Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Investigating the Bouncing Barrier with Collision Simulations of Compressed Dust Aggregates

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Collision simulations show compact dust aggregates bounce above a threshold mass that scales as impact velocity to the $-4/3$ power.

desk verdict Compressed BCCA aggregates finally produce a velocity-dependent bouncing threshold in simulations, but the headline -4/3 scaling is imposed, not measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03107 v3 pith:TBYZIGBS submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.EP cond-mat.soft

Haruto Oshiro , Misako Tatsuuma , Satoshi Okuzumi , Hidekazu Tanaka This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPcond-mat.soft
keywords PlanetformationPlanetesimalsProtoplanetarydisksCollisionalprocessesDustphysicsBouncingbarrieraggregatecollisionsCompaction
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

This paper asks when collisions between compact dust aggregates in protoplanetary disks switch from sticking to bouncing. It reports that the threshold mass for bouncing grows as impact velocity decreases, following $m_{\rm bounce} = m_{v1}(v_{\rm imp}/1\,{\rm m\,s^{-1}})^{-4/3}$ below about 10 m/s, and that the normalization $m_{v1}$ drops steeply, roughly as $\phi^{-18.6}$, as the filling factor rises from 0.4 to 0.5. If this holds, moderately compact aggregates stop growing near 100 micrometers, which matches size and filling-factor constraints from millimeter-wave polarization observations of disks. The paper matters because previous simulations saw little velocity dependence in bouncing, while experiments did; the new ingredient is preparing aggregates by compressing porous ones, mimicking natural compaction.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the compressed BCCA sphere: an aggregate built by ballistic cluster-cluster aggregation and then compressed by moving periodic boundaries to filling factors 0.4, 0.45, and 0.5, giving average coordination numbers around 4 rather than the near-closest-packed values used in earlier simulations. The load-bearing identity is the empirical threshold law $m_{\rm bounce}=m_{v1}(v_{\rm imp}/1\,{\rm m\,s^{-1}})^{-4/3}$, whose exponent is imposed for comparison with experiments and whose normalization $m_{v1}$ is fit to the simulation data. Around this sits the three-phase energy accounting of compression, transition, and stretching, which explains why the threshold exists: almost all impact energy is dissipated before elastic repulsion can return it to kinetic energy.

