1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

3: \newcommand{\myemail}{Paul.R.Estrada@nasa.gov}

4: 

5: \shorttitle{Moments Method}

6: \shortauthors{Estrada and Cuzzi}

7: 

8: \begin{document}

9: 

10: \title{Solving the Coagulation Equation by the Moments Method}

11: 

12: \author{P. R. Estrada}

13: \affil{SETI Institute, 515 N. Whisman Rd., Mountain View, CA 94043}

14: 

15: \and

16: 

17: \author{J. N. Cuzzi}

18: \affil{NASA Ames Research Center, MS 245-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035}

19: 

20: 

21: \begin{abstract}

22: We demonstrate an approach to solving the coagulation equation that involves

23: using a finite number of moments of the particle size distribution. This 

24: approach is particularly useful when only 

25: general properties of the distribution, and their time evolution, are needed. 

26: The numerical solution to the integro-differential Smoluchowski coagulation

27: equation at every time step, for every particle size, and at every spatial 

28: location is

29: computationally expensive, and serves as the primary bottleneck in running

30: evolutionary models over long periods of time. The advantage of using 

31: the 

32: moments method comes in the computational time savings gained from only

33: tracking the time rate of change of the moments, as opposed to tracking the 

34: entire mass histogram which can contain hundreds or thousands of

35: bins depending on the desired accuracy. The collision kernels of the

36: coagulation equation contain all the necessary information about particle

37: relative velocities, cross-sections, and sticking coefficients. We show how

38: arbitrary collision kernels may be treated. We discuss particle relative

39: velocities in both turbulent and non-turbulent regimes.

40: We present examples of this approach

41: that utilize different collision kernels and find good agreement between

42: the moment solutions and the moments as calculated from direct integration

43: of the coagulation equation. As practical applications, we demonstrate

44: how the moments method can be used to track the evolving opacity, and

45: also indicate how one may incorporate porous particles.

46: \end{abstract}

47: 

48: 

49: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks --- methods: numerical --- radiative 

50: transfer --- solar system: formation}

51: 

52: 

53: \section{Introduction}

54: 

55: The conditions under which planetary formation is initiated in the 

56: protoplanetary disk remain poorly understood despite several decades of 

57: astrophysical research. Furthermore, the continued 

58: discovery of extrasolar planets (over two hundred currently) further 

59: emphasizes the need to understand the formation of not only our own solar 

60: system, but of these numerous strange and diverse systems as well. 

61: At the forefront still remains the basic question of 

62: how growth occurs from dust to planet. The key properties of protoplanetary 

63: nebulae remain controversial, yet grain growth from dust to larger 

64: agglomerates 

65: ($\sim $ cm-m), and from planetesimals ($\gtrsim$ km) to planets must have 

66: occurred in some manner. While numerous studies of $N$-body dynamics have 

67: addressed the growth of terrestrial planets from asteroid-size planetesimals

68: which are largely decoupled from the gas \citep[e.g.,][]{lei05,bro06},

69: it is the transition from agglomerates to 

70: planetesimals which continues to provide the major stumbling block in 

71: planetary origins \citep{wei97,wei02,wei04,wei93,ste97,dul05,cuz06,dom07}.

72: 

73: Grain growth begins with sticking of sub-micron sized grains, which are 

74: dynamically coupled to the nebula gas and collide at

75: low relative velocities which are 

76: size-dependent \citep{wei93}. These relative velocities can be caused

77: by a variety of mechanisms, such as Brownian motion for the smallest grains,

78: differences in coupling to eddies in a

79: turbulent nebula \citep{vol80,wei84,mar91,wei93,cuz03,orm07}, 

80: and/or vertical, radial, and azimuthal drift driven by global gas pressure 

81: gradients

82: \citep{nak86,wei97}. For the 

83: smallest sized grains and aggregates, sticking is caused by weak van der 

84: Waals interaction forces \citep[although stronger forces may also act; see, 

85: e.g.,][]{dom07}. This sticking forms larger and larger aggregates

86: until particles grow large enough to decouple from the gas and

87: settle to the midplane where they may, barring strong turbulence

88: \citep[although see][for an exception]{joh07}, grow into

89: larger objects, even planetesimals \citep{saf69,wei93,cuz93,wei97}.

90: 

91: There is considerable observational evidence supporting dust growth 

92: in protoplanetary disks, at least from sub-micron to millimeter scales, based

93: on observations of the dust continuum emission originating from protoplanetary 

94: disks. The wavelength dependence of dust emission from IR to radio wavelengths

95: suggests, in many cases, that typical grain sizes are in the millimeter range,

96: which is orders of magnitude larger than interstellar grains

97: \citep{bec91,dul05,dom07}. 

98: Measurements of the contrast of the Orion trapezium 

99: silicate emission feature at 10 $\mu$m relative to the local continuum implies 

100: an increase in size from interstellar dust (sub-micron) to micron sizes in the

101: disk photospheres \citep{van03,pry03,kes06}.

102: 

103: Theoretical approaches to the study of dust coagulation normally involve 

104: solving the cumbersome collisional coagulation equation (see Eq. 1) at each

105: spatial location ($R,\phi,Z$) in the disk. 

106: The collisional kernel $K(m,m^\prime)$ for particles of mass $m$ and $m^\prime$

107: usually involves some sort of sticking efficiency, and particle cross-sectional

108: area, in addition to the particle-particle 

109: relative velocities. Although the {\it systematic} particle-particle

110: velocities that arise from 

111: gas pressure gradients \citep{nak86} are 

112: somewhat easy to incorporate into the collisional kernel, 

113: relative velocities in turbulence are more complicated.

114: If one assumes that nebula turbulence follows a Kolmogorov inertial range

115: \citep{vol80} in which energy

116: cascades from the largest, slowly rotating eddies, down to some minimum

117: lengthscale where the intrinsic molecular viscosity can dissipate the

118: macroscopic gas motions (and turbulence ceases), one can obtain closed-form

119: expressions for the particle-particle, and particle-gas

120: turbulent relative velocities \citep{cuz03}, even for particles

121: of different sizes \citep{orm07}. Numerical

122: models of particle growth in the inner regions of protoplanetary disks 

123: indicate that inclusion of these turbulence-induced relative 

124: velocities is essential \citep{dul05}, as it provides a

125: source of energetic collisions that, in the presence of fragmentation

126: and destruction, leads to the

127: ongoing existence of small grains even after several million years.

128: 

129: A full scale solution to the problem of dust coagulation for a size spectrum 

130: at every vertical and  radial location in the protoplanetary disk, as a

131: function of time,

132: is thus prohibitive even with today's computational capabilities

133: \citep{wei02,wei04}. So it is

134: advantageous to find alternative methods of extracting information from the

135: coagulation process, such as time scales of growth, the largest particle 

136: size, the size that dominates the area (radiative transfer), and the size 

137: that dominates

138: the mass (migration and redistribution) without having to track the behavior 

139: of the entire mass distribution. 

140: 

141: In

142: this paper, we describe a method that utilizes the moments of the coagulation

143: equation to accomplish this task, in particular when

144: the functional form of the mass distribution can be assumed. In {\S} 2, 

145: we derive the

146: moment equations from the coagulation equation, and compare

147: direct integration of the coagulation equation with solutions using

148: the moments approach in the case of a simple turbulent coagulation kernel. 

149: We also present  

150: two different approaches to obtaining solutions using a realistic kernel,

151: when the form of the size distribution is assumed to be a powerlaw. 

152: In {\S} 3, we evaluate the different approaches developed in {\S} 2

153: for realistic kernels by numerical integration of the moments equations

154: and compare these moments to those obtained by direct integration of the

155: coagulation equation.

156: We also

157: compare the moments solution to an alternate analytical approach by

158: \citet{gar07}. In {\S} 4, as a demonstration of the practical application 

159: of 

160: the moments method, we calculate the wavelength-independent opacity, and

161: discuss generalization to wavelength-dependent Planck or Rosseland

162: mean opacities. In {\S} 5, we indicate how porosity may be included.

163: In {\S} 6, we present our conclusions. 

164: 

165: \section{Solution Techniques Using the Moments Method}

166: 

167: The moments method approach to modeling particle growth allows an attractive

168: alternative to solving the full coagulation equation when it is only necessary

169: to know a particular property, or properties of the evolving particle size

170: distribution. The coagulation equation \citep{smo16} in its

171: integro-differential form is given by

172: 

173: \begin{eqnarray}

174: \frac{df(m,t)}{dt} = \frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{m} K(m-m^{\prime},

175: m^{\prime}) f(m-m^{\prime},t) f(m^{\prime},t) dm^{\prime} - \nonumber \\

176: \int_{0}^{\infty}

177: K(m,m^{\prime})f(m,t) f(m^{\prime},t) dm^{\prime} \,\,\,+ \,\,\,

178: \frac{df}{dt}\Big|_{+}\,\,\,+\,\,\, \frac{df}{dt}\Big|_{-}\,\,,

179: \end{eqnarray}

180: 

181: \noindent

182: where $f(m,t)$ is the particle number density per unit mass at mass $m$, and

183: $K(m,m^{\prime})$ is the collision kernel connecting the properties of 

184: interacting

185: masses $m$ and $m^\prime$, which typically takes into account mutual particle

186: cross section $\sigma(m,m^\prime)$, relative velocity $\Delta V(m,m^\prime)$, 

187: and a particle sticking efficiency $S(m,m^\prime)$. The last two terms on

188: the RHS of Eq. (1) represent sources and sinks such as particle

189: erosion, fragmentation and subsequent redistribution of the fragmented

190: population, and gravitational growth. Although we will not specifically

191: address these mechanisms, we will indicate how they may be treated, and

192: save implementation for a forthcoming paper.

193: 

194: The

195: motivation behind using the moments method is to avoid the computational cost

196: inherent in Eq. (1) which entails solving the convolution integral (the first

197: term on the RHS of Eq. 1) at every location, and at every time step. 

198: Depending on the functional form of the kernel, the second integral on the

199: RHS may also need to be integrated repeatedly. Given

200: that the typical mass spectrum may involve $10^2-10^3$ bins to acquire the

201: desired accuracy, the computational burden required becomes a detriment to any

202: study involving a wide range of parameter space. The

203: so-called brute force solution of the coagulation equation thus becomes the 

204: primary bottleneck in running 2D evolutionary models over extended periods of 

205: time \citep{wei04,dul05}.

206: 

207: We define the $p$-th moment $M_p$ of the distribution, where $p$ need not be

208: an integer, as

209: 

210: \begin{equation}

211: M_p = \int_{0}^{\infty} m^p f(m,t) dm,

212: \end{equation}

213: 

214: \noindent

215: where the units of $f(m,t)$ are such that $M_0=\int f(m,t)\,dm$ represents 

216: the total number

217: density of particles, and $M_1 = \int mf(m,t)\, dm = \rho$ is the 

218: total volume mass density

219: of solids. The essence of the moments method is as follows. We multiply both

220: sides of the coagulation equation (Eq. 1) by $m^k$, where $k$ is an integer,

221: and then integrate both sides over mass $m$:

222: 

223: \begin{eqnarray}

224: \frac{dM_k}{dt} = \int_{0}^{\infty} m^k \frac{df}{dt} dm = 

225: \frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{\infty} m^k\,dm \int_{0}^{m} K(m-m^{\prime},

226: m^{\prime}) f(m-m^{\prime},t) f(m^{\prime},t) dm^{\prime}  - \nonumber \\

227: \int_{0}^{\infty} m^k f(m,t)\,dm \int_{0}^{\infty}

228: K(m,m^{\prime}) f(m^{\prime},t) dm^{\prime}.

