Turning the knobs on dust evolution: Comparing codes, parameters and their effects on planet formation and disc observables
Clicks: 1
ID: 314965
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #786 of 908 articles by views in monthly notices of the royal astronomical society
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 908 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Protoplanetary discs contain a wide range of dust sizes that influence their thermal structure and planet formation processes such as planetesimal formation and pebble accretion. Dust evolution models are therefore essential for both planet formation simulations and the interpretation of disc observations. Several open-source dust evolution codes are available, each adopting different model assumptions. We present a comparison of 1D radial simulations using (in order of complexity) two-pop-py , TriPoD , and DustPy , and 2D radial–vertical simulations with TriPoD , cuDisc , and mcdust . The comparison includes dust size distributions, dust disc masses, planetary gap structures, millimetre fluxes and disc sizes from synthetic observations, planetesimal formation regions, and planetary growth via pebble accretion. We also perform a parameter study to assess how key dust-evolution parameters influence disc evolution, planet formation, and code agreement. In 1D, two-pop-py depletes dust masses faster and produces higher dust concentrations outside planetary gaps than DustPy or TriPoD . The latter two generally agree well, except when size distributions deviate strongly from a power law. While the calculated millimetre fluxes and disc radii agree well, planetesimal formation locations and pebble accretion rates vary significantly between codes. In 2D, we compare cuDisc , mcdust , and TriPoD in simulations of turbulence- and sedimentation-driven coagulation. The dust size distributions agree well, despite the completely different numerical approaches used to model dust coagulation. The largest differences arise in the upper atmosphere, where mcdust suffers from low mass resolution and TriPoD fails to reproduce the exact shape of size distributions that deviate from a power-law.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7162448679
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Linn E J Eriksson, Thomas Pfeil, Nicolas Kaufmann, Vignesh Vaikundaraman |
| Journal | monthly notices of the royal astronomical society |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/mnras/stag982
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.