What would settle it

Run the same collision survey with aggregates compacted by a different natural-like history, such as repeated gentle impacts or cyclic compression, and fit the threshold masses without fixing the exponent; a best-fit exponent significantly different from $-4/3$, or a different $m_{v1}$ versus $\phi$ slope, would falsify the central claim. Direct tomographic measurement of coordination-number distributions in impacted laboratory aggregates would test the structural premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the bouncing barrier for compressed dust aggregates is set by a power-law threshold mass, $m_{\rm bounce} \propto v_{\rm imp}^{-4/3}$, with a proportionality constant that depends steeply on the volume filling factor. The authors find this by simulating head-on collisions of compressed BCCA spheres, which are ballistic cluster-cluster aggregates compacted under periodic boundaries to filling factors 0.4, 0.45, and 0.5, and locating the mass at which the mean growth efficiency passes 0.5. At low impact velocities, larger aggregates bounce at lower velocities, and the threshold mass drops by nearly an order of magnitude when the filling factor rises by 0.05. The energy budget shows that about 90% of the initial impact energy is dissipated by sliding during the initial compression phase and more than 70% of the remaining energy by rolling during stretching, so only a few percent of the initial kinetic energy is left to decide the outcome.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on compressed BCCA spheres standing in for naturally compacted dust aggregates; if real compaction histories produce different contact networks, the velocity scaling and the steep filling-factor trend could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dust aggregates with filling factor $\gtrsim 0.4$ in protoplanetary disks should stop growing near $100\,\mu$m, because the bouncing threshold velocity falls below the turbulent collision velocity at that size.
  • The steep $\phi^{-18.6}$ dependence means small changes in compaction state shift the bouncing threshold by orders of magnitude, so compactness must be treated as a controlling variable in dust-growth models.
  • The $-4/3$ scaling reproduces laboratory experiments on sub-millimeter SiO2 aggregates, suggesting the exponent is insensitive to monomer size and material within the tested range.
  • Bouncing dominates only in an intermediate velocity window; at low velocity aggregates stick for lack of energy, and at high velocity they stick through deformation and large contact areas.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $-4/3$ exponent is universal, then the factor $m_{v1}$ carries all material dependence; measuring it for different monomer radii and surface energies would let disk models scale the barrier without new collision simulations.
  • The steep filling-factor dependence implies that a disk's aggregate population could be effectively bimodal in compaction: loose aggregates keep growing while compact ones stall, which may produce the size and polarization signatures inferred from observations.
  • Extrapolating the threshold to $\phi\approx 0.35$ brings the bouncing velocity into the 0.3 to 1 m/s range inferred for the IM Lup disk, suggesting the barrier may operate even at moderate porosity; a direct simulation at that filling factor would test this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents three-dimensional N-body collision simulations of compressed dust aggregates, focusing on the bouncing barrier for moderately compact aggregates (filling factors phi = 0.4, 0.45, 0.5). The initial aggregates are produced by compressing BCCA-like structures, a more physically motivated procedure than the CPE aggregates used in earlier simulations. The authors map the sticking-bouncing boundary as a function of impact velocity and aggregate mass, and report that the threshold mass follows a power law mbounce = mv1 (vimp/1 m/s)^(-4/3) at velocities below about 10 m/s, with mv1 decreasing steeply with filling factor (approximately phi^-18.6). An energy analysis of representative runs shows that roughly 90% of the initial kinetic energy is dissipated during the compression phase, and that most of the remaining energy is dissipated during stretching. The authors then apply the derived threshold to the IM Lup disk and conclude that aggregates with phi >= 0.4 stop growing near 100 microns, providing a possible explanation for millimeter-wave polarimetric observations.