229: \end{eqnarray}

230: 

231: \noindent

232: We introduce a step function $H(m-m^\prime)$, such that $H = 0$ for

233: $m -m^\prime < 0$ and $H = 1$ otherwise, to extend the limits of the

234: integral over $m^\prime$ from ($0,m$) to ($0,\infty$). The convolution

235: integral (the first integral on the RHS of Eq. 3) then becomes

236: 

237: \begin{eqnarray}

238: \frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{\infty} m^k\,dm \int_{0}^{\infty} 

239: H(m-m^\prime) K(m-m^\prime,m^\prime) f(m-m^\prime,t) f(m^\prime,t)\,

240: dm^\prime  = \nonumber \\

241: \frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{\infty} f(m^\prime,t)\,dm^\prime \int_{0}^{\infty}

242: (u+m^\prime)^k K(u,m^\prime) f(u,t)\,du,

243: \end{eqnarray}

244: 

245: \noindent

246: where on the RHS of Eq. (4) we have switched the order of integration and

247: made the substitution $u = m - m^\prime$. The RHS side of Eq. (4) may then be

248: combined with the last double integral in Eq. (3) to yield the set of 

249: ordinary differential equations (ODEs)

250: for the integer moments \citep{mar01}:

251: 

252: \begin{equation}

253: \frac{dM_k}{dt} = \int_{0}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{\infty} \left[\frac{1}{2}

254: (m + m^\prime)^k - m^k\right] K(m,m^\prime) f(m,t) f(m^\prime,t) dm dm^\prime,

255: \end{equation}

256: 

257: \noindent

258: where we have substituted $m$ for $u$ with no loss of generality.

259: Depending on the mass dependence of the kernel (as illustrated below) 

260: the right hand side can readily be

261: expressed as products of moments of order $k$ or less, leading to a closed

262: system of equations which may be solved using standard techniques. 

263: In this definition of the coagulation equation in which it is assumed there

264: are no sources and sinks, the first 

265: moment $M_1 \equiv \rho$ is constant in time, that is 

266: $dM_1/dt = 0$\footnote{We note that under realistic protoplanetary nebula 

267: conditions, $\rho$ will not be constant due to, e.g., size-dependent advection

268: terms in the equations. Such effects can be treated separately from the

269: ``coagulation'' step. See {\S} 2.2.2.}. 

270: 

271: Exact solutions to the coagulation equation have been obtained for 

272: some specific choices

273: of the kernel \citep[e.g.,][]{smo16,tru71}, the most simple 

274: being that of constant kernel $K(m,m^\prime) = \beta_0$. Although the exact

275: solution for $f(m,t)$ cannot be obtained from the moments equations, the 

276: time rate of

277: change of the zeroth moment ($k=0$), can easily be obtained from Eq. (5)

278: which reduces to $dM_0/dt = - (1/2)\beta_0M_0^2$ and has the trivial solution

279: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{sil79}

280: 

281: \begin{equation}

282: M_0(t) = \frac{M_0(0)}{1 + (1/2)\beta_0M_0(0)t},

283: \end{equation}

284: 

285: \noindent

286: independent of the initial choice of distribution $f(m,0)$. Likewise, the

287: ODE for $M_2$, which can be associated with the density-weighted mean particle

288: size ($\left<m\right> = M_2/M_1$), yields the simple solution 

289: $M_2(t)=M_2(0) + \beta_0\rho^2t$. Despite not

290: knowing the exact solution, we are able

291: to understand the behavior of general properties of the

292: mass distribution with time through the moments equation without

293: tracking the behavior of the full mass spectrum. Thus, 

294: if it is only desired to know, for example, the time evolution of the 

295: particle representing most of the {\it area} (first moment) or most of

296: the {\it mass} (second moment) of the distribution, then the advantage of 

297: the moments method becomes clear. A small

298: number of moments is all that is necessary to determine the behavior of the

299: system. In particular, we will be interested in the size of the largest

300: particle $m_L(t)$ in the entire mass distribution as a function of time

301: (which we show below can be computed from the integer moments),

302: because these are usually the most rapidly drifting and most violently

303: colliding particles \citep{cuz06}.

304: 

305: 

306: \subsection{Example: Saffman and Turner Turbulent Coagulation Kernel}

307: 

308: We can illustrate the moments method approach using a very simple turbulent 

309: coagulation kernel

310: where $K(m,m^\prime) = \gamma_0 (m^{1/3} + m^{\prime 1/3})^3$ \citep{saf56},

311: and no sources or sinks. Physically, this represents the 

312: product of $(r + r^{\prime})^2$ for

313: area, and $(r + r^{\prime})$ for relative velocity of two particles in a 

314: laminar shear flowfield. If a sticking coefficient were desired then we

315: would specifically have $K(m,m^\prime) = \gamma_0(m^{1/3}+m^{\prime 1/3})^3

316: S(m,m^\prime)$ where $0\leq S(m,m^\prime) \leq 1$. Here, $\gamma_0$ is a 

317: constant that depends on the Reynolds number of the gas flow.

318: Inserting this kernel into Eq. (5), we find the set of equations

319: 

320: \begin{eqnarray}

321: \frac{dM_0}{dt} = -\gamma_0(M_0M_1 + 3M_{1/3}M_{2/3}), \,\,\,\,\,

322: \frac{dM_1}{dt} = 0 \nonumber \\

323: \frac{dM_2}{dt} = 2\gamma_0(M_2M_1 + 3M_{4/3}M_{5/3}). 

324: \end{eqnarray}

325: 

326: 

327: \noindent

328: We note that the physical derivation of kernels in terms of particle radius $r$

329: leads to {\it fractional}

330: moments in terms of $m$. These fractional moments look complicated, but can 

331: be solved for by simple

332: interpolation using Lagrange polynomials in terms of the more familiar integer

333: moments \citep{log79,pre92,mar01}.

334: Thus, any

335: fractional moment $M_p$ may be expressed compactly in the normalized form

336: $M^\prime_p(t) = M_p(t)/M_p(0)$:

337: 

338: \begin{equation}

339: M^\prime_p(t) = \prod_{j=k}^{k+n} \left[M^\prime_j(t)\right]^{L^n_j(p)},

340: \end{equation}

341: 

342: \noindent

343: where $n$ is the number of integer moments, $k = 0,1,...,n$,

344: and the exponent $L^n_j$ is defined as

345: 

346: \begin{equation}

347: L^n_j(p) = \frac{1}{n!}{\prod}_{n+1}(p)\frac{(-1)^{n-j}C^j_n}{p-j},

348: \end{equation}

349: 

350: \noindent

351: with ${\prod}_{n+1}(p) = p(p-1)...(p-n)$, and the $C^j_n$ 

352: are the binomial coefficients $n!/j!(n-j)!$. The 

353: important thing to

354: note here is that the order of the moments must remain less than or equal 

355: to the largest moment in order for the system to remain closed. In general,

356: this will be true for realistic collision kernels (see {\S} 2.2).

357: 

358: To test the accuracy of the moments method, we integrated equations (7) using a

359: fourth order Runge-Kutta scheme, and compared the results to a brute force

360: integration of the coagulation equation (Eq. 1). For the latter, we 

361: integrated the distribution function $f(m,t)$ at each timestep

362: to determine the moments of the distribution $M_0$, $M_1$, and $M_2$. We chose

363: $f(m,0) = c_0m^{-q}$ as our initial distribution for simplicity. Since the

364: form of the mass distribution is only assumed at $t=0$, we consider this to

365: be an example of an implicit assumption (see {\S} 2.2.2). 

366: The results of this calculation

367: are presented in Figure 1. We have used two different resolutions for the

368: brute force calculation in order to demonstrate how the higher resolution

369: (and much more computationally expensive) case (solid symbols) approaches the

370: moments approach solution. Notice that the first moment $M_1 = \rho$ remains

371: constant as expected. Given that

372: general numerical errors can arise from the finite mass grid and coarse 

373: timesteps ($\Delta t = 10$ years) used for 

374: the calculation, and that systematic errors may be 

375: introduced by the Lagrangian interpolation, the fit is quite good. 

376: It is important 

377: to point out here that while

378: the coagulation calculation required as many as $20-30$ hours of CPU time to 

379: complete on a 2 GHz machine, the moments calculation of Eq. (7) is 

380: essentially instantaneous.

381: 

382: 

383: \subsection{Realistic Coagulation Kernels}

384: 

385: The Saffman-Turner turbulent coagulation kernel we used as an example in 

386: {\S} 2.1

387: is simple to utilize and is expressible explicitly in powers of the mass $m$.

388: In practice, however, the realistic coagulation kernels that we will be using

389: will be more complicated than this simple example. A realistic

390: coagulation kernel will be, at the very least, a product of a mutual cross

391: section $\pi (r + r^\prime)^2$ and a relative velocity

392: 

393: \begin{equation}

394: \Delta V(m,m^\prime) = \sqrt{ (U - U^\prime)^2 + (V - V^\prime)^2 + 

395: (W - W^\prime)^2 + v_T^2(m,m^\prime)},

396: \end{equation}

397: 

398: \noindent

399: where $U(m)$, $V(m)$, and $W(m)$ are the $x,y,z$ systematic (pressure

400: gradient driven) particle 

401: velocities, and $v_T$ is the turbulent velocity contribution 

402: which in general is not separable into distinct functions of

403: $m$ and $m^\prime$ \citep{cuz03,orm07}. The 

404: systematic velocities,

405: which are derived for a discretized particle size distribution in the 

406: appendix,  are complicated functions of the particle size through the 

407: stopping time $t_s$, 

408: 

409: \begin{equation}

410: t_s = \frac{m\Delta V_{pg}}{F_D},

411: \end{equation}

412: 

413: \noindent

414: where $\Delta V_{pg} = |\vec{\bf{V}} - \vec{\bf{v}}|$ is the relative

415: velocity between the particle and the gas, and 

416: $F_D$ is the drag force on the particle of size $r$ which depends on the size

417: of the particle relative to the mean free path $\lambda$ of the gas molecule

418: \citep[e.g., see][]{cuz93}. Depending on whether $r \gtrsim

419: \lambda$ or $r \lesssim \lambda$ determines whether the stopping time itself 

420: depends on the instantaneous relative velocity $\Delta V_{pg}$

421: between the particle and the gas (Stokes regime) or does not (Epstein regime).

422: In the latter case, calculation of the systematic velocities ($U,V,W$) and

423: gas velocities ($u,v,w$) for a particle size distribution is

424: straightforward. In the former case, iterations are required to correctly

425: calculate $\Delta V_{pg}$ (see appendix).

426: 

427: The turbulent velocities are less straightforward to implement than their

428: systematic counterparts because of the different coupling that exists 

429: between particles and eddies of different sizes (and thus stopping and decay

430: times, respectively). It has not been until very recently that closed form

431: expressions for the turbulence-induced velocities (for a particle size

432: distribution) were derived \citep{orm07}. These expressions can be written

433: separately for the so-called ``class I'' and ``class II'' 

434: eddies\footnote{The concept of eddy classes were introduced by \citet{vol80}

435: to distinguish between slowly and rapidly varying eddies. Class I eddies

436: are defined as those in which the eddy fluctuates slowly enough that a 

437: particle's

438: stopping time $t_s$ is much shorter than the eddy decay time and the time 

439: it takes

440: to cross the eddy; thus, they will align themselves with the gas motions of 

441: the eddy prior to its decay.

