Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Numerical Investigation on the Compressive Behavior of Hierarchical Granular Piles

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pile built from smaller sticky clusters — the structure thought to fill comet interiors — compresses in three stages: rearrangement, cluster crushing, then elastic grain contact, each with its own pressure formula.

desk verdict A solid, honest DEM study that convincingly reproduces the three-stage compression of hierarchical granular piles and offers a compact semi-analytical curve, though the Stage 1 mechanism is mislabeled as friction in a frictionless model and several parameters are fit rather than predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12850 v1 pith:OFFOHK2A submitted 2025-05-19 cond-mat.soft astro-ph.EPphysics.geo-ph

Sota Arakawa , Mikito Furuichi , Daisuke Nishiura This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softastro-ph.EPphysics.geo-ph PACS 45.70.-n
keywords asteroidscometsdiscreteelementmethodearthquakesfaultgougesgranularmechanicshierarchicalpilescompressioncurve
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 sets out to establish that a 'hierarchical' granular pile — a pile whose grains are themselves loose clusters (aggregates) of much smaller sticky particles — compresses in three distinct stages, each with its own quantitative pressure law. Laboratory experiments on dust and ice aggregates had suggested such a multi-step evolution, but it had not been confirmed by simulation. Using large particle-resolved discrete-element simulations of up to 26 million adhesive ice particles, the authors reproduce the three stages: first the aggregates roll past one another without changing shape, then the aggregates deform plastically once their packing can no longer rearrange, and finally the pile behaves like a jammed packing of the individual particles, which deform elastically. The authors fit each stage with a semi-analytical formula, giving a recipe for the pressure a comet-like body can support at a given density — the input needed to predict internal density profiles and the early thermal history of small icy bodies.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-scale contact description of the pile. All elastic forces come from the JKR adhesive contact law for elastic spheres with surface energy, which fixes the pull-off force $F_{\rm crit}$, the equilibrium compression $\delta_0$, and the force–displacement relation $F_E/F_{\rm crit}=4(a/a_0)^3-4(a/a_0)^{3/2}$; a viscous dissipation term proportional to the contact radius and compression rate damps the motion. The pile is described at two levels — aggregate–aggregate contacts and inter-particle contacts — each characterized by a filling factor (the aggregate-packing filling factor is $\phi_{\rm str}\equiv\phi/\phi_{\rm agg}$, the pile filling factor divided by the aggregate internal packing fraction), an average coordination number ($\langle Z_{\rm str}\rangle\simeq(6/0.64)\phi_{\rm str}$ and $\langle Z\rangle\simeq20(\phi-\phi_3)$), and an average compression length. The Stage-2 and Stage-3 formulas feed these network statistics, together with the appropriate force–displacement law, into a Rumpf-type relation that converts average contact forces into macroscopic pressure; the Stage-1 prefactor is instead derived from an energy-bookkeeping argument, $N_{\rm rot}W_{\rm break}/(4\pi r_{\rm agg}^3/3)$, where $N_{\rm rot}\sim2.4(r_{\rm agg}/r_{\bullet})^{3/2}$ counts the monomer contacts torn during one full rotation of an aggregate and $W_{\rm break}\approx1.3F_{\rm crit}\delta_0$ is the work to break a single contact.

What would settle it

Run the same compression setup twice, once with and once without tangential (rolling and sliding) friction between the constituent particles, and compare the Stage-1 branch of the pressure curve; if the two curves nearly coincide, the friction explanation of Stage 1 is refuted and the adhesive-tearing estimate (Eq. 18) is the operative mechanism. As a separate probe, repeat the Stage-1 compression with a changed surface energy (for example $\gamma=0.2\,\mathrm{J\,m^{-2}}$) and check whether the measured prefactor $P_{\rm mid}$ follows the $\gamma^{5/3}$ scaling implied by $F_{\rm crit}\delta_0$; a different scaling would show that Eq. (15) is a fitting constant rather than a consequence of the stated mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the experimentally suspected multi-step compression of hierarchical granular piles is real and numerically reproducible: the compression curve divides into (i) rearrangement of the aggregate packing structure, (ii) plastic deformation of the small aggregates, and (iii) elastic deformation of the constituent particles. In stage (i) the pressure follows a modified polytropic law in the aggregate-structure filling factor, $P_{S1}=P_{\rm mid}\left((\phi_{\rm str}-\phi_{\rm min})/(\phi_{\rm max}-\phi_{\rm str})\right)^{1+1/n}$ with index $n=1$, and the prefactor scales as $P_{\rm mid}\propto r_{\rm agg}^{-3/2}$; the authors trace that scaling to the work of tearing adhesive monomer contacts as aggregates roll over one another, estimating $P_{\rm rot}\approx 200\,(r_{\rm agg}/32r_{\bullet})^{-3/2}$ Pa against the fitted value of 240 Pa. In stage (ii), once the aggregate–aggregate coordination number crosses about 4 near $\phi_{\rm str}\simeq0.45$, the aggregates can no longer rotate freely and deform plastically, with the pressure set by the average contact force between aggregates. In stage (iii), past the jamming filling factor 0.64, the pile compresses as a packing of the individual particles with JKR elastic contacts. The three formulas reproduce the simulated compression curves for aggregate radii $32r_{\bullet}$ and $64r_{\bullet}$.

