1: \documentclass[prb,tighten]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[prb,eqsecnum,preprint]{revtex4}

4: %\documentclass[prb,twocolumn,eqsecnum,showpacs]{revtex4}

5: %\documentclass[pre,preprint,draft,showpacs,tighten]{revtex4}

6: %\usepackage[spanish]{babel}

7: %\usepackage[cp850]{inputenc}

8: %\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

9: 

10: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}

11: 

12: \usepackage{epsfig}

13: %\usepackage{showkeys}

14: % Muestra etiquetas de formulas, figuras, referencias,...

15: 

16: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

17: 

18: %\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

19: %\usepackage{bm}% bold math

20: %\psdraft

21: 

22: \begin{document}

23: \title{Navier-Stokes transport coefficients of $d$-dimensional granular binary mixtures

24: at low density}

25: \author{Vicente Garz\'{o}\footnote[1]{Electronic address: vicenteg@unex.es;

26: URL: http://www.unex.es/eweb/fisteor/vicente/}}

27: \affiliation{Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, Universidad de

28: Extremadura, E-06071 Badajoz, Spain}

29: \author{Jos\'e Mar\'{\i}a

30: Montanero\footnote[2] {Electronic address: jmm@unex.es}}

31: \affiliation{Departamento de Electr\'onica e Ingenier\'{\i}a

32: Electromec\'anica, Universidad de Extremadura, E-06071 Badajoz,

33: Spain}

34: 

35: \begin{abstract}

36: The Navier-Stokes transport coefficients for binary mixtures of smooth inelastic hard disks or spheres under

37: gravity are determined from the Boltzmann kinetic theory by application of the Chapman-Enskog method for states

38: near the local homogeneous cooling state. It is shown that the Navier-Stokes transport coefficients are not

39: affected by the presence of gravity. As in the elastic case, the transport coefficients of the mixture verify a

40: set of coupled linear integral equations that are approximately solved by using the leading terms in a Sonine

41: polynomial expansion. The results reported here extend previous calculations [V. Garz\'o and J. W. Dufty, Phys.

42: Fluids {\bf 14}:1476--1490 (2002)] to an arbitrary number of dimensions and provide explicit expressions for the

43: seven Navier-Stokes transport coefficients in terms of the coefficients of restitution and the masses,

44: composition, and sizes of the constituents of the mixture. In addition, to check the accuracy of our theory, the

45: inelastic Boltzmann equation is also numerically solved by means of the direct simulation Monte Carlo method to

46: evaluate the diffusion and shear viscosity coefficients for hard disks. The comparison shows a good agreement

47: over a wide range of values of the coefficients of restitution and the parameters of the mixture (masses and

48: sizes).

49: 

50: {\bf KEY WORDS}: Granular binary mixtures; inelastic Boltzmann

51: equation; Navier-Stokes transport coefficients; DSMC method.

52: 

53:  Running title: Navier-Stokes transport coefficients

54: 

55: \end{abstract}

56: 

57: 

58: %\pacs{05.20.Dd, 45.70.Mg, 51.10.+y}

59: \draft

60: \date{\today}

61: \maketitle

62: 

63: \section{Introduction}

64: \label{sec1}

65: 

66: 

67: The simplest model for a granular fluid is a system composed by

68: smooth hard spheres or disks with inelastic collisions. The only

69: difference from the corresponding model for normal fluids is the

70: loss of energy in each binary collision, characterized by a

71: (constant) coefficient of normal restitution. For a low density

72: gas, the Boltzmann kinetic equation conveniently modified to

73: account for inelastic collisions \cite{GS95,BDS97,BP04} has been

74: used in recent years as the starting point to derive the

75: hydrodynamic-like equations of the system. Thus, assuming the

76: existence of a {\em normal} (hydrodynamic) solution for

77: sufficiently long space and time scales, the Chapman-Enskog (CE)

78: method \cite{CC70} has been applied to solve the Boltzmann

79: equation to Navier-Stokes (NS) order and get explicit expressions

80: for the transport coefficients. While this goal has been widely

81: covered in the case of a monocomponent gas, \cite{simple} much

82: less is known for systems composed by grains of different masses,

83: sizes, and concentrations (granular mixtures).

