel, and D. L ucas, “A discrete population balance equation for binary breakage,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids , vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 202–215, 2018. 22

2018
[17]

A note on mass-conserving sol utions to the coagulation- fragmentation equation by using non-conservative approxi mation,

P. K. Barik and A. K. Giri, “A note on mass-conserving sol utions to the coagulation- fragmentation equation by using non-conservative approxi mation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.08038, 2018

2018 arXiv
[18]

Solution of t he population balance equa- tion using the sectional quadrature method of moments (sqmo m),

M. M. Attarakih, C. Drumm, and H.-J. Bart, “Solution of t he population balance equa- tion using the sectional quadrature method of moments (sqmo m),” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 742–752, 2009

2009
[19]

Stabilized ﬁnit e element discretization applied to an operator-splitting method of population balance equati ons,

N. Ahmed, G. Matthies, and L. Tobiska, “Stabilized ﬁnit e element discretization applied to an operator-splitting method of population balance equati ons,” Applied Numerical Mathe- matics, vol. 70, pp. 58–79, 2013

2013
[20]

Solution of the popula tion balance equation using constant-number monte carlo,

Y. Lin, K. Lee, and T. Matsoukas, “Solution of the popula tion balance equation using constant-number monte carlo,” Chemical Engineering Science , vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 2241– 2252, 2002

2002
[21]

Convergence of a ﬁnite vo lume scheme for coagulation- fragmentation equations,

J.-P. Bourgade and F. Filbet, “Convergence of a ﬁnite vo lume scheme for coagulation- fragmentation equations,” Math. Comp. , vol. 77, no. 262, pp. 851–882, 2008

2008
[22]

Convergence and error estim ation of weighted ﬁnite volume scheme for coagulation-fragmentation equation,

S. K. Bariwal and R. Kumar, “Convergence and error estim ation of weighted ﬁnite volume scheme for coagulation-fragmentation equation,” Numerical Methods for Partial Diﬀerential Equations, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 2561–2583, 2023

2023
[23]

Nume rical study of ﬁnite volume scheme for coagulation–fragmentation equations with sing ular rates,

S. K. Bariwal, P. K. Barik, A. K. Giri, and R. Kumar, “Nume rical study of ﬁnite volume scheme for coagulation–fragmentation equations with sing ular rates,” Journal of Hyperbolic Diﬀerential Equations , vol. 20, no. 04, pp. 793–823, 2023

2023
[24]

A study of the nonlinear breakage equation: analytical and asymptotic solutions,

M. Kostoglou and A. Karabelas, “A study of the nonlinear breakage equation: analytical and asymptotic solutions,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , vol. 33, no. 6, p. 1221, 2000

2000
[25]

The discrete coagulatio n equations with collisional break- age,

P. Lauren¸ cot and D. Wrzosek, “The discrete coagulatio n equations with collisional break- age,” Journal of Statistical Physics , vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 193–220, 2001

2001
[26]

Coalescence and breakage processes,

C. Walker, “Coalescence and breakage processes,” Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 729–748, 2002

2002
[27]

Global classical solutions t o the continuous coagulation equa- tion with collisional breakage,

P. K. Barik and A. K. Giri, “Global classical solutions t o the continuous coagulation equa- tion with collisional breakage,” ZAMP, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2020

2020
[28]

Existence and uniqueness of mass con serving solutions to the coag- ulation and collision-induced breakage equation,

A. Das and J. Saha, “Existence and uniqueness of mass con serving solutions to the coag- ulation and collision-induced breakage equation,” The Journal of Analysis , vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1323–1340, 2022

2022
[29]

Kinetics of fragmentation,

Z. Cheng and S. Redner, “Kinetics of fragmentation,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, vol. 23, no. 7, p. 1233, 1990

1990
[30]

The nonlinear fragme ntation equation,

M. H. Ernst and I. Pagonabarraga, “The nonlinear fragme ntation equation,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , vol. 40, no. 17, p. F331, 2007. 23