Load-bearing premise

The Stage-1 pressure formula stands on the premise that a pile of clusters resists the first stage of compression through one microscopic cost — the energy to tear adhesive contacts between the tiny sticky particles — because friction between clusters, the mechanism the paper also invokes for this stage, does not exist in its simulations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The three formulas give a direct route to the internal density profile of a comet or other small icy body: self-gravity sets the pressure at each depth, and the model converts that pressure into a filling factor stage by stage.
  • The same model yields the inter-aggregate contact area as a function of pressure, and since thermal conductivity inside the pile is controlled by those contact areas, the formulas feed heat-conduction models of comet interiors and their early thermal evolution.
  • Larger aggregates make a much softer pile in Stage 1 — the prefactor falls as $r_{\rm agg}^{-3/2}$ — and for sufficiently large aggregates the transition between Stages 1 and 2 sits at $\phi_{\rm str}\approx0.45$, where the aggregate coordination number crosses the just-rigid (isostatic) value 4 and plastic deformation of aggregates begins.
  • The model works within stated limits: it fails for aggregates as small as $r_{\rm agg}=16r_{\bullet}$, where the single-aggregate force law develops spike-like finite-size effects, and pressure data below $\phi\approx0.16$ are contaminated by the dynamic compression term.
  • In Stage 3 the hierarchy is erased: past the jamming point the pile compresses like a packing of its constituent monomers, so the three-stage structure is a low- to moderate-pressure phenomenon.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The explanation attached to Eq. (14) names friction for aggregate–aggregate rotation as the Stage-1 resistance (Section 5.1), yet the model explicitly excludes tangential interactions (Section 2.1), and the numerically successful prefactor estimate (Eq. 18) is computed from the energy to break adhesive contacts. My reading is that adhesive tearing is the operative mechanism and the friction langua
  • A quantitative test presents itself: vary the surface energy $\gamma$ in the simulations and check whether the measured Stage-1 prefactor follows $F_{\rm crit}\delta_0\propto\gamma^{5/3}$, as the adhesive-tearing estimate implies. The paper does not perform this sweep, so the prefactor's status as a derived quantity rather than a fitting constant is not yet settled.
  • The same three-stage structure should be observable beyond ice: soil crumbs bound by organic matter and rock fragments in fault gouge share the same hierarchy, and existing compression data for submicron silica grains offer a ready comparison. The paper notes that the silica data lie above its ice-based curve for $\phi>0.3$; silica-parameter simulations would show whether that gap is a material-pr
  • Because the Stage 1 to Stage 2 transition is tied to the aggregate coordination number crossing the just-rigid value 4 rather than to any material constant, the transition filling factor $\phi_{\rm str}\approx0.45$ may be near-universal for random packings of monodisperse aggregates, with material properties setting the pressure scale but not the transition density.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Using the DEM code DEPTH with adhesive JKR normal forces and viscous damping (and explicitly neglecting tangential interactions), the authors simulate quasi-static compression of hierarchical granular piles made of porous spherical aggregates of 0.1 µm ice monomers, for aggregate radii of 32 and 64 monomer radii (up to 26 million monomers). They also compress isolated aggregates. From wall-pressure curves and microstructural diagnostics (aggregate coordination, aggregate compression length, rotational/translational aggregate velocities, interparticle coordination), they identify three compression stages: aggregate-packing rearrangement, plastic deformation of aggregates, and elastic compression of monomers. They propose piecewise semi-analytical expressions for the pressure–filling-factor curve (Eqs. 14, 19, and 20) and argue these reproduce the simulations. The paper claims this is the first numerical confirmation of the experimentally inferred multi-step compaction of hierarchical granular piles, with applications to comet internal structure.