442: Class II eddies then are defined as ones in which the eddy decay time is fast

443: compared to the particles $t_s$, and thus only provide a

444: small perturbation to the particle motion.} as:

445: 

446: \begin{equation}

447: \Delta V_I^2 = v_g^2\frac{{\rm{St}}_i-{\rm{St}}_j}{{\rm{St}}_i+{\rm{St}}_j}

448: \left(\frac{{\rm{St}}^2_i}{{\rm{St}}^*_{ij}

449: +{\rm{St}}_i} - \frac{{\rm{St}}^2_i}{1+{\rm{St}}_i} - \frac{{\rm{St}}^2_j}

450: {{\rm{St}}^*_{ij}+{\rm{St}}_j} +

451: \frac{{\rm{St}}^2_j}{1+{\rm{St}}_j}\right),

452: \end{equation}

453: 

454: \begin{equation}

455: \Delta V^2_{II} = v_g^2\left( 2({\rm{St}}^*_{ij} - {\rm{Re}}^{-1/2}) +

456: \frac{{\rm{St}}^2_i}{{\rm{St}}_i+{\rm{St}}^*_{ij}} - \frac{{\rm{St}}^2_i}

457: {{\rm{St}}_i+

458: {\rm{Re}}^{-1/2}} + \frac{{\rm{St}}^2_j}{{\rm{St}}_j+{\rm{St}}^*_{ij}} -

459: \frac{{\rm{St}}^2_j}{{\rm{St}}_j+{\rm{Re}}^{-1/2}}\right),

460: \end{equation}

461: 

462: \noindent

463: where $v_T^2 = \Delta V^2_I+\Delta V^2_{II}$, ${\rm{Re}}$ is the Reynolds 

464: number, $v_g = \alpha^{1/2}c_g$ is the turbulent gas velocity with $c_g$ the 

465: sound speed \citep[e.g.,][]{nak86,cuz06}, and the particle Stokes numbers 

466: ${\rm{St}}_i = t_{{\rm{s}}i}/t_L$, where $t_L$ is the turnover time of the 

467: largest eddy, typically

468: taken to be $\Omega^{-1}$. The boundary between class I and class II is

469: defined by the ``combined'' Stokes number

470: ${\rm{St}}^*_{ij} = {\rm{max}}({\rm{St}}^*_i,{\rm{St}}^*_j)$

471: and the values of the ${\rm{St}}^*_k$ are obtained from the

472: equation \citep{orm07}:

473: 

474: \begin{equation}

475: \frac{2}{3}y_k^*(y_k^*-1)^2 - \frac{1}{1+y_k^*} = -\frac{{\rm{St}}_k}

476: {1+{\rm{St}}_k} + \frac{1}{{\rm{St}}_k}\frac{\Delta V^2_{pg}}{v^2_g},

477: \end{equation}

478: 

479: \noindent

480: where $y^*_k = {\rm{St}}^*_k/{\rm{St}}_k$.

481: In our calculations, we will make use of these expressions when comparing

482: cases with turbulence-induced velocities.

483: 

484: Given that the moments method requires that we

485: express the kernel in terms of fractional or integer moments, the problem

486: becomes expressing the relative velocity (Eq. 10) in a form that satisfies 

487: this requirement. As an

488: example, the systematic velocities $U$, $V$, and $W$ can each be fit easily 

489: by a finite series in fractional powers $p_i$ of $m$

490: as $U(m) = \sum^N_i a_i m^{p_i}$ where the 

491: coefficients $a_i$ can be found by fitting $N$ points to the function 

492: $U(m_l) = U_l$ ($l$ an integer). This leads to the system of equations

493: 

494: \begin{equation}

495: U_l = \sum_{i=1}^N a_i m_l^{p_i}.

496: \end{equation}

497: 

498: \noindent

499: The coefficients $a_i$ then

500: follow from matrix inversion. Similarly, one can find expressions 

501: $V(m) = \sum_i^N b_i m^{p_i}$, and $W(m) = \sum_i^N c_i m^{p_i}$ 

502: so that we may

503: construct the laminar expression for $(\Delta V)^2$ in terms of the variables 

504: $m$ and

505: $m^\prime$ by multiplying out the individual terms, e.g., 

506: $U(m)U(m^\prime) = \sum_{i,j} a_ia_j m^{p_i}m^{\prime p_j}$ and so on. We

507: find then that we can express the square of Eq. (10) as

508: 

509: \begin{equation}

510: (\Delta V(m,m^\prime))^2 = \sum_{i,j} A_{ij} \left[m^{p_i+p_j} - 

511: 2m^{p_i}m^{\prime p_j} + m^{\prime p_i+p_j}\right],

512: \end{equation}

513: 

514: \noindent

515: where $A_{ij} = a_ia_j + b_ib_j + c_ic_j$, and $p_i+p_j\le 2$ for closure. 

516: This determines the matrix of

517: coefficients $A_{ij}$ which operate on the finite power series in

518: $m$ and $m^\prime$. Although we cannot use the same approach for solving

519: for $\Delta V$ in

520: Eq. (10) because of the radical, we were motivated to express $\Delta V$ in 

521: a similar form, i.e., as 

522: $\Delta V(m,m^\prime) = \sum_{i,j} A^\prime_{ij} [m^{p_i+p_j} - 

523: 2m^{p_i}m^{\prime p_j} + m^{\prime p_i+p_j}]$, and $p_i+p_j\le 1$.

524: The problem reduces to solving for the 

525: coefficients $A^\prime_{ij}$ directly, by similar matrix 

526: inversion techniques. Unfortunately, the number of points needed to obtain

527: an accurate representation of the two-variable function 

528: $\Delta V(m,m^\prime)$ this way 

529: exceeds the limitations of the inversion. In

530: practice we found that we could solve a system for $\Delta V$ 

531: with at most 

532: $5-6$ points ($25-36$ matrix elements),

533: whereas Eq. (16) carries much less restriction in the

534: number of points needed because we could construct $(\Delta V)^2$ 

535: by the product of accurate representations of single variable functions. 

536: Furthermore, due to the coupling evident in

537: the turbulence induced velocities (Equations 12 and 13), the turbulent 

538: velocities are not separable functions of the masses $m$ and $m^\prime$, 

539: further complicating the analysis.

540: 

541: {\it Powerlaw assumption}: Fortunately, it turns out that, although 

542: the direct calculation approach to $\Delta V$ described above would

543: be mathematically appealing in the sense that the moment equations would

544: remain implicit (i.e., the form of the mass distribution would only

545: be assumed at $t=0$), it is not necessary. In the next sections

546: we describe two alternative approaches to dealing with realistic coagulation 

547: kernels that employ the moments method under the assumption that the

548: form of the mass distribution $f(m,t)$ is a powerlaw.

549: Such an assumption is 

550: not entirely unfounded. A number of detailed models by 

551: \citet{wei97,wei00,wei04}

552: have shown that powerlaw size distributions result, which have 

553: nearly constant mass per decade radius to an upper limit $m_L(t)$ which

554: grows with time until the frustration limit of around a meter is reached, and

555: (under turbulent conditions, at least)

556: growth stalls \citep{cuz06}. Similar trends are found by \citet{dul05} in

557: which different assumptions about collisional ejecta are made. These authors

558: do find minor fluctuations in the distribution, but if one is primarily

559: interested in general properties of the distribution, such as

560: how the largest particle size changes with time, and not the fine 

561: structure of the 

562: mass distribution itself, the approach is quite advantageous. There are reasons

563: to believe that a powerlaw is a natural end-state, especially those

564: with equal mass per decade, because they have self-preserving properties for

565: the collision kernels of interest \citep{cuz06}.

566: 

567: The significance of the upper mass cutoff $m_L$ depends on the assumed slope 

568: of the powerlaw. In all real distributions, there will be a rapidly decreasing 

569: abundance of particles for masses exceeding some threshold, even though the 

570: abundance may not drop immediately to zero as in our assumed model. The rare, 

571: extremely large particles might be of interest for some applications,  but 

572: our focus will be the particle size carrying most of the area, or most of 

573: the mass (the first or second moments). For powerlaw distributions 

574: $f(m) \propto m^{-q}$ with $q < 2$, $m_L$ is itself the mass of the particle 

575: carrying most of the mass and is independent of the selection of a lower 

576: particle size cutoff. For $q=2$, the distribution contains equal mass per 

577: decade, and for $q>2$, most of the mass is in the small particles and the 

578: value of $m_L$ depends on the lower particle size chosen. Most realistic 

579: distributions, and those most commonly treated in the literature, have $q<2$; 

580: here we assume $q=11/6$, a widely used fragmentation powerlaw. In this case, 

581: a strict cutoff at $m_L$ represents a well-defined distribution with 

582: easily-understood moments where most of the mass is at $m_L$ and the area 

583: is nearly equally distributed per decade with a mass dependence $m^{-1/6}$. 

584: 

585: Although we do not include either imperfect sticking or fragmentation at this 

586: stage in the model, we believe that the moment equations as expressed in 

587: Eq. (5) will remain valid up to a "fragmentation barrier", which may be 

588: defined as that size for which the typical disruption energy of a particle 

589: is on the same order as the energy of identical colliding particles.

590: The fragmentation barrier will also depend on one's choice of

591: nebula parameters. This treatment (up to the fragmentation size) is 

592: consistent with recent work by \citet{bra08} (their Fig. 13) which shows

593: a constant powerlaw mass distribution up to a cutoff size which then falls

594: off abruptly. This ``knee'' in the distribution represents that efficient

595: fragmentation size.

596: 

597: Once $m_L$ reaches the fragmentation barrier, growth beyond this 

598: stage would need to be treated in a different manner, for

599: example, by simple sweepup of small, less disruptive particles by large

600: ones \citep{cuz93}. Creation and disruption of these

601: particles can be handled as part of the source and sink terms in which

602: for example, disrupted particles are assumed to be fragmented back into

603: a powerlaw distribution (which is suggested by experimental evidence and

604: widely assumed by other modelers) as opposed to monomers. The model as

605: presented within this paper, however, should be useful for the early

606: stages of protoplanetary nebula particle growth relevant to spectral

607: energy distributions and MRI suppression. We leave the incorporation of

608: growth stages beyond the efficient fragmentation stage for a later paper.

609: 

610: \subsubsection{Approach 1: Explicit Assumption}

611: 

612: Motivated by our discussion of the previous section, if we assume that the

613: form of the particle mass distribution function remains a powerlaw 

614: at all times, we may express $f(m,t) = c(t)m^{-q}$, such that 

615: $m_L(t)$ is the growing upper limit of the distribution, $q$ is the slope

616: which is assumed to be constant (although see below), and 

617: $c(t)$ is a normalization coefficient. Taking the lower limit of the mass 

618: distribution to be $m_0$, 

619: then moments as expressed in Eq. (2) are explicitly given for $q-p\neq 1$ by

620: 

621: \begin{equation}

622: M_p(t) = \frac{c(t)}{1 + p -q}\left(m_L(t)^{1+p-q} - m_0^{1+p-q}\right).