2007
[31]

Shattering transitions in collision-induced fragmentation,

P. Krapivsky and E. Ben-Naim, “Shattering transitions in collision-induced fragmentation,” Physical Review E , vol. 68, no. 2, p. 021102, 2003

2003
[32]

Weak solutions to the coll ision-induced breakage equation with dominating coagulation,

A. K. Giri and P. Lauren¸ cot, “Weak solutions to the coll ision-induced breakage equation with dominating coagulation,” J. Diﬀerential Equations , vol. 280, pp. 690–729, 2021

2021
[33]

On the appro ximate solution and modeling of the kernel of nonlinear breakage population balance equa tion,

A. Das, J. Kumar, M. Dosta, and S. Heinrich, “On the appro ximate solution and modeling of the kernel of nonlinear breakage population balance equa tion,” SIAM journal on scientiﬁc computing, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. B1570–B1598, 2020

2020
[34]

The continuous coagula tion-fragmentation equatons with diﬀusion,

P. Lauren¸ cot and S. Mischler, “The continuous coagula tion-fragmentation equatons with diﬀusion,” Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , vol. 162, no. 1, pp. 45–99, 2002. 24

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Applications of the linear mass-sectiona l breakage population balance to various milling process conﬁgurations,

R. B. Diemer, “Applications of the linear mass-sectiona l breakage population balance to various milling process conﬁgurations,” AAPS PharmSciTech, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1–17, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [2]

A pplication of basic process mod- eling in investigating the breakage behavior of ug2 ore in we t milling,

G. Danha, D. Hildebrandt, D. Glasser, and C. Bhondayi, “A pplication of basic process mod- eling in investigating the breakage behavior of ug2 ore in we t milling,” Powder Technology, vol. 279, pp. 42–48, 2015. 21

work page 2015

[3] [3]

On modelling the interacti on between two rotating bodies with statistically distributed features: an application t o dressing of grinding wheels,

A. Spampinato and D. Axinte, “On modelling the interacti on between two rotating bodies with statistically distributed features: an application t o dressing of grinding wheels,” Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 473, no. 2208, p. 20170466, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Collision-induced breakage of agglom erates in homogenous isotropic turbulence laden with adhesive particles,

S. Chen and S. Li, “Collision-induced breakage of agglom erates in homogenous isotropic turbulence laden with adhesive particles,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics , vol. 902, 2020

2020

[5] [5]

Kudzotsa, Mechanisms of aerosol indirect eﬀects on glaciated clouds s imulated numeri- cally

I. Kudzotsa, Mechanisms of aerosol indirect eﬀects on glaciated clouds s imulated numeri- cally. University of Leeds, 2013

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Explosive i ce multiplication by mechanical break-up in ice–ice collisions: a dynamical system-based s tudy,

J.-I. Yano, V. T. Phillips, and V. Kanawade, “Explosive i ce multiplication by mechanical break-up in ice–ice collisions: a dynamical system-based s tudy,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 142, no. 695, pp. 867–879, 2016

2016

[7] [7]

Coeﬃcient of restitution for particles impacting on wet su rfaces: An improved experimen- tal approach,

B. Cr¨ uger, V. Salikov, S. Heinrich, S. Antonyuk, V. S. Su tkar, N. G. Deen, and J. Kuipers, “Coeﬃcient of restitution for particles impacting on wet su rfaces: An improved experimen- tal approach,” Particuology, vol. 25, pp. 1–9, 2016

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Development of a multi-compartment population balance mo del for high-shear wet granu- lation with discrete element method,

K. F. Lee, M. Dosta, A. D. McGuire, S. Mosbach, W. Wagner, S . Heinrich, and M. Kraft, “Development of a multi-compartment population balance mo del for high-shear wet granu- lation with discrete element method,” Computers & Chemical Engineering , vol. 99, pp. 171– 184, 2017

2017