Significance. If the three-stage picture holds, the paper provides a useful numerical confirmation and a compact parameterization of an important compaction law for hierarchical granular materials. The strengths are the scale of the simulations, the use of a standard and carefully described contact model, the convergence of several independent diagnostics on the stage transitions, and the availability of the numerical data. The weaknesses are that the semi-analytical model is substantially an empirical fit with many free constants, and that the mechanistic explanation of the Stage 1 prefactor is inconsistent with the frictionless DEM model. These issues affect the quantitative-model claim, but not the core three-stage observation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1 (Eqs. 14–18), §2.1, §7] The Stage 1 mechanism is internally inconsistent. Section 2.1 explicitly states that tangential interactions (sliding, rolling, twisting friction) and particle rotations are not included in the DEM, and Equation (18) derives the Stage 1 prefactor from the work needed to break adhesive monomer contacts (NrotWbreak) during one aggregate rotation. Yet Section 5.1 states that the yield strength 'would be proportional to the tangential friction between aggregates' and Conclusion item (2) attributes Stage 1 to 'friction for aggregate–aggregate rotation.' This conflation matters because the prefactor in Eq. (14) is first fit to the simulations (Eq. 15, Pmid = 240 Pa) and then rationalized by an order-of-magnitude estimate that is actually an adhesion-induced rolling resistance, not Coulomb friction. Please either rephrase the mechanism as adhesive rolling resistance throughout, or add tangential interactions to the DEM to substantiate a friction-based explanation; the current text does not support the mechanistic claim attached to Eq. (14).
  2. [§5.1–5.3 (Eqs. 14–22)] The semi-analytical model is substantially empirical, and this should be stated clearly. The prefactor Pmid (Eq. 15), the aggregate compression law (αagg, δagg,0, k32, F32, δoffset, Eq. 12), the correction factors c2 and c3 (Eqs. 19 and 20), the interparticle coordination fit (ϕ3, Eq. 21), and the compression-length coefficient α (Eq. 22) are all fixed by matching the simulation output; the Stage 2 and Stage 3 expressions then reproduce those same curves by construction. With the exception of the order-of-magnitude estimates for Pmid (Eq. 18) and Yagg (Eq. 13), the model does not provide independent predictions from material constants. I recommend labeling the model an empirical parameterization and tempering Conclusion item (1)'s claim of a 'quantitative semi-analytical model,' while retaining the useful compact representation.
  3. [§6.2, Fig. 20] The paper demonstrates that the proposed Stage 1/Stage 2 model fails for ragg = 16r*, since the two fitted curves do not intersect and the transition cannot be captured. This limitation is acknowledged in Section 6.2, but its consequence for the generality of the central claim should be more prominent: the three-stage parameterization is validated only for ragg/r* ≳ 32, and the abstract and conclusions should state this applicability range explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Fig. 12] The text states that for a homogeneous distribution of contact directions, the fraction of contacts with angles between θ1 and θ2 is sinθ2 − sinθ1; the correct expression is (cosθ1 − cosθ2)/2. Please correct the formula and re-check the white dashed lines in Figure 12.
  2. [§2.2, §3.4, Fig. 16 caption] There are several small presentation errors: 'particls' should be 'particles' in Section 2.2; 'an semi-analytical fit' should be 'a semi-analytical fit' in the Figure 16 caption; and Section 3.4 labels the aggregate rotational velocity as Vtra immediately before defining Vrot.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The Figure 4(c) caption describes 'an aggregate consisting of 200 spheres,' which conflicts with the stated monomer counts Npar = 131,072 for ragg = 64r*; please rephrase to clarify that the RBD step produces a template pile of 200 mono-size spheres that are then replaced by aggregates.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusions] Given the ragg = 16r* failure described in Section 6.2, the abstract and Conclusions should state that the three-stage parameterization is demonstrated for ragg/r* ≳ 32 rather than for hierarchical granular piles in general.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the three-stage claim rests on raw simulation observables, and the semi-analytical model is explicitly calibrated rather than a parameter-free prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central three-stage observation is taken directly from the simulated compression curves and independent dynamical measures (coordination numbers and aggregate rotational/translational velocities in Figures 7, 8, 13, and 18), so it does not reduce to the fitted semi-analytical formulas. The semi-analytical model is transparently empirical: Equation (14) is introduced with "We fit the compressive curve for Stage 1 using a modified polytropic equation," and Equation (15) states "We also obtain the prefactor Pmid from numerical results." Similarly, Equation (12) declares "Two fitting constants, k32 and F32, are chosen to align with numerical results," and Equations (19) and (20) are shown to reproduce the simulation only after explicit correction factors c2=1.2 and c3=1.1 are introduced. These are calibrated components, not predictions claimed to be derived from first principles. The order-of-magnitude estimate in Equation (18), giving ~200 Pa versus the fitted 240 Pa, is a post-hoc consistency check rather than a formal derivation-by-fit; it contains no free parameters fitted to the target curve, so it does not make the model circular. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is present. The noteworthy weakness is an internal-consistency issue, not circularity: the text says Stage 1 resistance would be proportional to tangential friction while the DEM explicitly omits tangential interactions, and the Equation (18) estimate actually counts adhesive bond breaking. That is a correctness and interpretation concern outside the circularity pass.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central compression curve rests on a large set of empirical inputs: a JKR contact model with parameters from prior work, a viscous dissipation coefficient, an assumed frictionless interaction, initial conditions from RBD/CPE, and eight fitted coefficients in the semi-analytical formulas. None of these are derived in the paper; they are imported from prior literature or calibrated to the simulations being described.