623: \end{equation}

624: 

625: \noindent

626: We then take the time derivative of Eq. (17) for the zeroth and second

627: moments, and substitute these expressions on the LHS of the corresponding 

628: moment equations in Eq. (5) to get

629: 

630: \begin{equation}

631: \frac{m_L^{1-q} - m_0^{1-q}}{1-q}\frac{dc}{dt} + cm_L^{-q}\frac{dm_L}{dt} =

632: -\frac{1}{2}c^2\Gamma_0(m_L),

633: \end{equation}

634: 

635: \begin{equation}

636: \frac{m_L^{3-q} - m_0^{3-q}}{3-q}\frac{dc}{dt} + cm_L^{2-q}\frac{dm_L}{dt} =

637: c^2\Gamma_2(m_L),

638: \end{equation}

639: 

640: 

641: \noindent

642: where Eq. (18) is valid for $q\neq 1$, and $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_2$ are the 

643: integrals on the RHS of Eq. (5) for $k=0$ and $k=2$, respectively. That is

644: 

645: \begin{equation}

646: \Gamma_0(m_L) = \int_{m_0}^{m_L(t)}\int_{m_0}^{m_L(t)}

647: K(m,m^{\prime})m^{-q}m^{\prime -q}\,dm\,dm^\prime,

648: \end{equation}

649: 

650: \begin{equation}

651: \Gamma_2(m_L) = \int_{m_0}^{m_L(t)}\int_{m_0}^{m_L(t)}

652: K(m,m^{\prime})m^{1-q}m^{\prime 1-q}\,dm\,dm^\prime,

653: \end{equation}

654: 

655: \noindent

656: where the kernel is given by

657: $K(m,m^\prime) = \sigma(m,m^\prime)\Delta  V(m,m^\prime) S(m,m^\prime)$, with

658: $\sigma(m,m^\prime) = K_0(m^{1/3}+m^{\prime 1/3})^2$,

659: $K_0 = \pi(3/4\pi\rho_s)^{2/3}$, and $\rho_s$ is the particle material 

660: density, assumed

661: constant. Note that for the special case of $q=1$, Eq. (18) has a slightly

662: different form which depends on $\ln{(m_L/m_0)}$.

663: After some simple algebra, Eq.'s (18) and (19) can be written as

664: 

665: \begin{equation}

666: \frac{dm_L}{dt} = c\left[\frac{(3-q)(m_L^{1-q}-m_0^{1-q})\Gamma_2 +

667: \frac{1}{2}(1-q)(m_L^{2-q}-m_0^{2-q})\Gamma_0}{(3-q)(m_L^{1-q}-m_0^{1-q})

668: m_L^{2-q} - (1-q)(m_L^{3-q}-m_0^{3-q})m_L^{-q}}\right],

669: \end{equation}

670: 

671: \begin{equation}

672: \frac{dc}{dt} = -c^2\left[\frac{(3-q)(1-q)(m_L^{-q}\Gamma_2 +

673: \frac{1}{2}m_L^{2-q}\Gamma_0)}{(3-q)(m_L^{1-q}-m_0^{1-q})

674: m_L^{2-q} - (1-q)(m_L^{3-q}-m_0^{3-q})m_L^{-q}}\right],

675: \end{equation}

676: 

677: \noindent

678: which we integrate using a fourth order Runge-Kutta scheme. Equation (17) then

679: gives the moments $M_0$ and $M_2$ as a function of time, which can be

680: directly compared with direct integration of the same conditions

681: using the coagulation equation (Eq. 1). 

682: 

683: The advantage of this approach (in which a powerlaw is assumed at all

684: times) is its transparency; that is, the variables being sought

685: ($m_L$ and $c$) are solved

686: for directly. Furthermore, the change in the coagulation kernel as the

687: particle size distribution changes is included because the kernel is

688: updated and explicitly integrated into $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_2$ with every 

689: time step. This will prove

690: advantageous when additional effects such as sticking

691: are included in the kernel. In addition, source and sink terms need not

692: parameterized in terms of integer moments and can be implemented directly.

693: An unfortunate disadvantage of this approach is

694: that because the kernel must be integrated (in fact several times) over

695: both $m$ and $m^\prime$ every

696: time step to get $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_2$, the CPU time involved is 

697: significantly longer than a fully

698: implicit case (e.g., {\S} 2.1; also see {\S} 2.2.2); however, it

699: remains a much faster approach (orders of magnitude) than solving Eq. (1) 

700: directly since the

701: cumbersome convolution has been eliminated.

702: 

703: 

704: \subsubsection{Approach 2: Semi-implicit Assumption}

705: 

706: Here, we present an alternative moment-based approach to solving the realistic

707: coagulation kernel in which the integer moments appear directly. 

708: Unlike the previous case of {\S} 2.2.1, where the double integral of

709: Eq. (5) is used to get the functions of $m_L$, $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_2$, 

710: we only integrate over one mass

711: variable (i.e., only integrate one of the integrals), defining the

712: functions

713: 

714: \begin{equation}

715: C_0(m,t) = \int_{m_0}^{m_L} K(m,m^\prime)f(m^\prime,t) \,\,

716: dm^\prime,

717: \end{equation}

718: 

719: \begin{equation}

720: C_2(m,t) = \int_{m_0}^{m_L} m^\prime K(m,m^\prime)f(m^\prime,t) 

721: \,\,dm^\prime,

722: \end{equation}

723: 

724: \noindent

725: where the form of the kernel $K(m,m^\prime)$ is the same that in {\S} 2.2.1.

726: We then fit $C_0$ and $C_2$ with a finite series in fractional

727: powers of $m$ in the same manner as given in Eq. (15). Substituting these

728: functions in place of one of the integrals (say over $m^\prime$), we may

729: integrate over $m$ to get

730: 

731: \begin{eqnarray}

732: \frac{dM^\prime_0}{dt} = -\frac{1}{2M_0(0)}\int_{m_0}^{m_L(t)}

733: f(m,t)C_0(m,t)\,dm = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_i a_i \mu_{p_i}M^\prime_{p_i} \nonumber \\

734: \frac{dM^\prime_2}{dt} = \frac{1}{M_2(0)}\int_{m_0}^{m_L(t)} m f(m,t)C_2(m,t)

735: \,dm = \sum_i b_i \nu_{p_i+1}M^\prime_{p_i+1}, \nonumber \\

736: M^\prime_{p_i} = \left[M^\prime_0\right]^{\frac{1}{2}(p_i-1)

737: (p_i-2)}\left[M^\prime_1\right]^{-p_i(p_i-2)}\left[M^\prime_2\right]^

738: {\frac{1}{2}p_i(p_i-1)},

739: \end{eqnarray}

740: 

741: \noindent

742: where we have made use of equations (8) and (9) to express the solution in

743: terms of the integer moments $k = 0,1,2$. Here, $\mu_{p_i} = M_{p_i}(0)/

744: M_0(0)$, $\nu_{p_i+1} = M_{p_i+1}(0)/M_2(0)$, $M^\prime_k = M_k(t)/M_k(0)$,

745: and $0\leq p_i \leq 1$. The $C_k$ are fairly smooth functions over a large

746: range of particle radii;, however, the accuracy of fitting a single series in 

747: fractional moments over a very broad range of particle sizes 

748: (i.e., over many orders of magnitude) may drop off significantly as the 

749: broadness of the range increases. This issue may be circumvented by 

750: employing a piecewise fit to the integrated kernels $C_k$.

751: 

752: It is interesting to note that by this definition of $C_k$, we have

753: effectively accomplished what we set out to do in

754: our discussion at the beginning of {\S} 2.2, that is, defining the 

755: coagulation kernel in terms of finite series in powers of the mass $m$. 

756: The difference

757: here is that we have done so through the first integral of the kernel, and 

758: not the kernel itself. This means that the mass distribution $f(m,t)$ is

759: expressed in the calulation of the $C_k$, but remains

760: implicit in the definition of the ODEs (Eq. 26). Thus, the method is

761: semi-implicit, because the RHS of the equations above can be

762: expressed in terms of the moments (as defined in Eq. 2). Equations (26) 

763: are then integrated using the fourth order Runge-Kutta method, and may be

764: compared with the results of {\S} 2.2.1 and the direct integration of

765: Eq. (1).

766: 

767: This semi-implicit approach tracks

768: the evolving kernel through the integration of Equations (24) and (25)

769: after every timestep, thus the computational time involved is similar

770: to the explicit case. In order to update the kernel,

771: one may solve for the new $m_L$ after each $\Delta t$ 

772: using the equation ($q\ne 1$)

773: 

774: \begin{equation}

775: \frac{m_L-m_0}{m_L^{2-q}-m_0^{2-q}} - \frac{M_q}{(2-q)M_1} \simeq 0.

776: \end{equation}

777: 

778: \noindent

779: The new

780: normalization coefficient $c$ can then be found from the definition of 

781: $M_1 = \rho$.

782: We then reintegrate Equations (24) and (25) under the powerlaw assumption, 

783: and then proceed to fit the $C_k(m,t)$ with a finite series in fractional 

784: powers of $m$. Although, in principle, any other two moments could be

785: used to obtain $m_L$, $M_q$, which lies between $M_2$ and $M_1$, and because

786: it roughly characterizes the evolution of the largest particle (see discussion

787: at the end of {\S} 2.2), seems the most

788: consistent choice. The $q$-th moment is calculated using the Lagrange 

789: polynomial interpolation scheme (Eqs. 8 and 9).

790: 

791: The advantage of the moments method lies in the ability to express the

792: differential equations in terms of the moments of the 

793: distribution (i.e., their integrated properties). 

794: If a more explicitly

795: mass-dependent approach is adopted (as is the case in {\S} 2.2.1, and the

796: semi-implicit approach described here), 

797: then the computational time significantly increases.

798: One can improve the speed of computation by calculating the $C_k$

799: periodically, or in the extreme case, only at $t=0$ which would make

800: the approach truly {\it implicit} (e.g., {\S} 2.1). The advantage of an 

801: implicit approach

802: is that it becomes fully general

803: (the form of $f$ is only assumed at the onset), and

804: also in the time it takes to solve ($< 1$ minute). The bulk of the time is 

805: spent in the

806: integration of equations (24) and (25) which would occur only once.

807: The disadvantage, of course, is that the particle velocity distribution is

808: not updated as it changes with time (due to, e.g., changes in the bounds

809: of the size distribution). We present examples of both extremes in {\S} 3.

810: 

811: If one wanted to implement a mass- or velocity-dependent sticking

812: coefficient $S$, it can readily be included in the integration to

813: obtain the $C_k$. The additional inclusion of source and sink terms 

814: due to erosion, fragmention, or

815: gravitational growth in this semi-implicit formalism would require that we fit 

816: these terms in a similar manner to the $C_k$ so that their subsequent

817: integration over all $m$ will yield sums over integer moments weighted by

818: different sets of coefficients. Caution must be exercised in fitting, e.g.,

819: the gravitational growth term to ensure

820: that the system of equations remains closed. Under such circumstances, a

821: fully explicit approach such as that of {\S} 2.2.1 may be preferred. 

822: Alternatively, these effects may be included in particle-histogram space

823: in between coagulation interations. 

824: 

825: Finally,

826: we should point out that allowing for other parameters (such as the index

827: of the powerlaw $q$)

828: to vary with time, does not pose a problem in either of 

829: the approaches we have presented. In both cases, one would simply need an

830: additional moment, e.g. $M_3$, to determine $q(t)$. Similarly, a bifurcated

831: distribution in which the powerlaw exponent changes at a particular particle

832: size \citep[see, e.g.,][]{ken99} may also be studied. 

833: 

834: In {\S} 3, we will compare the

835: two approaches to the direct integration of the coagulation equation for 

836: cases in which there are

837: only systematic velocities ($v_T = 0$), as well as cases in which the

838: velocity differences are induced by turbulent motions.

839: 

840: 

841: \section{Numerical Results}

842: 

843: We carried out several calculations in order to demonstrate the accuracy

844: of each alternative method compared to the brute force integration of the

845: collisional coagulation equation. For the purposes of comparison, 

846: unless otherwise noted, we chose the initial conditions to be a minimum mass 

847: solar nebula at 1 AU at a height of $z=10^3$ km above the midplane, and a 

848: particle size distribution with a minimum initial radius of 1 cm and 

849: a maximum initial radius of 10 cm. The

850: powerlaw exponent $q = 11/6$, which is assumed to be constant in these

851: calculations, is representative of a fragmentation population.

852: Standard integrations were carried out with a timestep of $\Delta t = 10$ 

853: years.

