Paper detail

The outcome of protoplanetary dust growth: pebbles, boulders, or planetesimals? I. Mapping the zoo of laboratory collision experiments

The growth processes from protoplanetary dust to planetesimals are not fully understood. Laboratory experiments and theoretical models have shown that collisions among the dust aggregates can lead to sticking, bouncing, and fragmentation. However, no systematic study on the collisional outcome of protoplanetary dust has been performed so far so that a physical model of the dust evolution in protoplanetary disks is still missing. We intend to map the parameter space for the collisional interaction of arbitrarily porous dust aggregates. This parameter space encompasses the dust-aggregate masses, their porosities and the collision velocity. With such a complete mapping of the collisional outcomes of protoplanetary dust aggregates, it will be possible to follow the collisional evolution of dust in a protoplanetary disk environment. We use literature data, perform own laboratory experiments, and apply simple physical models to get a complete picture of the collisional interaction of protoplanetary dust aggregates. In our study, we found four different types of sticking, two types of bouncing, and three types of fragmentation as possible outcomes in collisions among protoplanetary dust aggregates. We distinguish between eight combinations of porosity and mass ratio. For each of these cases, we present a complete collision model for dust-aggregate masses between 10^-12 and 10^2 g and collision velocities in the range 10^-4 to 10^4 cm/s for arbitrary porosities. This model comprises the collisional outcome, the mass(es) of the resulting aggregate(s) and their porosities. We present the first complete collision model for protoplanetary dust. This collision model can be used for the determination of the dust-growth rate in protoplanetary disks.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.