free parameters (11)
  • Pmid prefactor (Stage 1) = 240 Pa for ragg = 32r*
    Fitted to the simulated Stage 1 pressure curve (Eq 15); the theoretical estimate in Eq 18 gives about 200 Pa a posteriori.
  • alpha_agg = 0.5
    Fitting coefficient in the aggregate compression length relation, Eq (8).
  • delta_agg,0 = 1.5 r* (0.15 um)
    Plateau value of aggregate compression length read from simulations, Eq (7).
  • k32 = 5 N/m
    Proportionality constant in the single-aggregate force-displacement law (Eq 12), chosen to match DEM runs.
  • F32 = 5 uN
    Maximum force in the single-aggregate law (Eq 12), chosen to match DEM runs.
  • delta_offset = 1.5 r*
    Offset in single aggregate compression, set equal to delta_agg,0 (Eq 12).
  • polytropic index n = 1
    Set to 1 because the index could not be precisely determined from the scattered Stage 1 data (Section 5.1).
  • c2 = 1.2
    Correction factor in the Stage 2 pressure equation (Eq 19), introduced to reproduce simulation results.
  • c3 = 1.1
    Correction factor in the Stage 3 pressure equation (Eq 20), introduced to reproduce simulation results.
  • phi_3 = 0.3 - 0.02 (ragg/(32 r*))^-1
    Empirical intercept for the coordination number fit (Eq 21).
  • alpha = 0.5
    Fitting coefficient in the constituent-particle compression length relation (Eq 22).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption JKR contact model applies to 0.1 um ice spheres at the nanoscale with parameters E=7 GPa, nu=0.25, gamma=0.1 J/m^2
    The entire interaction model (Eqs 2, 3) is based on Johnson-Kendall-Roberts theory, cited from prior work and not re-derived here (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Viscous dissipation follows Krijt et al (2013) with CD = 0.7168 kg/(m s)
    Dissipation model used to damp oscillations; parameters taken from prior work (Section 2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Tangential friction can be neglected
    The DEM code omits rolling, sliding, and twisting torques (Section 2.1), yet the Stage 1 mechanism is described as aggregate-rotation friction (Section 5.1).
  • domain assumption Initial aggregates created by RBD have a filling factor of 0.5 and are statistically representative
    Aggregates generated by close-packing and particle-extraction, initial packing via random ballistic deposition (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Compression is quasi-static, so Ptop ~ Pbottom and dynamic pressure can be neglected
    Validated in simulations for phi >= 0.16, but explicitly violated for phi < 0.16 where dynamic pressure is comparable (Section 6.1).
  • standard math Rumpf-type relation (Eq 19) links aggregate force to macroscopic pressure
    Standard micromechanical formula from Rumpf (1970), used here with a fitting factor c2.
  • domain assumption A single aggregate's force-displacement relation follows that of a plastic sphere with yield stress Yagg ~ 1.0 MPa
    Fitted law Eq (12) is interpreted via Andrews (1930) perfect-plastic contact, estimated Yagg from k32.
  • domain assumption Coordination number evolves linearly, <Zstr> = (6/0.64) phi_str and <Z> = 20(phi-phi_3)
    Empirical fits to simulation data (Eqs 6, 21).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical Investigation on the Compressive Behavior of Hierarchical Granular Piles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OFFOHK2A

@misc{pith2026250512850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical Investigation on the Compressive Behavior of Hierarchical Granular Piles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OFFOHK2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12850}
}
read the original abstract