854: 

855: 

856: \subsection{Laminar Case ($v_T = 0$)}

857: 

858: In Figure 2, we compare the case in which there are only systematic 

859: (pressure-gradient driven) velocities

860: between particles ($v_T=0$). The solid curves represent the explicit

861: assumption (invariant powerlaw slope $q$ assumed in integration of 

862: Equations 22 and 23), while the dashed curves represent the

863: implicit assumption. That is, in the integration of Eq. 26, the form of

864: the mass distribution $f$ is assumed only at $t=0$. As before, the symbols 

865: represent the brute force calculation for two different grid resolutions 

866: (solid = 100 bins, open = 1000 bins). Since with the explicit assumption we do

867: not solve for the moments specifically, the values for the solid curves were

868: obtained by substituting the time integrated values of $c(t)$ and $m_L(t)$

869: back into Eq. (17) for $k = 0,2$ only. This is because

870: although we have used the moment equations to obtain these results, the

871: explicit assumption of an invariant powerlaw size distribution means that 

872: only the equations for the moments $M_0, M_2$ are needed (although see

873: {\S} 3.2). This is not true, however, for the implicit (and semi-implicit)

874: assumption, where 

875: all the moments $M_0,M_1,M_2$ appear in the differential equations.

876: 

877: We see that there is excellent agreement between both approaches and the

878: numerical values obtained with the highest resolution case. In fact, the

879: agreement between the explicit and implicit assumptions is also

880: quite good. However, at this stage there has not been a great deal of 

881: growth (the largest particle size in the distribution has only grown 

882: to $r_L = 11$ cm in size by the end of the simulation for the explicit case).

883: Note that even though

884: in the implicit case the $C_k$ are calculated only once, the estimate for the

885: largest mass $m_L$ for the evolving distribution $f(m,t)$ is still calculated

886: using Eq. (27). At least in the case of minimal or slow growth, it appears

887: that an implicit approach, or even periodic calculation of the $C_k$, may be

888: sufficient.

889: 

890: Numerical glitches in the low resolution brute force case arise from the 

891: interpolation

892: scheme for sampling the kernel. In particular, these glicthes are 

893: likely enhanced because the systematic 

894: relative velocities quickly approach zero

895: for identical particle sizes (with the effect much more prominent for larger

896: particles, hence not appearing so much in $M_0$). The higher resolution case

897: contains enough points to smooth out this effect. 

898: 

899: Note that (in all simulations) the direct integration of the coagulation 

900: equation gives a constant $M_1$

901: as is to be expected given that we found $dM_1/dt = 0$ in the

902: derivation of the moment equations in the absence of sources and sinks; this 

903: further validates the numerics 

904: of the brute force solution even

905: for the complicated collisional kernel being utilized, and also provides

906: a posteriori validation of our result that $M_1=\rm{constant}$ from,

907: e.g., Eq. (5), which further validates derivation of equations (24)

908: and (25) which was based on symmetry of the kernel.

909: 

910: 

911: \subsection{Turbulence Case ($v_T \neq 0$)}

912: 

913: Next, we explored cases in which the systematic velocities were set to zero

914: so that velocity differences between particles are due only to those induced

915: by turbulence. Depending on the magnitude of the turbulence parameter

916: $\alpha$, these induced velocities can be either large or small relative to the

917: systematic velocities. To demonstrate, we ran cases for three

918: different values $\alpha = 10^{-6},10^{-5}$, and $10^{-4}$. In the absence

919: of any mechanism to counter growth (e.g., fragmentation), larger $\alpha$

920: translates to faster rates of growth (due to larger relative 

921: velocities).

922: 

923: In Figure 3 we plot the results for $\alpha = 10^{-4}$,

924: for the explicit (solid curves) and implicit (short dashed curves) 

925: approaches. The growth rate is more rapid than in the laminar case, with 

926: the second scaled moment $\sim 70$\% larger (compared to Fig. 2) at the

927: end of the run, meaning that the

928: largest particle size achieved is $r_L \sim 13.5$ cm. We note

929: that, as was the case for the $M^\prime_2$ curves in Fig. 2, the explicit

930: and implicit cases are very similar; however, this is not the case

931: for the $M^\prime_0$ curves. The explicit approach overestimates the the

932: value of $M^\prime_0$ compared to the highest resolution brute force 

933: calculation, whereas the implicit approach significantly underestimates

934: the zeroth moment. Both approaches understimate the value of $M^\prime_2$.

935: When we compare integrations of $M^\prime_2$ for smaller

936: values of $\alpha$ as we do in Figure 4, we find that both approaches fit

937: the coagulation calculation quite well. The growth rate for these two

938: values of $\alpha$ are more in line with growth rate found when there are

939: only systematic velocities, so the agreement should not be surprising.

940: 

941: The long-dashed curves in Figures 3 and 4 

942: are the implementation of the semi-implicit approach ({\S} 2.2.2) in which

943: the $C_k$ are updated at every time step. In this case, the semi-implicit

944: approach provides a much a much better fit to the brute force calculation,

945: indicating that the kernel is evolving fast enough that an implicit

946: approach cannot capture this effect.

947: We consider the slight discrepencies between the 

948: semi-implicit approach and the brute force calculation to be as much a 

949: result of grid resolution as inaccuracy in using the Lagrange polynomial

950: fits to the fractional moments. The explicit and fully implicit approach 

951: values of $r_L$ apparently understimate the largest particle size

952: relative to the semi-implicit approach (which gives a value of 

953: $r_L \simeq 14$ cm).

954: 

955: 

956: Finally, we explored a variation of the explicit approach in which

957: the condition $M_1 = \rho$ was strictly enforced (recall that

958: $M_1$ does not appear in Equations 18-19). This amounts to replacing

959: Eq. (18) (derived for $M_0$) with the corresponding equation for $M_1$.

960: As a result, we cannot simultaneously fit both $M_2$ and $M_0$. 

961: Alternatively, we can use only Eq. (19) for the second moment, by substituting

962: $c = (2-q)\rho/(m_L^{2-q}-m_0^{2-q})$ (from the definition of $M_1$, Eq. 17)

963: in Eq. (19) so that Eq. (19) alone

964: determines the growth of the largest particle. The differential

965: equation for $m_L$ then becomes

966: 

967: \begin{equation}

968: \frac{dm_L}{dt} = \left[\frac{(3-q)(2-q)\rho\Gamma_2}

969: {(3-q)(m_L^{2-q}-m_0^{2-q})m_L^{2-q} - (2-q)(m_L^{3-q}-m_0^{3-q})

970: m_L^{1-q}}\right].

971: \end{equation}

972: 

973: \noindent

974: The results of the integration of Eq. (28) are shown as the dotted curves

975: in Figure 3 and for the $\alpha = 10^{-4}$ case in Figure 4. It is clear that 

976: this modification provides a much better fit to $M_2$, perhaps even better

977: than the semi-implicit case above. However, using

978: $m_L(t)$ calculated from Eq. (28), and solving for $c(t)$ does a poor job 

979: fitting $M_0$ (see Figure 3). Thus we conclude that although the

980: modification of the explicit approach matches the brute force calculation of

981: $M_2$ quite well, only the semi-implicit case is able to provide a

982: simultaneous fit to both the zeroth and second moments (under the

983: condition that $M_1=\rho = {\rm{constant}}$).

984: 

985: 

986: \subsection{A Model Comparison}

987: 

988: \citet{gar07} has developed a simplified analytical approach for dealing 

989: with the

990: growth of particles in a turbulent regime, in which the particle size

991: distribution is parameterized by a powerlaw in particle mass with the same 

992: exponent we have used in this paper ($q = 11/6$).

993: Similar to what we have presented in previous sections, the underlying

994: assumption of \citet{gar07} is that collisions between particles occur

995: frequently enough that a steady-state balance is reached in the form of

996: the particle

997: size distribution, but with an upper size cutoff that varies with time.

998: Thus, the model of \citet{gar07} is {\it explicit} and follows only two 

999: parameters: the growth

1000: of the largest particle $m_L(t)$, and the normalization factor $c(m_L,t)$.

1001: 

1002: Given the similarity of the underlying assumptions for the Garaud model

1003: and the examples we have presented, it is a

1004: useful exercise to compare the results of the two approaches directly.

1005: The growth of the largest particle $r_L$ in the Garaud model (her Eq. 36), 

1006: expressed in terms of the notation used in this paper, is given by

1007: 

1008: \begin{equation}

1009: \frac{dr_L}{dt} = \frac{\rho \Omega H}{\rho_s} \sqrt{\frac{\alpha

1010: \gamma {\rm{St}}_L}{1 + 64{\rm{St}}^2_L(2 + 5{\rm{St}}_L^{-0.1})^{-2}}}.

1011: \end{equation}

1012: 

1013: \noindent

1014: In Eq. (29) ${\rm{St}}_L$ is the Stokes number for the largest particle 

1015: $r_L = (3m_L/4\pi\rho_s)^{1/3}$, $H=c_g/\Omega$ is the scale height of the gas,

1016: $\gamma$ is the adiabatic index of the gas, and

1017: in this expression it is assumed that the sticking coefficient $S = 1$, and 

1018: that $m_L>>m_0$. The above

1019: equation is similar to the formula for grain growth proposed by \citet{ste97}

1020: to factors of order unity. Finally, we point out that 

1021: the Garaud model for particle growth

1022: is restricted to the value $q = 11/6$ in order to preserve its completely

1023: analytical nature. 

1024: As a means of a fair comparison, we chose to compare the Garaud model to

1025: our explicit case (Eq. 28) for reasons explained below. In the limit of

1026: $m_L >> m_0$ and $q=11/6$, Eq. (28) becomes

1027: 

1028: \begin{equation}

1029: \frac{dr_L}{dt} \simeq 0.05 \frac{\rho}{\rho_s}\frac{\Gamma_2}{m_L}.

1030: \end{equation}

1031: 

1032: We present

1033: the results of our comparison in Figure 5 for the same initial conditions

1034: as described at the beginning of {\S} 3.2 (upper curves). 

1035: We find quite generally that our explicit calculation (Eqs. 28 and 30)

1036: leads to a faster growth rate than what is predicted from the Garaud model,

1037: initially. We note that

1038: the Garaud expression steepens quickly for $r_L \gtrsim 13$ cm,

1039: suggesting that the growth rates of the two approaches are more comparable at 

1040: later times. 

1041: However, the minor ``kink'' in

1042: the long-dashed curve is due to the shift from Epstein to Stokes flow. A

1043: much more subdued kink is visible in the explicit approach

1044: which uses the full expressions for the turbulent velocity, whereas in the

1045: derivation of Eq. (29), it is

1046: assumed that the stopping time in the Stokes regime is defined

1047: by some mean characteristic velocity which leads to a much more

1048: noticeable discontinuity.

1049: Regardless, the overall more subdued growth rate elicited by Eq. (29) (despite 

1050: the steepening at later times due to a shift in flow regimes) is apparent 

1051: from the lower set of curves in Fig. 5 where

1052: the initial conditions were chosen with $r_L(0) = 1$ cm. For this case, growth

1053: occurs only in the Epstein regime, but still, the curves for the explicit 

1054: approach

1055: and that calculated from Eq. (29) begin to diverge. Thus,

1056: the Garaud expression apparently underestimates the growth rate relative to

1057: our approach.