Significance. If the central quantitative claims are valid, the paper resolves a long-standing discrepancy between collision simulations and laboratory experiments on bouncing of moderately compact aggregates, and it connects the bouncing barrier to observed compact dust in protoplanetary disks. The use of compressed BCCA aggregates as initial conditions is a genuine improvement over previous artificial structures, and the energy partitioning analysis is detailed and potentially useful for future coagulation models. However, the headline -4/3 velocity scaling is imposed by the fitting function rather than measured, and the steep filling-factor trend is based on only three points; these issues substantially weaken the experimental-consistency argument that the paper's conclusions rely on. The work is significant if the quantitative claims survive a free-exponent reanalysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (10)] The power-law exponent in Eq. (10) is fixed to -4/3 before fitting, so the claimed consistency with Kothe et al. (2013) is not an independent test. The authors should fit log10 mbounce = b + a log10(vimp/1 m/s) with the exponent a free, report the best-fit value and its uncertainty, and explicitly assess whether the data are consistent with a = -4/3. Given the coarse grid (vimp = 2 x 10^(0.1i) m/s and Ragg in steps of 10 r1), the threshold curves at vimp < 10 m/s are interpolated from only a few points, so a fixed-slope fit cannot demonstrate that the data select -4/3. Consequently, the statement in Section 5.4 that the -4/3 exponent is 'robust' and insensitive to monomer/aggregate parameters is unsupported, since no alternative slopes or parameter variations were tested.
  2. [Figure 7 and Table 3] The mv1 proportional-to phi^-18.6 relation is fitted to only three data points, and no uncertainty on the exponent is reported. The 1-sigma scatter listed in Table 3 is the scatter of mv1 around the fixed-slope fit, not an uncertainty on the exponent or on mv1 itself. The mv1 versus Pcomp relation in Eq. (17) is a remapping of the same three points through Eq. (16) from Tatsuuma et al. (2023), so it does not independently confirm the interpretation that compressive strength controls the threshold. The authors should report formal fit uncertainties (e.g., from a covariance or bootstrap analysis) and clearly state the small sample size when drawing the phi^-18.6 conclusion.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The abstract claims that 'over 70% of the remaining energy is dissipated during the subsequent stretching phase, regardless of whether the collision results in sticking or bouncing.' This is inconsistent with Section 4.2, which reports 'about 70% of the sum of the converted kinetic energy and elastic energy is dissipated in the bouncing case and more than 95% in the sticking case,' and with the right panel of Figure 12, where Edis,pull/DeltaUmax exceeds unity for the sticking cases. The abstract should be qualified to describe the analyzed examples or a properly averaged statistic; as written, the energy claim overgeneralizes the simulation outcomes.
  4. [Section 5.3 and Abstract] The application to the IM Lup disk, and the abstract's statement that aggregates with phi >= 0.4 cease to grow beyond 100 microns, rely on extrapolating Eq. (12) to velocities as low as about 0.04 m/s, which is below the lowest simulated impact velocity of 2 m/s, and on extrapolating the filling-factor trend toward phi approximately 0.35, outside the simulated range 0.4-0.5. The paper acknowledges limitations in Section 5.4, but the abstract and summary present the 100-micron result without those caveats. Either add lower-velocity/lower-phi simulations to support the extrapolation or explicitly present the disk application as an extrapolation with quantified uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 5] The y-axis label 'Mean glowth efficiency' contains a typo and should read 'Mean growth efficiency'.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'standard derivations' but should say 'standard deviations'.
  3. [Section 2.1] The definition of the normal displacement delta would be clearer if the sign convention (delta > 0 for compression, delta < 0 for stretching) were stated before Eq. (2), rather than in the following sentence.
  4. [Section 4.2] The note that Figures 9 and 11 do not include data up to the end time is useful; consider giving the actual end times in the captions for the three cases.
  5. [Section 5.2] The phrase 'Experiments with larger aggregates consisting of about 10^9 monomers' is vague; specifying the corresponding aggregate size or providing a specific reference would help the reader assess the comparison.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed v^-4/3 scaling is imposed by the fitting function, so the consistency with Kothe et al. is partly built in rather than measured.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Eq. (10)]
    "For the threshold mass curves at vimp < 10 m s−1, we perform a least-square fitting of a power-law function of the form log10 mbounce = b − 4/3 log10(vimp/1 m s−1), where b is a fitting parameter."

    The -4/3 exponent is fixed in the fitting function before any fit; the simulations only determine the offset b (mv1). The paper later concludes that the threshold mass scales with impact velocity as the -4/3 power, consistent with the findings of previous experiments (Abstract and Section 3.2). Because the exponent was taken from the experiments, the claimed agreement is partly a restatement of the assumed form, not a measurement from the simulation data. No free-exponent fit or exponent uncertainty is reported, so the data cannot validate the -4/3 slope.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.4 (Limitations)]
    "However, despite these differences, our simulations qualitatively reproduce the power-law scaling between the threshold mass for bouncing and the impact velocity, mcrit ∝ v−4/3 imp (Equation (11)), observed in experiments. This suggests that the power-law exponent of −4/3 is robust and is insensitive to the aforementioned parameters."

