Free Access

Table 3

Mapping sticking, bouncing, and fragmentation.

Outcome type m1 φ1 m2 φ2 mpw msr

hit & stick (S1) mt + mp φ1 0 0 0 0
sticking through surface effects (S2) mt + mp φ1 > φt 0 0 0 0
sticking by penetration (S3) mt + mp φ1 > φt 0 0 0 0
mass transfer (S4) m1 > mt φ1 > φt m2 < mp φ2 > φp mpw ≥ 0 msr > 0
bouncing with compaction (B1) m1 = mt φ1 > φt m2 = mp φ2 > φp 0 0
bouncing with mass transfer (B2) m1 ≠ mt φ1 > φt m2 ≠ mp φ2 > φp 0 0
fragmentation (F1) m1 < mt φ1 > φt m2 > 0 φ2 > φp mpw > 0 msr > 0
erosion (F2) m1 ≲ mt φ1 > φt m2 ≥ 0 φ2 > φp mpw ≥ 0 msr > 0
fragmentation with mass transfer (F3) m1 > mt φ1 > φt m2 > 0 φ2 > φp mpw > 0 msr > 0
sticking – fragmentation transition m1 > mt → m1 < mt φ1 m2 ≥ 0 φ2 mpw ≥ 0 msr ≥ 0
bouncing – fragmentation transition m1 ≤ mt φ1 m2 ≥ 0 φ2 mpw = 0 → mpw > 0 msr = 0 → msr > 0

Notes. In this table, we illustrate how the collision outcome types of Sect. 3 can be mapped to the four-population model using the characteristic quantities mass m and filling factor φ as examples. The masses of the largest and second largest fragment, the power-law population, and the sub-resolution population are given by m1, m2, mpw, and msr, respectively. We assume for the target mass mt and projectile mass mp before the collision mt ≥ mp. The filling factors are represented by φt for the target, φp for the projectile, φ1 for the largest fragment, and φ2 for the second largest fragment. We also give examples of the transition criteria between the types of Sect. 3. A list of symbols can be found in the Appendix and further explanations are given in the text.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.