1058: 

1059: We emphasize that the treatment of particle growth by \citet{gar07} requires

1060: several approximations in order to derive a purely analytical expressions for

1061: $dr_L/dt$. Besides the aforementioned restriction of $q=11/6$, Garaud 

1062: approximates the full expressions for the turbulent velocities that we

1063: use here by partitioning $v_T$ into seperate cases dependent on

1064: the particles' stopping time relative to the turnover times of the smallest

1065: and largest scale eddies. Furthermore, some question may be raised as to the

1066: comparability of the moment equations used here to derive Eq. (28), versus

1067: the particle growth equation used by \citet[her Eq. 29]{gar07}. 

1068: The equation used by \citet{gar07}

1069: is more akin to a ``sweep-up'' equation, with no sources or sinks, than to a

1070: formal coagulation equation. Because

1071: it bears some resemblance to the equation for $M_2$ (with some algebra,

1072: to factors of order unity), we concluded that our Eq. (28) is the appropriate 

1073: analog. Despite the differences in growth rate, we find the agreement in

1074: the general trend of growth of the two approaches reassuring.

1075: 

1076: 

1077: 

1078: \section{Opacity Calculations}

1079: 

1080: Evolutionary models of protoplanetary nebulae, giant planet atmospheres, etc.

1081: must somehow treat the escape of thermal radiation \citep{pol96,hub05,dur07}.

1082: In most cases, particles provide the primary opacity for these

1083: models. Observations of these and similar objects often rely on Spectral Energy

1084: Distributions (SEDs) which can be compared to a model once the model's internal

1085: temperature distribution is known; clear evidence is seen for grain growth in

1086: many cases \citep[see review by][]{nat07}. Because of the nearly 

1087: insurmountable

1088: computational burden involved with performing a fully self-consistent

1089: calculation of particle growth by coagulation along with an already difficult

1090: fluid dynamical calculation, most modelers simply assume some invariant

1091: particle size distribution, such as the MRN interstellar grain distribution, or

1092: make arbitrary assumptions about particle growth \citep{hub05}.

1093: 

1094: In the simplest regime (monodisperse particle radius $r$ larger than a

1095: wavelength), the particle opacity can be written as the area per unit 

1096: mass:

1097: 

1098: \begin{equation}

1099: \kappa = \frac{3}{4 \rho_s r} \hspace{0.1 in} {\rm cm}^2\,{\rm g}^{-1};

1100: \end{equation}

1101: 

1102: \noindent

1103: thus growth in radius from 0.1$\mu$ to 1 mm leads to a factor of $10^4$ change 

1104: in opacity. To the degree that this wavelength-independent regime holds,

1105: including particle size evolution by the moments method in one's

1106: evolutionary models would allow a very simple way to track particle growth and

1107: decreasing opacity. For instance, equation (31) above is easily generalized to

1108: the area per unit mass integrated over the size distribution:

1109: 

1110: \begin{equation}                       

1111: \kappa = \frac{\int \pi r^2 f(m)\, dm}{\int m f(m)\, dm} 

1112:        = \left(\frac{9 \pi}{16 \rho_s^2}\right)^{1/3}\frac{M_{2/3}}{M_1}.

1113: \end{equation}

1114: 

1115: \noindent

1116: As an application of the moments method in Figure 6, we have calculated 

1117: the decrease

1118: in opacity (given by Eq. 32) with time using the semi-implicit approach.

1119: An initial particle size distribution with a lower bound of $r_0=0.1$ cm

1120: and $q=11/6$ was used. Both the pressure gradient driven systematic 

1121: velocities and the

1122: turbulence-induced velocities were used. In the absence of any mechanism to

1123: hinder particle growth, larger values of $\alpha$ lead to more steeply

1124: decreasing opacities with time.

1125: 

1126: 

1127: In a regime where the particle extinction efficiency $Q(r,\lambda)$ is

1128: wavelength-dependent (say, if the particles are comparable to or smaller than

1129: the wavelength), one simply integrates $Q(r,\lambda)$ over the powerlaw mass

1130: distributions resulting from the moments model.  For example,

1131: \begin{eqnarray}

1132: \kappa_{\lambda} = \frac{\int_{m_0}^{m_L} \pi r^2 Q(r,\lambda) f(m)\, dm}

1133:              {\int_0^{m_L} m f(m)\, dm}

1134:    = \frac{1}{M_1}\int_{m_0}^{m_L} \pi r^2 Q(r,\lambda) c(m_L)m^{-q}\, dm 

1135: \nonumber \\

1136:    = \frac{c(m_L)}{M_1}\left(\frac{9 \pi}{16 \rho_s^2}\right)^{1/3}

1137: \int_{m_0}^{m_L} Q(r,\lambda)m^{2/3 -q } dm. 

1138: \end{eqnarray}

1139: 

1140: \noindent

1141: These opacities $\kappa_{\lambda}$ can be used to calculate Planck or Rosseland

1142: (wavelength-averaged) means for use in radiative transfer models.

1143: Recall that the powerlaw slope

1144: $q$ can be freely adjusted within a small but plausible range to explore

1145: different growth regimes.

1146: 

1147: \section{Porosity}

1148: 

1149: Fractal growth of particles by low-velocity sticking of small solid monomers

1150: with radius $r_o$ and mass $m_o$ (and/or aggregates of such monomers) causes

1151: them to have a density much less than the material density of the monomers

1152: \citep{bec00,dom07,orm08}. These porous

1153: particles can be described as fractals with dimension $D$, such that the

1154: particle mass $m$ increases proportionally to $r^D$ where $r$ is some effective

1155: radius and $D$ is the fractal dimension. Thus the particle's internal density

1156: is a function of particle size: 

1157: 

1158: \begin{equation}

1159: \rho(r) = \frac{3 m }{4 \pi r^3} \sim \frac{3 m_o (r/r_o)^D}

1160: {4 \pi r^3} = \frac{3 m_o}{4 \pi r_o^3}(r/r_o)^{D-3} = \frac{3 \rho_o}

1161: {4 \pi}(r/r_o)^{D-3}.

1162: \end{equation}

1163: 

1164: \noindent

1165: For a typical situation where $D \sim 2$ \citep{dom07}, 

1166: $\rho(r) \propto r^{-1}$ and thus the

1167: product $r \rho(r)$ is a constant across a wide range of particle sizes (until

1168: compaction sets in). These more complex but quite plausible particle

1169: density-size relationships complicate the expressions for particle stopping

1170: time and Stokes number ({\S} 2.2, Eq. 11; also, see appendix). 

1171: 

1172: Because the particle stopping times enter in through the collisional kernel, 

1173: the fractal nature of particles can be accounted for using the method of 

1174: moments in a straightforward manner while maintaining the criterion for 

1175: closure of the system. We can verify this by noting that the mutual particle 

1176: cross section 

1177: 

1178: \begin{equation}

1179: \sigma (m,m^\prime) = \frac{\pi r_o^2}{m_o^{2/D}}\left(m^{1/D} +

1180: m^{\prime 1/D}\right)^2,

1181: \end{equation}

1182: 

1183: \noindent

1184: is proportional to $m^{2/D}$, whereas the stopping time (Eq. 11) in the Epstein

1185: regime (the regime that would apply to fluffy fractal aggregates) where

1186: the drag force $F_D = (4/3)\pi r^2 c_g \rho_g \Delta V_{pg}$ 

1187: \citep[e.g.,][]{cuz93} is given by 

1188: 

1189: \begin{equation}

1190: t_s = \frac{3m}{4\pi r^2 c_g\rho_g} = \frac{3m_o^{2/D}}{4\pi r_o^2 c_g\rho_g}

1191: m^{1-2/D}.

1192: \end{equation}

1193: 

1194: \noindent

1195: In the limit of small Stokes number

1196: ($\rm{St}\ll 1$), both the systematic and turbulence-induced velocities

1197: are proportional to $\rm{St}$, so that $\Delta V \propto t_s \propto 

1198: m^{1-2/D}$, and the entire kernel is proportional to $m$. For 

1199: larger $\rm{St}$, the kernel has a shallower powerlaw

1200: dependence. Thus, in general, the dependence of $K(m,m^\prime)$ on the

1201: mass is $\lesssim m$, preserving closure of the system, even for fractal

1202: particles. Even though the variation in the properties of the evolving 

1203: distribution due to porous particles are incorporated directly into the 

1204: kernel, and are folded into the integration of the explicit approach, the

1205: effects of fractal aggregates can, nonetheless, affect 

1206: which moments characterize what properties in the semi-implicit (or implicit)

1207: approach. For

1208: example, the wavelength-independent opacity expressed in Eq. (32) takes

1209: the form $\kappa = (\pi r_o^2/m_o^{2/D})M_{2/D}/M_1$.

1210: 

1211: 

1212: It should be noted that the value $D=2$ represents a special case in that

1213: the particle-to-particle relative velocities in the Epstein regime do not

1214: depend on the mass of the fractal particle. Indeed, this would seem to

1215: indicate that fractal growth can proceed unabated with the corresponding

1216: stopping time of the fluffy aggregate remaining the same as that of a single 

1217: monomer, which would have a significant effect on other particle properties. In

1218: particular, the wavelength-independent opacity for $D=2$ is constant. However,

1219: impacts will eventually lead to compaction or even fragmentation depending

1220: on the relative velocities \citep[e.g.,][]{orm07b}. 

1221: Both fractal grains and non-fractal particles in the same mass distribution 

1222: can be treated in the explicit approach without any modifications, while a 

1223: piecewise fit to 

1224: the integrated kernel $C_k(m)$ ({\S} 2.2.2) can be used in order to 

1225: account for the change in regimes in the semi-implicit approach.

1226: 

1227: 

1228: 

1229: \section{Conclusions}

1230: 

1231: 

1232: We have demonstrated an approach to solving the collisional coagulation

1233: equation with an arbitrary collisional kernel which should be useful in cases

1234: when it is only necessary to keep track of general

1235: properties of the distribution. This approach involves solving a finite set of

1236: coupled differential equations in terms of the integer moments of the particle

1237: size distribution. The number of equations (and thus moments) needed depends

1238: on the number of properties being tracked. The advantage of the moments method 

1239: approach is that it allows for considerable savings in computational

1240: time compared to direct integration of the coagulation equation,

1241: which requires keeping track of every particle size at every spatial location

1242: and timestep. 

1243: 

1244: In this paper we have specifically

1245: studied the growth of the largest particle under the assumption that

1246: the particle size distribution is a powerlaw; however, the technique can be

1247: extended to track other properties of the distribution that may change with

1248: time. There are many reasons to believe that a powerlaw size distribution is

1249: a natural end-state of particle growth, especially those with equal mass

1250: per decade, because they have self-preserving properties \citep{cuz06}.

1251: With the assumption of a powerlaw distribution, we

1252: have provided two different approaches to solving the moment equations,

1253: one explicit in which the powerlaw assumption is enforced rigorously at

1254: all times, and a semi-implicit approach in which the kernel is integrated

1255: over one of the mass variables as much as once every time step. The latter 

1256: approach can be made fully implicit by only assuming the form of the mass

1257: distribution at $t=0$. These approaches

1258: are significantly faster than solutions of the coagulation equation

1259: because, in particular, the convolution integral (first term on RHS of Eq. 1) 

1260: has been eliminated. In realistic evolutionary models, intermediate steps

1261: performed in particle ``histogram'' or ``size-distribution'' space may be

1262: interleaved with moments-based coagulation steps in order to account for,

1263: e.g., advective/transport terms.

1264: 

1265: We have compared

1266: these alternate approaches to the brute force integration of the full

1267: coagulation equation for cases in

1268: which there are only systematic velocities, and cases in which the differences

1269: in velocity between particles is induced by turbulence. If the growth rate

1270: is gradual, the explicit and implicit

1271: approaches match the brute force calculation well (Fig. 2), 

1272: whereas

1273: faster growth rates are more difficult to model (Fig. 3). We find that we 

1274: are able to use the semi-implicit approach in which the $C_k$ are updated

1275: at every timestep, and a modification to the explicit approach, in which

1276: we solve the equation for $M_2$ only with the assumption 

1277: of $\rho=M_1$ strictly enforced, 

1278: in order to compensate for the faster growth rates.