Hierarchical granular piles composed of aggregates are key structural features in both geoscience and planetary science, from fault gouge in seismic zones to the internal structures of comets. Although experimental studies have suggested a multi-step evolution in their packing structure, this hypothesis has lacked numerical validation. In this study, we performed large-scale numerical simulations using the discrete element method to investigate the compressive behavior of hierarchical granular piles. We successfully reproduced and confirmed a three-stage evolution process: (i) rearrangement of the aggregate packing structure, (ii) plastic deformation of small aggregates, and (iii) elastic deformation of constituent particles. Additionally, we developed a semi-analytical model for the compression curve, offering insights into the compressive stages and structural dynamics. Our findings have applications in modeling the internal density profiles of comets and in understanding the early thermal evolution of small icy bodies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12850 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the compression curve of hierarchical granular piles. The compression curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Snapshots of a hierarchical granular pile with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contact radius, a, and the elastic term of the contact force, FE, with respect to the compression length, δ. (a) a with respect to δ. (b) FE with respect to δ. Red solid lines represent the relations for particles in contact, while gray dashed lines are for separated particles. A contact initiates at δ/δ0 = 0 and it breaks at δ/δ0 = −(9/16)1/3 . 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: : Schematic of the preparation procedure of hierarchical granular piles. (a) We deposit a sphere [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: : Cross-sections of the hierarchical granular pile with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Vertical distribution of ϕsect for ragg = 32r• (where z = 0 is at the bottom wall). Different lines represent the distribution of ϕsect at different values of ϕ. 33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: : Pressures at the top and bottom walls, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: : Same as Figure 7, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: : Average coordination number for aggregate–aggregate contacts, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: : Average of the compression length for aggregate–aggregate contacts, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative frequency distribution of δagg for ragg = 32r•. The different lines represent the distributions at different values of ϕstr. 38 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: : Distribution of the directions of aggregate–aggregate contacts as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: : Root mean squares of the rotational and relative translational velocities of aggregates, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: : Snapshots of a compression test of a single aggregate (Run #1 for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: : Force at the walls and the average coordination number. (a) Force–displacement relationship [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: : Force–displacement relationship for single aggregates. We performed five simulation runs for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: : Semi-analytic fit of the compression curve of hierarchical granular piles. The blue, green, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: : Average coordination number for interparticle contacts, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: : Same as Figure 16, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: : Same as Figure 17, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Geophysical Research Letters 32(5):L05305

    Abe S, Mair K (2005) Grain fracture in 3D numerical simulations of granular shear . Geophysical Research Letters 32(5):L05305. doi:10.1029/2004GL022123

    work page doi:10.1029/2004gl022123 2005

  2. [2]

    Geophysical Research Letters 36(23):L23302

    Abe S, Mair K (2009) Effects of gouge fragment shape on fault friction: New 3D modelling results . Geophysical Research Letters 36(23):L23302. doi:10.1029/2009GL040684

    doi:10.1029/2009gl040684 2009

  3. [3]

    Theory of collision of spheres of soft metals

    Andrews JP (1930) LVI. Theory of collision of spheres of soft metals . The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 9(58):593--610. doi:10.1080/14786443008565033

    work page doi:10.1080/14786443008565033 1930

  4. [4]

    Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 93(2):024401

    Arakawa S (2024) Root Mean Squares of Distance and Geodesic between Two Constituent Particles within Fractal Aggregates Prepared by BCCA, DLA, and GSAW Procedures . Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 93(2):024401. doi:10.7566/JPSJ.93.024401

    work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.93.024401 2024

  5. [5]

    The Astrophysical Journal 910(2):130

    Arakawa S, Krijt S (2021) On the Stickiness of CO _ 2 and H _ 2 O Ice Particles . The Astrophysical Journal 910(2):130. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe61d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe61d 2021

  6. [6]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 497(1):1166--1180

    Arakawa S, Ohno K (2020) Thermal inertias of pebble-pile comet 67P/Churyumov--Gerasimenko . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 497(1):1166--1180. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2031

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2031 2020

  7. [7]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 76(1):130--141

    Arakawa S, Wakita S (2024) Survivability of amorphous ice in comets depends on the latent heat of crystallization of impure water ice . Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 76(1):130--141. doi:10.1093/pasj/psad086

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psad086 2024

  8. [8]

    Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2019(9):093E02

    Arakawa S, Takemoto M, Nakamoto T (2019) Geometrical structure and thermal conductivity of dust aggregates formed via ballistic cluster--cluster aggregation . Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2019(9):093E02. doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz102

    doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz102 2019

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 521(4):4927--4935

    Arakawa S, Nishiura D, Furuichi M (2023 a ) Interpebble contact radius in a comet nucleus . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 521(4):4927--4935. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad896

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters 951(1):L16

    Arakawa S, Okuzumi S, Tatsuuma M, et al (2023 b ) Size Dependence of the Bouncing Barrier in Protoplanetary Dust Growth . The Astrophysical Journal Letters 951(1):L16. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdb5f

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics 670:L21

    Arakawa S, Tanaka H, Kokubo E, et al (2023 c ) Threshold velocity for the collisional growth of porous dust aggregates consisting of cohesive frictionless spheres . Astronomy & Astrophysics 670:L21. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345887

