Paper detail

Erosion and the limits to planetesimal growth

The coagulation of microscopic dust into planetesimals is the first step towards planet formation. The size and shape of the growing aggregates determine the efficiency of this early growth. It has been proposed that fluffy ice aggregates can grow very efficiently, suffering less from the bouncing and radial drift barriers. While the collision velocity between icy aggregates of similar size is thought to stay below the fragmentation threshold, they may nonetheless lose mass from collisions with much smaller projectiles. We investigate the effect of these erosive collisions on the ability of porous ice aggregates to cross the radial drift barrier. We develop a Monte Carlo code that calculates the evolution of the growing aggregates, while resolving the entire mass distribution at all times. The aggregate's porosity is treated independently of its mass, and is determined by collisions, gas compaction, and eventually self-gravity compaction. For erosion threshold velocities of 20-40 m/s, high-velocity collisions with small projectiles prevent the largest aggregates from growing when they start to drift. In these cases, our local simulations result in a steady-state distribution, with the majority of the dust mass in particles with Stokes numbers close to unity. Only for the highest erosion threshold considered (60 m/s), do porous aggregates manage to cross the radial drift barrier in the inner 10 AU of MMSN-like disks. Erosive collisions are more effective in limiting the growth than fragmentary collisions between similar-size particles. Conceivably, erosion limits the growth before the radial drift barrier, although the robustness of this statement depends on (uncertain) material properties of icy aggregates. If erosion inhibits planetesimal formation through direct sticking, the sea of ${\sim}10^9$ g, highly porous particles appears well-suited for triggering streaming instability.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.