    The reproduction of the -4/3 scaling is a direct consequence of imposing that exponent in Eq. (10), so calling it a reproduction overstates what the simulations independently show. The robustness claim is not supported by any test: no alternative slopes were fit, and no monomer-size, surface-energy, or other parameter variations were simulated. The apparent agreement with Kothe et al. is therefore largely constructed by the fitting procedure rather than being an emergent result.

full rationale

The underlying N-body collision simulations and the energy analysis are not circular: the sticking/bouncing outcomes in Figure 6, the interpolated threshold curves, and the compression/stretching energy partitioning are computed from the monomer interaction model and are self-contained. The steep dependence of mv1 on filling factor (phi^-18.6) is a legitimate, though statistically underpowered, fit to three simulation points, and the use of the Pcomp relation from Tatsuuma et al. (2023) is a normal self-citation that is not the main logical hinge. The significant circularity is concentrated in the experimental-consistency claim: the paper fixes the v^-4/3 exponent in the fitting function (Eq. 10) on the basis of Kothe et al. (2013), then presents the resulting fit as a reproduction of the experimental law and even as evidence that the exponent is robust and parameter-insensitive. Because the exponent is an input rather than an output, the headline statement of agreement with experiments is partly by construction. This warrants a score of 6 rather than a higher score because the simulation outcomes themselves are still new data and the central geometric/mass trends are not fully forced.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three fitted quantities (mv1 per phi, the mv1-Pcomp relation, and the phi exponent), plus the imposed -4/3 slope from experiment and a hand-chosen damping coefficient. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the compressed BCCA aggregate is a new initial condition, not a postulated entity.

free parameters (5)
  • mv1, threshold mass at v_imp = 1 m/s = 1.67e-8 g (phi=0.4), 1.68e-9 g (phi=0.45), 2.74e-10 g (phi=0.5)
    Fitted per filling factor in Eq. (11) to the interpolated sticking-bouncing threshold; this parameter carries the disk-size prediction.
  • Power-law exponent in Eq. (10) = -4/3
    Not derived; fixed in the fitting function following Kothe et al. (2013). The paper's consistency claim with -4/3 is therefore not an independent test.
  • Prefactor and exponent of mv1 versus Pcomp relation = 2.4e-7 g and -2.4
    Power-law fit to three simulation points (Eq. 17), used to attribute the filling-factor dependence to compressive strength.
  • Exponent of mv1 versus phi relation = -18.6
    Power-law fit to three data points in Figure 7; descriptive and not directly used in the disk model.
  • Dimensionless damping coefficient kn = 0.01
    Chosen by hand in the aggregate relaxation step (Section 2.2); affects the final coordination number distribution and thus the collision outcomes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The JKR-based monomer interaction model with rolling, sliding, and twisting (Dominik & Tielens 1997; Wada et al. 2007) accurately describes aggregate collisions.
    All collision outcomes rest on this model; parameter values in Table 1 are taken from prior literature.
  • domain assumption Compressing BCCA aggregates reproduces the internal structure of naturally compacted aggregates in experiments and disks.
    Central premise of the study, introduced in the Introduction and Section 2.2; not directly verified against measured aggregate structures.
  • domain assumption The coordination number relation (Eq. 7) and compressive strength formula (Eq. 16) from Arakawa et al. 2019 and Tatsuuma et al. 2023 apply to the simulated aggregates.
    Used to interpret coordination numbers and to connect mv1 to Pcomp; the paper notes its measured coordination numbers are lower than Eq. (7) predicts.
  • domain assumption Head-on, equal-sized, non-fragmenting collisions capture the growth-relevant bouncing condition.
    All simulations are head-on and equal-mass; the disk application relies on the narrow size distribution result of Dominik & Dullemond 2024.
  • domain assumption The IM Lup disk model and Ormel & Cuzzi 2007 turbulence velocities used in Section 5.3 are accurate.
    The 100 micrometer growth limit is derived from this environment model and from the fitted threshold formula.
  • domain assumption Ice surface energy gamma = 100 mJ/m2 is representative for outer disk dust.
    Acknowledged in Section 5.4; low-temperature ice may have lower surface energy, which would shift the quantitative thresholds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the Bouncing Barrier with Collision Simulations of Compressed Dust Aggregates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TBYZIGBS

@misc{pith2026250203107,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the Bouncing Barrier with Collision Simulations of Compressed Dust Aggregates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TBYZIGBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03107}
}
abstract