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Granular Matter 26(4):1--18

    Arakawa S, Tanaka H, Kokubo E, et al (2024 a ) On the elastoplastic behavior in collisional compression of spherical dust aggregates . Granular Matter 26(4):1--18. doi:10.1007/s10035-024-01463-x

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Physical Review E 109(2):024904

    Arakawa S, Tatsuuma M, Tanaka H, et al (2024 b ) Interparticle normal force in highly porous granular matter during compression . Physical Review E 109(2):024904. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.109.024904

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Physical Review A 27(2):1053--1061

    Berryman JG (1983) Random close packing of hard spheres and disks . Physical Review A 27(2):1053--1061. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.27.1053

    1983 doi

  7. [15]

    Physical Review Letters 93(11):115503

    Blum J, Schr \"a pler R (2004) Structure and Mechanical Properties of High-Porosity Macroscopic Agglomerates Formed by Random Ballistic Deposition . Physical Review Letters 93(11):115503. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.115503

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 46:21--56

    Blum J, Wurm G (2008) The growth mechanisms of macroscopic bodies in protoplanetary disks. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 46:21--56. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152cundall

    2008

  9. [17]

    Icarus 235:156--169

    Blum J, Gundlach B, M \"u hle S, et al (2014) Comets formed in solar-nebula instabilities! - An experimental and modeling attempt to relate the activity of comets to their formation process . Icarus 235:156--169. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.03.016

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 469:S755--S773

    Blum J, Gundlach B, Krause M, et al (2017) Evidence for the formation of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko through gravitational collapse of a bound clump of pebbles . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 469:S755--S773. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2741

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Universe 8(7):381

    Blum J, Bischoff D, Gundlach B (2022) Formation of Comets . Universe 8(7):381. doi:10.3390/universe8070381

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Powder Technology 427(1):118742

    Chen J, Krengel D, Nishiura D, et al (2023 a ) A force--displacement relation based on the JKR theory for DEM simulations of adhesive particles . Powder Technology 427(1):118742. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2023.118742

    2023

  13. [21]

    Computers and Geotechnics 165:105855

    Chen J, Furuichi M, Nishiura D (2024) Toward large-scale fine resolution DEM landslide simulations: periodic granular box for efficient modeling of excavatable slope . Computers and Geotechnics 165:105855. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105855

    2024

  14. [22]

    Scientific Reports 13:7843

    Chen Q, Li Z, Dai Z, et al (2023 b ) Mechanical behavior and particle crushing of irregular granular material under high pressure using discrete element method . Scientific Reports 13:7843. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-35022-w

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 523(4):5841--5852

    Ciarniello M, Fulle M, Tosi F, et al (2023) Comparison of a pebbles-based model with the observed evolution of the water and carbon dioxide outgassing of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 523(4):5841--5852. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1663

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    G \'e otechnique 29(1):47--65

    Cundall PA, Strack ODL (1979) A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies . G \'e otechnique 29(1):47--65. doi:10.1680/geot.1979.29.1.47

    1979 doi

  17. [25]

    Pure and Applied Geophysics 113(1):69--86

    Engelder JT, Logan JM, Handin J (1975) The sliding characteristics of sandstone on quartz fault-gouge . Pure and Applied Geophysics 113(1):69--86. doi:10.1007/BF01592900

    1975 doi

  18. [26]

    Computer Physics Communications 219:135--148

    Furuichi M, Nishiura D (2017) Iterative load-balancing method with multigrid level relaxation for particle simulation with short-range interactions . Computer Physics Communications 219:135--148. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.05.015

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Tectonophysics 862:229963

    Furuichi M, Chen J, Nishiura D, et al (2023) Thrust formation using a numerical granular rock box experiment . Tectonophysics 862:229963. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2023.229963

    2023

  20. [28]

    Tectonophysics 874:230230

    Furuichi M, Chen J, Nishiura D, et al (2024) Virtual earthquakes in a numerical granular rock box experiment . Tectonophysics 874:230230. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2024.230230

    2024

  21. [29]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493(3):3690--3715

    Gundlach B, Fulle M, Blum J (2020) On the activity of comets: understanding the gas and dust emission from comet 67/Churyumov-Gerasimenko's south-pole region during perihelion . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493(3):3690--3715. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa449

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    G \"u ttler C, Krause M, Geretshauser RJ, et al (2009) The Physics of Protoplanetesimal Dust Agglomerates. IV. Toward a Dynamical Collision Model . The Astrophysical Journal 701(1):130--141. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/130