1279: The modification to the explicit approach is useful if

1280: one is not particularly interested in following the evolution of the number

1281: density of particles, or other properties which may be decribed by 

1282: (fractional) moments $< 1$ (e.g., see {\S} 4).  Our results also suggest

1283: that a fully implicit approach is probably most useful under circumstances in

1284: which the kernel depends on the mass in a straightforward manner (e.g, the

1285: Saffman-Turner kernel, {\S} 2.1).

1286: 

1287: We have compared the approaches developed in this paper to an alternative 

1288: model for particle growth in a turbulent nebula

1289: \citep{gar07}. We have found that there is fairly good agreement in general,

1290: but that the curves diverge as time proceeds. This does not appear to be

1291: particle-size dependent, or due to a shift in the flow regime.

1292: The Garaud expression (Eq. 29) underestimates the growth rate of 

1293: the largest particle size relative to our approach by only $\sim 20-30$\% 

1294: in our comparison. We note that the advantage 

1295: of the method of \citet{gar07} is 

1296: that it is purely analytical; however, preservation of her analytical

1297: approach requires, amongst other things, the powerlaw 

1298: exponent be restricted to $q=11/6$. Our approach has no such restriction

1299: on the choice of exponent $q$, nor for $q$ to even be a constant.

1300: 

1301: As a sample application, we show how the moments method can

1302: be used in one's evolutionary model to track

1303: particle growth and opacity. As a specific case, we calculated

1304: the change in wavelength-independent opacity with time for an initial

1305: particle size distribution with upper and lower bounds of $0.1-1$ cm. 

1306: Both systematic and turbulent velocities were included. In the absence of

1307: any mechanism to counter growth, the opacity decreases sharply for higher

1308: choices of the turbulent parameter $\alpha$. Extension to cases in

1309: which the extinction efficiency is wavelength dependent is straightforward.

1310: Such opacities can be used to calculate Planck or Rosseland 

1311: wavelength-averaged means for use in radiative transfer codes.

1312: 

1313: Finally, we indicate how porous particles with fractal dimension $D$ can

1314: be accounted for in the moments method. The particle-size density

1315: relationships that arise affect the particle stopping times and Stokes

1316: number, both of which appear only in the collisional kernel. Thus

1317: implementation is straightforward. We can treat mass distributions composed

1318: of only fractal grains, or both fractal and non-fractal particles.

1319: In either case, relatively little modification is needed in the explicit

1320: approach, whereas with the semi-implicit (and implicit) approach, a piecewise

1321: fit to the integrated kernel $C_k$ using the method as described in {\S} 2.2.2

1322: can be used to account for the change in particle growth regime when both

1323: types of particles are included.

1324: 

1325: The computational burden of directly solving the coagulation equation

1326: makes it

1327: quite prohibitive to explore large regions of parameter space, and thus 

1328: it serves

1329: as the primary bottleneck in evolutionary growth models. The approach 

1330: demonstrated herein is intended to obtain robust, quantitative results for 

1331: disk properties such as particle growth 

1332: timescales and ``typical'' particle sizes that may be used in modeling 

1333: efforts that are

1334: focused more on the larger problem of planetesimal formation.

1335: 

1336: Although we have not included sticking or fragmentation in this paper, we

1337: believe that the moment equations (Eq. 5) will remain valid at least up

1338: to the fragmentation barrier. This size will depend on the

1339: assumed particle strengths and choice of nebula parameters. The treatment

1340: of growth up to the fragmentation size is consistent with recent work by

1341: \citet{bra08} for the case in which additional effects such as radial

1342: drift are not included. The model as presented in this paper, however,

1343: should be useful for the early stages of protoplanetary nebula particle

1344: growth relevant to spectral energy distributions and MRI suppression.

1345: 

1346: In a forthcoming paper we will explore the effects of a

1347: variable sticking coefficient $S(m,m^\prime)$. Furthermore, we will explore the

1348: addition of source and sink terms such as gravitational growth,

1349: erosion, sublimation, and condensation in addition to fragmentation. The 

1350: ultimate goal will be to apply this methodology to 

1351: a global model that studies the evolution of both the gas and solids in

1352: nebular and subnebular (giant planetary) environments.

1353: 

1354: 

1355: \acknowledgements{We wish to thank Sandy Davis, Fred Ciesla, and Olenka 

1356: Hubickyj for internal reviews which improved the exposition of this paper,

1357: and an anonymous reviewer for his or her careful analysis of the manuscript.

1358: This work was supported by a grant from NASA's

1359: Origins of Planetary Systems Program.}

1360: 

1361: \appendix

1362: 

1363: \section{Generalization of the Systematic (Pressure Gradient

1364:   Driven) Velocities}

1365: 

1366: In this appendix, we generalize the basic equations of \citet[also, see

1367: Tanaka et al. 2005]{nak86} for a two-component fluid by extending 

1368: the particle component to incorporate a size distribution. 

1369: We adopt cylindrical coordinates $(R,\phi,Z)$, designating the corresponding 

1370: gas velocity components as

1371: $(u,v,w)$ and the particle velocity components as $(U_i,V_i,W_i)$.

1372: The equations of motion of

1373: particles and gas for the radial and tangential velocities, generalized for

1374: a particle size distribution, are given by

1375: 

1376: $$

1377: \frac{\partial U_i}{\partial t} = -A_i \rho_g(U_i - u) + 2\Omega V_i,

1378: \eqno{(\rm{A}1)}

1379: $$

1380: $$

1381: \frac{\partial V_i}{\partial t} = -A_i \rho_g(V_i - v) - \frac{1}{2}\Omega 

1382: U_i, 

1383: \eqno{(\rm{A}2)}

1384: $$

1385: $$

1386: \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = -\sum_j A_j \rho_{j}(u - U_j) + 2\Omega v -

1387: \frac{1}{\rho_g}\frac{\partial p_g}{\partial R},

1388: \eqno{(\rm{A}3)}

1389: $$

1390: $$

1391: \frac{\partial v}{\partial t} = -\sum_j A_j \rho_{j}(v - V_j) - \frac{1}{2}

1392: \Omega u,

1393: \eqno{(\rm{A}4)}

1394: $$

1395: 

1396: \noindent

1397: where the system is assumed to be axysimmetric. Here, $A_i =

1398: (\rho_gt_{{\rm{s}}i})^{-1}$ with $t_{{\rm{s}}i}$ the stopping time of a 

1399: particle of radius

1400: $r_{i}$, $\rho_g$ and $p_g$ are the gas mass density and pressure, 

1401: and $\rho_{j}$

1402: is the material density of particles of radius $r_{j}$. We have not included 

1403: the

1404: vertical component equations; here, generalization to a particle size 

1405: distribution

1406: is straightforward since it remains true in general that $|w/W_i| << 1$; that 

1407: is, the vertical gas component of the velocity $w$ is negligibly small

1408: compared with $W_i$ \citep[see appendix,][]{nak86}.

1409: 

1410: If the dust stopping time is short compared to the orbital period, we can seek

1411: steady-state solutions for the velocity components. Setting $\partial/\partial

1412: t = 0$, this system can be solved exactly in the Epstein regime. By solving 

1413: Eq. (A1) for $V_i$ and inserting into Eq. (A2), we obtain

1414: 

1415: $$

1416: U_i = \frac{A_i^2\rho_g^2u + 2\Omega A_i\rho_gv}{A_i^2\rho_g^2 + \Omega^2} = 

1417: \frac{u + 2v{\rm{St}}_i}{1 + {\rm{St}}_i^2},

1418: \eqno{(\rm{A}5)}

1419: $$

1420: 

1421: $$

1422: V_i = \frac{-(\Omega/2)A_i\rho_gu + A_i^2\rho_g^2v}{A_i^2\rho_g^2 + \Omega^2}

1423: = \frac{v - (1/2)u{\rm{St}}_i}{1 + {\rm{St}}_i^2},

1424: \eqno{(\rm{A}6)}

1425: $$

1426: 

1427: \noindent

1428: where $V_i$ was obtained by insertion of $U_i$ back into Eq. (A1). In

1429: Eqs. (A5)-(A6) we have expressed the last equality in terms of the Stokes

1430: number ${\rm{St}}_i = t_{si}\Omega$, with $\Omega$ being the local Kepler

1431: frequency. These expressions for the

1432: individual particle velocity components can be inserted into Eqs. (A3) and

1433: (A4) to yield expressions for radial and tangential gas velocity components.

1434: With little difficulty, one finds

1435: 

1436: $$

1437: u = 2\eta v_K \frac{s_1}{s_1^2 + (1 + s_0)^2},

1438: \eqno{(\rm{A}7)}

1439: $$

1440: 

1441: $$

1442: v = -\eta v_K \frac{1 + s_0}{s_1^2 + (1 + s_0)^2},

1443: \eqno{(\rm{A}8)}

1444: $$

1445: 

1446: \noindent 

1447: where

1448: 

1449: $$

1450: s_0 = \sum_j \frac{A_j^2\rho_g\rho_{j}}{A_j^2\rho_g^2 + \Omega^2} =

1451: \sum_j \frac{\rho_{j}}{\rho_g}\frac{1}{1 + {\rm{St}}_j^2},

1452: \eqno{(\rm{A}9)}

1453: $$

1454: 

1455: $$

1456: s_1 = \Omega \sum_j \frac{A_j\rho_{j}}{A_j^2\rho_g^2 + \Omega^2} =

1457: \sum_j \frac{\rho_{j}}{\rho_g}\frac{{\rm{St}}_j}{1 + {\rm{St}}_j^2}.

1458: \eqno{(\rm{A}10)}

1459: $$

1460: 

1461: \noindent

1462: and $\eta = -(1/2\rho_g\Omega^2R)(\partial p_g/\partial R)$. These expressions

1463: agree with those obtained by \citet{tan05} with the exception that

1464: their expressions for $s_0$ and $s_1$ are expressed in integral form.

1465: 

1466: From these expressions, one can easily obtain expressions for the relative

1467: velocities with respect to the gas $U_i-u$ and $V_i-v$, or the relative

1468: velocities between particles of different sizes $U_i-U_j$ and $V_i-V_j$.

1469: These expressions are also applicable for the Stokes regime in which the

1470: stopping times are a function of the relative particle-gas velocities

1471: (cf. Eq. 11). In

1472: this case, iterations must be performed in order to obtain the correct

1473: relative velocities. Convergence is generally achieved in a small number 

1474: of iterations.