The collision outcomes of dust aggregates in protoplanetary disks dictate how planetesimals form. Experimental and numerical studies have suggested that bouncing collisions occurring at low impact velocities may limit aggregate growth in the disks, but the conditions under which bouncing occurs have yet to be fully understood. In this study, we perform a suite of collision simulations of moderately compact dust aggregates with various impact velocities, aggregate radii, and filling factors ranging between 0.4 and 0.5. Unlike previous simulations, we generate compact aggregates by compressing more porous ones, mimicking the natural processes through which compact aggregates form. We find that the compressed aggregates bounce above a threshold mass, which decreases with impact velocity. The threshold mass scales with impact velocity as the $-4/3$ power, consistent with the findings of previous experiments. We also find that the threshold aggregate mass for bouncing depends strongly on filling factor, likely reflecting the strong filling-factor dependence of the compressive strength of compressed aggregates. Our energy analysis reveals that nearly 90\% of the initial impact energy is dissipated during the initial compression phase, and over 70\% of the remaining energy is dissipated during the subsequent stretching phase, regardless of whether the collision results in sticking or bouncing. Our results indicate that dust aggregates with a filling factor of 0.4 cease to grow beyond 100 $\mathrm{\mu m}$ as a result of the bouncing barrier.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03107 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of how to create initial aggregates. First, we generate BCCAs consisting of 16384 icy monomers. Second, we compress each BCCA by moving periodic boundaries (Tatsuuma et al. 2023). Third, we connect identical compressed BCCAs and cut out a sphere of a given radius. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Coordination number nc 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 F r e q u e n c y f =0.4 =0.45 =0.5 CPE( =0.4) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of the coordination num￾bers of monomers in compressed BCCA spheres (solid lines) and CPE spheres (dashed line) with Ragg/r1 = 70. Lines are Gaussian fits. Vertical error bars represent the standard derivations. imately evaluated as magg = m1Nagg ≃ m1  Ragg r1 3 ϕ. (6) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cross section of a compressed BCCA sphere (left) and a CPE sphere (right) with ϕ = 0.4 and Ragg/r1 = 70. The color represents the coordination number of each particle, with blue indicating a lower value and red indicating a higher value. sion, defined by (Wada et al. 2013; Arakawa et al. 2023) fgro = Nlarge − Nagg Nagg , (9) where Nlarge is the number of monomers involved in the largest aggregate that forms after co… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots of three runs with vimp = 2, 10, and 20 m s−1 for ϕ = 0.4 and Ragg/r1 = 110. The top, middle, and bottom rows show the initial, maximally compressed , and final states, respectively. The initial aggregates are the same for all the illustrated runs. 2.0 5.0 10…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean collisional growth efficiency as a function of impact velocity for runs with ϕ = 0.4 and Ragg/r1 = 110. To allow for a direct comparison with the experimental results, we replot ¯fgro as a function of vimp and magg in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean growth efficiency as a function of impact velocity and aggregate mass (or radius) for three values of ϕ, plotted across the parameter regions explored in this study. The values ¯fgro = 1 and 0 correspond to perfect sticking and bouncing for all four runs, respecti…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fit values of mv1 in the empirical power￾law relation between mcrit and vimp (Equation (11)) for ϕ = 0.4, 0.45, and 0.5 (circle symbols). The error bars represent the 1-σ scatters of mcrit from the simulations (solid lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic showing three phases of non-fragmenting aggregate collisions. The arrows indicate energy conversion flows and collision outcomes, with Kini, ∆Umax, Kpull,max, Ubind denoting the initial impact energy, aggregate elastic energy at the maximum compression, maxim…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Aggregate compressive length δagg (rows (a)) and energies (rows (b)–(d)) as a function of time t from fiducial runs with vimp = 2, 10, and 20 m s−1 (left, center, and right columns, respectively). In each panel, the leftmost vertical line indicates the time of contact …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cross section of colliding aggregates from fiducial runs, with vimp = 2, 10, and 20 m s−1 , showing the spatial distribution of monomers dissipating energy in the compression and stretching phases. The colors indicate the dominant energy dissipation processes: green f…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as panels (a) and (c) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Efficiencies of conversion between the aggregate kinetic energy Kagg and aggregate elastic energy ∆U during the compression and transition phases (left and middle panels, respectively), and the energy dissipation rate of the stored aggregate elastic energy (right pane…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Compressive strength of dust aggregates con￾sisting of ice grains with a radius of 0.1 µm given by Equa￾tion (16) (Tatsuuma et al. 2023). rate when they collide with another aggregate. The out￾come of sequential aggregate collisions should be studied in future work. 5…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Collision velocity vimp of equal-sized dust ag￾gregates as a function of aggregate radius at 30 au from the central star in the IM Lup disk (dashed line), compared with the bouncing threshold vbounce given by Equation (12) (solid lines) The circle symbols indicate the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, ApJL, 951, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdb5f