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    Hasegawa Y, Suzuki TK, Tanaka H, et al (2021) Collisional Growth and Fragmentation of Dust Aggregates with Low Mass Ratios. I. Critical Collision Velocity for Water Ice . The Astrophysical Journal 915(1):22. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf6cf

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics 630:A2

    Heinisch P, Auster HU, Gundlach B, et al (2019) Compressive strength of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko derived from Philae surface contacts . Astronomy & Astrophysics 630:A2. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833889

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Journal of the Society of Powder Technology, Japan 55(9):492--498

    Ishihara S, Kushimoto K, Kano J, et al (2018) ADEM Simulation for the Analysis of Breakage Behavior of Powder Compact . Journal of the Society of Powder Technology, Japan 55(9):492--498. doi:10.4164/sptj.55.492

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 324(1558):301--313

    Johnson KL, Kendall K, Roberts AD (1971) Surface Energy and the Contact of Elastic Solids . Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 324(1558):301--313. doi:10.1098/rspa.1971.0141

    1971

  27. [35]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics 554:A4

    Kataoka A, Tanaka H, Okuzumi S, et al (2013) Static compression of porous dust aggregates . Astronomy & Astrophysics 554:A4. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321325

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Kothe S, Blum J, Weidling R, et al (2013) Free collisions in a microgravity many-particle experiment. III. The collision behavior of sub-millimeter-sized dust aggregates . Icarus 225(1):75--85. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.02.034

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    Technique, model and first results

    Krause M, Blum J, Skorov YV, et al (2011) Thermal conductivity measurements of porous dust aggregates: I. Technique, model and first results . Icarus 214(1):286--296. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.04.024

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 46(43):435303

    Krijt S, G \"u ttler C, Hei elmann D, et al (2013) Energy dissipation in head-on collisions of spheres . Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 46(43):435303. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/46/43/435303

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    Icarus 226(1):111--118

    Machii N, Nakamura AM, G \"u ttler C, et al (2013) Collision of a chondrule with matrix: Relation between static strength of matrix and impact pressure . Icarus 226(1):111--118. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.05.006

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 514(3):3366--3394

    Malamud U, Landeck WA, Bischoff D, et al (2022) Are there any pristine comets? Constraints from pebble structure . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 514(3):3366--3394. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1535

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    The Astrophysical Journal 974(1):76

    Malamud U, Sch \"a fer CM, Luciana San Sebasti \'a n I, et al (2024) New Versus Past Silica Crush Curve Experiments: Application to Dimorphos Benchmarking Impact Simulations . The Astrophysical Journal 974(1):76. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c4a

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Advanced Powder Technology 32(11):4432--4441

    Nishiura D, Furuichi M, Sakaguchi H (2021) Real-scale DEM simulations on the fault evolution process observed in sandbox experiments . Advanced Powder Technology 32(11):4432--4441. doi:10.1016/j.apt.2021.09.007

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Physical Review E 68(1):011306

    O'Hern C, Silbert L, Liu A, et al (2003) Jamming at zero temperature and zero applied stress: The epitome of disorder . Physical Review E 68(1):011306. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.68.011306

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics 664:A147

    Okubo F, Katsuragi H (2022) Impact drag force exerted on a projectile penetrating into a hierarchical granular bed . Astronomy & Astrophysics 664:A147. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243787

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Planetary and Space Science 149:14--22

    Omura T, Nakamura AM (2017) Experimental study on compression property of regolith analogues . Planetary and Space Science 149:14--22. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2017.08.003

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    The Astrophysical Journal 860(2):123

    Omura T, Nakamura AM (2018) Estimating the Porosity Structure of Granular Bodies Using the Lane-Emden Equation Applied to Laboratory Measurements of the Pressure-Density Relation of Fluffy Granular Samples . The Astrophysical Journal 860(2):123. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabe81

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    The Astrophysical Journal 983(1):75

    Oshiro H, Tatsuuma M, Okuzumi S, et al (2025) Investigating the Bouncing Barrier with Collision Simulations of Compressed Dust Aggregates . The Astrophysical Journal 983(1):75. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbf04

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    Physical Review Research 3(1):013190

    Pacheco-V \'a zquez F, Omura T, Katsuragi H (2021) Undulating compression and multistage relaxation in a granular column consisting of dust particles or glass beads . Physical Review Research 3(1):013190. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.013190

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Nature 606(7916):922--929

    Rubino V, Lapusta N, Rosakis AJ (2022) Intermittent lab earthquakes in dynamically weakening fault gouge . Nature 606(7916):922--929. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04749-3

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    Chemie Ingenieur Technik 42(8):538--540

