Turning the knobs on dust evolution: Comparing codes, parameters and their effects on planet formation and disc observables

TL;DR

This study compares various dust evolution simulation codes in protoplanetary discs, analyzing their effects on planet formation predictions and disc observables, and assesses how parameter variations influence outcomes.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive comparison of multiple dust evolution codes and explores the impact of key parameters on disc and planet formation processes.

Findings

Codes generally agree on dust size distributions in 2D simulations.

Differences in planetesimal formation locations vary significantly between codes.

Millimetre fluxes and disc sizes are consistent across models.

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.