    Arakawa, S., Okuzumi, S., Tatsuuma, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdb5f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdb5f 2023

  2. [2]

    2019, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2019, 093E02, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptz102

    Arakawa, S., Takemoto, M., & Nakamoto, T. 2019, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2019, 093E02, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptz102

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz102 2019

  3. [3]

    Bai, X.-N., & Stone, J. M. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1437, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1437

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/2/1437 2010

  4. [4]

    Dominik, C., & Dullemond, C. P. 2024, A&A, 682, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347716

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347716 2024

  5. [5]

    Dominik, C., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1997, ApJ, 480, 647, doi: 10.1086/303996

    doi:10.1086/303996 1997

  6. [6]

    Goldreich, P., & Ward, W. R. 1973, ApJ, 183, 1051, doi: 10.1086/152291

    doi:10.1086/152291 1973

  7. [7]

    P., Kreuzig, C., et al

    Gundlach, B., Schmidt, K. P., Kreuzig, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1550 Güttler, C., Blum, J., Zsom, A., Ormel, C. W., &

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1550 2018

  8. [8]

    Dullemond, C. P. 2010, A&A, 513, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912852 Güttler, C., Krause, M., Geretshauser, R. J., Speith, R., &

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912852 2010

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    2009, ApJ, 701, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/130

    Blum, J. 2009, ApJ, 701, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/130

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acadda

    Wada, K. 2023, ApJ, 944, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acadda

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Hull, C. L. H., Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfeb

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Israelachvili, J. N. 1992, Surface Science Reports, 14, 109, doi: 10.1016/0167-5729(92)90015-4

    1992 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Mac Low, M.-M., et al

    Johansen, A., Oishi, J. S., Mac Low, M.-M., et al. 2007, Nature, 448, 1022, doi: 10.1038/nature06086

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    2009, ApJL, 704, L75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L75

    Johansen, A., Youdin, A., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2009, ApJL, 704, L75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L75

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Kendall, K., & Roberts, A

    Johnson, K. L., Kendall, K., & Roberts, A. D. 1971, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 324, 301, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1971.0141

    1971

  8. [16]

    2013, A&A, 557, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322151

    Kataoka, A., Tanaka, H., Okuzumi, S., & Wada, K. 2013, A&A, 557, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322151

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/78

    Kataoka, A., Muto, T., Momose, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/78

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac289c

    Kobayashi, H., & Tanaka, H. 2021, ApJ, 922, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac289c

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2013, Icarus, 225, 75, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.02.034

    Kothe, S., Blum, J., Weidling, R., & Güttler, C. 2013, Icarus, 225, 75, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.02.034

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    2008, ApJ, 675, 764, doi: 10.1086/525841

    Langkowski, D., Teiser, J., & Blum, J. 2008, ApJ, 675, 764, doi: 10.1086/525841

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Lesur, G., Flock, M., Ercolano, B., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09821