1475: 

1476: 

1477: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1478: 

1479: \bibitem[Beckwith \& Sargent(1991)]{bec91} Beckwith, S. V. W., \& Sargent, 

1480: A. I. 1991, \apj, 381, 250

1481: \bibitem[Beckwith et al.(2000)]{bec00}  

1482: Beckwith, S. V. W., Henning, T., \& Nakagawa, Y., In Protostars and Planets

1483: IV, V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, and S. S. Russell, eds.,

1484: (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 533

1485: \bibitem[Brauer et al.(2008)]{bra08}

1486: Brauer, F., Dullemond, C. P., \& Henning, Th., 2008, \aap, 480, 859

1487: \bibitem[Bromley \& Kenyon(2006)]{bro06}

1488: Bromley, B. C., \& Kenyon, S. J., 2006, \aj, 131, 2737

1489: \bibitem[Cuzzi et al.(1993)]{cuz93}

1490: Cuzzi, J. N., Dobrovolskis, A. R., \& Champney, J. M. 1993, \icarus, 106, 102

1491: \bibitem[Cuzzi \& Hogan(2003)]{cuz03}

1492: Cuzzi, J. N., \& Hogan, R. C. 2003, \icarus, 164, 127

1493: \bibitem[Cuzzi \& Weidenschilling(2006)]{cuz06}

1494: Cuzzi, J. N., \& Weidenschilling, S. J. 2006, In Metoerites of the Early

1495: Solar System II, D. S. Loretta, and H. Y. McSween, Jr., eds., 

1496: (Tucson: Univ of Arizona Press), 353

1497: \bibitem[Dominik et al.(2007)]{dom07}

1498: Dominik, C., Blum, J., Cuzzi, J. N., \& Wurm, G. 2007, In Protostars and 

1499: Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil, eds., 

1500: (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 783

1501: \bibitem[Dullemond \& Dominik(2005)]{dul05}

1502: Dullemond, C. P., \& Dominik, C. 2005, \aap, 434, 971

1503: \bibitem[Durisen et al.(2007)]{dur07}

1504: Durisen, R. H., Boss, A. P., Mayer, L., et al., 2007, 

1505: In Protostars and Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil, eds, 

1506: (Tucson: Univ of Arizona Press), 607

1507: \bibitem[Garaud(2007)]{gar07}

1508: Garaud, P, 2007, arXiv:0705.1563, Submitted to ApJ

1509: \bibitem[Hubickyj et al.(2005)]{hub05}

1510: Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., \& Lissauer, J. J., 2005, \icarus, 179, 415 

1511: \bibitem[Johansen et al.(2007)]{joh07}

1512: Johansen, A., Oishi, J. S., Low, M.-M. M., et al. 2007, \nat, 448, 1022

1513: \bibitem[Kessler-Silacci et al.(2006)]{kes06}

1514: Kessler-Silacci, J., Augereau, J.-C., Dullemond, C. P., et al. 2006, \apj,

1515: 639, 275

1516: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Luu(1999)]{ken99}

1517: Kenyon, S. J., \& Luu, J. X., 1999, \apj, 526, 465

1518: \bibitem[Leinhardt \& Richardson(2005)]{lei05}

1519: Leinhardt, Z. M., \& Richardson, D. C, 2005, \apj, 625, 427

1520: \bibitem[Loginov(1979)]{log79}

1521: Loginov, V. I. 1979, Dehydration and Desalinization of Oil: Khimiya, Moscow

1522: \bibitem[Markiewicz et al.(1991)]{mar91}        

1523: Markiewicz, W. J., Mizuno, H., \& V\"{o}lk, H. J. 1991, \aap, 242, 286

1524: \bibitem[Marov \& Kolesnichenko(2001)]{mar01}

1525: Marov, M. Ya., \& Kolesnichenko, A. V. 2001, Mechanics of Turbulence of

1526: Multicomponent Gases: Kluwer Academic Publishers

1527: %\noindent

1528: %Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., \& Nordsieck, K. H., 1977, ApJ, 217, 425 

1529: \bibitem[Nakagawa et al.(1986)]{nak86}

1530: Nakagawa, Y., Sekiya, M., \& Hayashi, C. 1986, \icarus, 67, 375

1531: \bibitem[Natta et al.(2007)]{nat07}

1532: Natta, A., Testi, L., Calvet, N., et al., 2007, In 

1533: Protostars and Planets V , B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil, eds, 

1534: (Tucson: Univ of Arizona Press), 767

1535: \bibitem[Ormel \& Cuzzi(2007)]{orm07}

1536: Ormel, C. W., \& Cuzzi, J. N. 2007, \aap, 413, 466

1537: \bibitem[Ormel et al.(2007)]{orm07b}

1538: Ormel, C. W., Spaans, M., \& Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2007, \aap, 461, 215

1539: \bibitem[Ormel et al.(2008)]{orm08}

1540: Ormel, C. W., Cuzzi, J. N., \& Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2008, \aap, submitted

1541: \bibitem[Pollack et al.(1996)]{pol96}

1542: Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al., 1996, \icarus, 124, 62

1543: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{pre92}

1544: Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., \& Flannery, B. P. 1992,

1545: Numerical Recipes in Fortran: 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press.

1546: \bibitem[Przygodda et al.(2003)]{pry03}

1547: Przygodda, F., van Boekel, R., \`{A}brah\`{a}m, P., et al. 2003, \aap, 412,

1548: L43

1549: \bibitem[Saffman \& Turner(1956)]{saf56}

1550: Saffman, P. G., \& Turner, J. S., 1956, J. Fluids Mech., 1, 16

1551: \bibitem[Safronov(1969)]{saf69}

1552: Safronov, V. S. 1969, Evolution of the Protoplanetary Cloud and the Formation

1553: of the Earth and Planets: NASA TTF-677, 1972

1554: \bibitem[Silk \& Takahashi(1979)]{sil79}

1555: Silk, J., \& Takahashi, T., 1979, \apj, 229, 242

1556: \bibitem[Smoluchowski(1916)]{smo16}

1557: Smoluchowski, M., 1916, Phys. Z, 17, 557

1558: \bibitem[Stepinski \& Valageas(1997)]{ste97}

1559: Stepinski, T. F., \& Valageas, P., 1997, \aap, 319, 1007

1560: \bibitem[Tanaka et al.(2005)]{tan05}

1561: Tanaka, H., Himeno, Y., \& Ida, S., 2005, \apj, 625, 414

1562: \bibitem[Trubnikov(1971)]{tru71}

1563: Trubnikov, B. A. 1971, Soviet Phys. - Doklady, 16, 124

1564: \bibitem[van Boekel et al.(2003)]{van03}

1565: van Boekel, R., Waters, L. B. F. M., Dominik, C., et al. 2003, \aap, 400, L21

1566: \bibitem[V\"{o}lk et al.(1980)]{vol80}

1567: V\"{o}lk, H. J., Morfill, G. E., Roeser, S., \& Jones, F. C. 1980,

1568: \aap, 85, 316

1569: \bibitem[Weidenschilling(1977)]{wei77}

1570: Weidenschilling, S. J., 1977, \mnras, 180, 57

1571: \bibitem[Weidenschilling(1984)]{wei84}

1572: Weidenschilling, S. J., 1984, \icarus, 60, 553

1573: \bibitem[Weidenschilling(1997)]{wei97}

1574: Weidenschilling, S. J., 1997, \icarus, 127, 290

1575: \bibitem[Weidenschilling(2000)]{wei00}

1576: Weidenschilling, S. J., 2000, \ssr, 92, 295

1577: \bibitem[Weidenschilling(2002)]{wei02}

1578: Weidenschilling, S. J., 2002, Met.\& Pla. Sci., 37, A148.

1579: \bibitem[Weidenschilling(2004)]{wei04}

1580: Weidenschilling, S. J., 2004, In Comets II, ed. M. C. Festou, H. U. Keller,

1581: \& H. A. Weaver (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 97

1582: \bibitem[Weidenschilling \& Cuzzi(1993)]{wei93}

1583: Weidenschilling, S. J., \& Cuzzi, J. N. 1993, In Protostars and Planets

1584: III, ed. E. H. Levy \& J. I. Lunine (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 1031

1585: \end{thebibliography}

1586: 

1587: \clearpage

1588: 

1589: \begin{figure}

1590: \plotone{f1.ps}

1591: \caption{Comparison between the scaled integer moments $M^\prime_k =

1592: M_k/M_k(0)$ for $k = 0,1,2$ (curves) obtained

1593: by the method of moments calculation with a 

1594: simple Saffman-Turner turbulent coagulation kernel (Eq. 7) and a brute

1595: force integration (symbols) of the coagulation equation (Eq. 1). The integer 

1596: moments for the latter are calculated a priori using the distribution function 

1597: $f(m,t)$. There is good agreement, especially for the higher resolution

1598: case.}

1599: \end{figure}

1600: 

1601: \clearpage

1602: 

1603: 

1604: \begin{figure}

1605: \plotone{f2.ps}

1606: \caption{Comparison of the scaled integer moments $k=0,1,2$ obtained from

1607: the moments method (curves), and those obtained from the integration of the 

1608: coagulation equation (Eq. 1, symbols) for the case of a realistic collision 

1609: kernel with

1610: $v_T = 0$. Both the explicit (solid curves), and implicit (short-dashed

1611: curves) approaches match the coagulation calculation fairly well, especially

1612: the higher resolution case.}

1613: \end{figure}

1614: 

1615: \clearpage

1616: 

1617: \begin{figure}

1618: \plotone{f3.ps}

1619: \caption{Comparison of the scaled integer moments $M_k$ for $k=0,1,2$ obtained 

1620: from the moments method, with results obtained from the brute force integration

1621: of the coagulation

1622: equation (Eq. 1) for the case of a realistic collision kernel with

1623: $v_T \neq 0$ (and no systematic velocities). In this case the turbulence

1624: parameter $\alpha = 10^{-4}$.  Both the explicit (solid curves) and

1625: implicit (short-dashed curves) approaches have some difficulty matching 

1626: the coagulation calculation for both $M_0$ and $M_2$ (note that the solid and 

1627: short-dashed curves

1628: for $M_2$ lie on top of each other). However, the semi-implicit approach

1629: (long-dashed curves) provides a better fit. The modified explicit 

1630: approach (dotted curves) provides a better fit for $M_2$ while giving a worse

1631: fit for $M_0$ (see {\S} 3.2).}

1632: \end{figure}

1633: 

1634: \clearpage

1635: 

1636: \begin{figure}

1637: \plotone{f4.ps}

1638: \caption{Comparison of the second moment $M^\prime_2(t)$ obtained from the 

1639: moments method with that obtained from integration of the coagulation 

1640: equation (Eq. 1)

1641: for the case of a realistic collision kernel with $v_T \neq 0$ (and no

1642: systematic velocities) for three different values of the turbulence

1643: parameter $\alpha$. Both the explicit (solid curves) and implicit

1644: (short-dashed curves) approaches match the lower $\alpha$ values fairly well, 

1645: but as

1646: indicated in fig. 3, have difficulty matching the case of $\alpha = 10^{-4}$

1647: (note that the solid and short-dashed curves lie on top of each other).

1648: However, not surprisingly, the semi-implicit approach (long-dashed curves) 

1649: and a modified explicit approach (for $M_2$ only, dotted curve) provides a

1650: much better fit (see {\S} 3.2).}

1651: \end{figure}

1652: 

1653: \clearpage

1654: 

1655: \begin{figure}

1656: \plotone{f5.ps}

1657: \caption{Comparison of particle growth as a function of time using the

1658: explicit approach (Eq. 28, solid curve), and the \citet{gar07} analytical

1659: particle growth expression (long-dashed curve). The upper and

1660: lower sets of curves

1661: differ in the initial size of the largest particle. Both

1662: sets of curves begin to diverge immediately. The somewhat subdued kink in the 

1663: upper curves

1664: at $r_L \sim 13.5$ cm is due to a shift from Epstein to Stokes flow.

1665: However, overall, the agreement is not bad ($\sim 20-30$\% in $r_L$).}

1666: \end{figure}

1667: 

1668: \clearpage

1669: 

1670: \begin{figure}

1671: \plotone{f6.ps}

1672: \caption{Plot of the normalized (to initial value) wavelength-independent

1673: opacities for different choices of the turbulence parameter $\alpha$. 

1674: Opacities decrease sharply (in the absence of any mechanism to hinder particle

1675: growth) for higher $\alpha$. Calculations were performed using the 

1676: semi-implicit approach with both turbulent and systematic relative 

1677: velocities included. }

1678: \end{figure}

1679: 

1680: 

1681: \end{document}