    Rumpf HCH (1970) Zur Theorie der Zugfestigkeit von Agglomeraten bei Kraft \"u bertragung an Kontaktpunkten . Chemie Ingenieur Technik 42(8):538--540. doi:10.1002/cite.330420806

    1970 doi

  43. [51]

    Physical Review E 102(3):032903

    Santos AP, Bolintineanu DS, Grest GS, et al (2020) Granular packings with sliding, rolling, and twisting friction . Physical Review E 102(3):032903. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.102.032903

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    Soils and Foundations 64(3):101465

    Sato I, Kuwano R, Otsubo M (2024) Particle crushing and critical state of volcanic pumice 2018 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi Earthquake . Soils and Foundations 64(3):101465. doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2024.101465

    2024

  45. [53]

    Icarus 257:33--46

    Schr \"a pler R, Blum J, von Borstel I, et al (2015) The stratification of regolith on celestial objects . Icarus 257:33--46. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.04.033

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics 541:A59

    Seizinger A, Speith R, Kley W (2012) Compression behavior of porous dust agglomerates . Astronomy & Astrophysics 541:A59. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218855

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    Meteoritics & Planetary Science 49(1):109--116

    Sirono Si (2014) Numerical simulation of heat conduction in a random ballistic deposited grain aggregate . Meteoritics & Planetary Science 49(1):109--116. doi:10.1111/maps.12245

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    Icarus 221(1):1--11

    Skorov Y, Blum J (2012) Dust release and tensile strength of the non-volatile layer of cometary nuclei . Icarus 221(1):1--11. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.01.012

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    Nature 453(7195):629--632

    Song C, Wang P, Makse HA (2008) A phase diagram for jammed matter . Nature 453(7195):629--632. doi:10.1038/nature06981

    2008 doi

  50. [58]

    The Astrophysical Journal 974(1):9

    Tatsuuma M, Kataoka A, Tanaka H, et al (2024) The Bulk Densities of Small Solar System Bodies as a Probe of Planetesimal Formation . The Astrophysical Journal 974(1):9. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a5d

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    Wada K, Tanaka H, Suyama T, et al (2007) Numerical Simulation of Dust Aggregate Collisions. I. Compression and Disruption of Two-Dimensional Aggregates . The Astrophysical Journal 661(1):320--333. doi:10.1086/514332

    2007 doi

  52. [60]

    The Astrophysical Journal 737(1):36

    Wada K, Tanaka H, Suyama T, et al (2011) The Rebound Condition of Dust Aggregates Revealed by Numerical Simulation of Their Collisions . The Astrophysical Journal 737(1):36. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/36

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    Weidling R, G \"u ttler C, Blum J, et al (2009) The Physics of Protoplanetesimal Dust Agglomerates. III. Compaction in Multiple Collisions . The Astrophysical Journal 696(2):2036--2043. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/2036

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    Nature 434(7034):749--752

    Wilson B, Dewers T, Reches Z, et al (2005) Particle size and energetics of gouge from earthquake rupture zones . Nature 434(7034):749--752. doi:10.1038/nature03433

    2005 doi

  55. [63]

    Advanced Powder Technology 34(1):103896

    Yasuda H, Katsura M, Katsuragi H (2023) Grain-size dependence of water retention in a model aggregated soil . Advanced Powder Technology 34(1):103896. doi:10.1016/j.apt.2022.103896

    2023

  56. [64]

    Geoderma 434:116478

    Yudina A, Kuzyakov Y (2023) Dual nature of soil structure: The unity of aggregates and pores . Geoderma 434:116478. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116478

    2023

  57. [65]

    write newline

    " write newline " cite write " FUNCTION editor.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION editor.trans.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION trans.postfix translator num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION authors.editors.reflist.apa5 'field := 'dot :...

  58. [66]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year eprint archive archivePrefix primaryClass adsurl adsnote version label INTEGERS o...

  59. [67]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or...

  60. [68]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year archivePrefix primaryClass adsurl adsnote version label extra.labe...

  61. [69]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION add.period duplicate empty 'skip "." * add.blank if FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap dupl...

  62. [70]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION output.doi doi empty skip "doi:" doi * "" * output if FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "] " * if FUNCTION format....

  63. [71]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION string.to.integer 't := t text.length 'k := #1 'char.num := t char.num #1 substring 's := s is.num s "." = or char.num k = not and char.num #1 + 'char.num := while char.num #1 - 'char.num := t #1 char.num substring FUNCTI...

  64. [72]

    Available from:

    ENTRY address assignee author booktitle chapter cartographer day edition editor howpublished institution inventor journal key keywords month note number organization pages part publisher school series title type volume word year eprint doi url lastchecked updated archive archi...

  65. [73]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.