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    1991, Reviews of Geophysics, 29, 317, doi: 10.1029/91RG00688 16

    Meakin, P. 1991, Reviews of Geophysics, 29, 317, doi: 10.1029/91RG00688 16

    1991 doi

  15. [23]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0428

    Musiolik, G., & Wurm, G. 2019, ApJ, 873, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0428

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/106

    Okuzumi, S., Tanaka, H., Kobayashi, H., & Wada, K. 2012, ApJ, 752, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/106

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 1247, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1247

    Okuzumi, S., Tanaka, H., & Sakagami, M.-a. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1247, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1247

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    W., & Cuzzi, J

    Ormel, C. W., & Cuzzi, J. N. 2007, A&A, 466, 413, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066899

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    W., Spaans, M., & Tielens, A

    Ormel, C. W., Spaans, M., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2007, A&A, 461, 215, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065949 Schräpler, R., Blum, J., Seizinger, A., & Kley, W. 2012, ApJ, 758, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/35 Schräpler, R. R., Landeck, W. A., & Blum, J. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5641, doi...

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    2013, A&A, 551, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220946

    Seizinger, A., & Kley, W. 2013, A&A, 551, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220946

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, ApJ, 841, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6fad

    Sirono, S.-i., & Ueno, H. 2017, ApJ, 841, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6fad

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, A&A, 670, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245512

    Birnstiel, T. 2023, A&A, 670, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245512

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    W., Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., et al

    Stephens, I. W., Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa998b

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    W., Lin, Z.-Y

    Stephens, I. W., Lin, Z.-Y. D., Fernández-López, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 623, 705, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06648-7

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Z., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Takahashi, S. Z., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2014, ApJ, 794, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/55

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    2005, ApJ, 625, 414, doi: 10.1086/429658

    Tanaka, H., Himeno, Y., & Ida, S. 2005, ApJ, 625, 414, doi: 10.1086/429658

    2005 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdf43

    Tatsuuma, M., Kataoka, A., Okuzumi, S., & Tanaka, H. 2023, ApJ, 953, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdf43

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09f7

    Tatsuuma, M., Kataoka, A., & Tanaka, H. 2019, ApJ, 874, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09f7

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz662

    Tazaki, R., Tanaka, H., Muto, T., Kataoka, A., & Okuzumi, S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz662

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Testi, L., Birnstiel, T., Ricci, L., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 339–361, doi: 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch015

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    T., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Kobayashi, H

    Tominaga, R. T., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Kobayashi, H. 2021, ApJ, 923, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac173a

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7b8

    Ueda, T., Kataoka, A., Zhang, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7b8

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 1, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02308-6

    Sudarshan, P. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 1, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02308-6

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2013, A&A, 559, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322259

    Wada, K., Tanaka, H., Okuzumi, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322259

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    2007, ApJ, 661, 320, doi: 10.1086/514332 —

    Yamamoto, T. 2007, ApJ, 661, 320, doi: 10.1086/514332 —. 2011, ApJ, 737, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/36

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    2012, Icarus, 218, 688, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.10.002

    Weidling, R., Güttler, C., & Blum, J. 2012, Icarus, 218, 688, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.10.002

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 2036, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/2036

    Weidling, R., Güttler, C., Blum, J., & Brauer, F. 2009, ApJ, 696, 2036, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/2036

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    2012, A&A, 540, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118475

    Windmark, F., Birnstiel, T., Güttler, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118475

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 2794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2633

    Yang, H., Li, Z.-Y., Looney, L., & Stephens, I. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2633

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    N., & Goodman, J

    Youdin, A. N., & Goodman, J. 2005, ApJ, 620, 459, doi: 10.1086/426895

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4e

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Ueda, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4e

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Dullemond, C. P. 2010, A&A, 513, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912976

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.