84: 

85: 

86: Needless to say, the determination of the NS transport

87: coefficients for a multicomponent granular fluid is much more

88: complicated than for a single granular system. Many attempts to

89: derive these coefficients \cite{mixture} have been carried out by

90: means of the CE expansion around Maxwellians at the {\em same}

91: temperature $T$ for each species. The use of this distribution can

92: only be considered as acceptable for nearly elastic systems where

93: the assumption of the equipartition of energy still holds. In

94: addition, according to this level of approximation, the

95: inelasticity is only accounted for by the presence of a sink term

96: in the energy balance equation and so the expressions of the NS

97: transport coefficients are the same as those obtained for elastic

98: collisions. However, as the dissipation increases, different

99: species of a granular mixture have different partial temperatures

100: $T_i$ and consequently, the energy equipartition is seriously

101: broken ($T_i\neq T$). The failure of energy equipartition in

102: granular fluids \cite{GD99b,MP99} has also been confirmed by

103: computer simulations \cite{computer} and even observed in real

104: experiments \cite{exp1} of agitated mixtures. All the results show

105: that deviations from equipartition depend on the mechanical

106: differences between the particles of each species and the

107: coefficients of restitution of the system. Given that the

108: inclusion of nonequipartition effects increases the level of

109: complexity of the problem, it is interesting from a practical

110: point of view to assess the influence of this effect on the

111: transport properties of the system. If the NS transport

112: coefficients turned out to be quite sensitive to nonequipartition,

113: the predictions made from previous theories \cite{mixture} should

114: be reexamined by theories that take into account the

115: nonequipartition of energy. For this reason, although the

116: possibility of nonequipartition was already pointed out many years

117: ago, \cite{JM87} a careful study of its influence on transport has

118: only been carried out recently. In this context, Garz\'o and Dufty

119: \cite{GD02} have developed a kinetic theory for a binary granular

120: mixture of inelastic hard spheres at low density which accounts

121: for nonequipartition effects. Their results show that in general

122: the consequences of the temperature differences for the transport

123: coefficients are quite significant, especially for strong

124: dissipation.\cite{GA05,MGD06} It is important to remark that the

125: expressions derived in Ref.\ \onlinecite{GD02} for the

126: Navier-Stokes transport coefficients do not limit their

127: application to weak inelasticity. In fact, the results reported in

128: this paper include a domain of both weak and strong inelasticity,

129: $0.5 \leq \alpha \leq 1$, where $\alpha$ is the (common)

130: coefficient of restitution considered. The accuracy of these

131: theoretical predictions (based on a Sonine polynomial expansion)

132: has been confirmed by Monte Carlo simulations of the inelastic

133: Boltzmann equation in the cases of the diffusion coefficient

134: \cite{GM04} and the shear viscosity coefficient of a mixture

135: heated by an external thermostat. \cite{MG03} Exceptions to this

136: good agreement are extreme mass or size ratios and strong

137: dissipation, although these discrepancies are mitigated in part if

138: one retains more terms in the Sonine polynomial expansion.

139: \cite{GM04} For small dissipation, the results derived by Garz\'o

140: and Dufty \cite{GD02} agree with those recently obtained by Serero

141: {\em et al.}\cite{SGNT06} in the first order of the order

142: parameter $\epsilon_{ij}=1-\alpha_{ij}^2$.

143: 

144: The CE method solves the Boltzmann equation by expanding the

145: distribution function of each species $f_i({\bf r}, {\bf v},t)$

146: around the {\em local} homogeneous cooling state (HCS).

147: \cite{GD99b} This state plays the same role for granular gases as

148: the local equilibrium distribution for a gas with elastic

149: collisions. Given that the form of the distribution function

150: $f_i^{(0)}$ of the HCS is not exactly known, one usually considers

151: the first correction to a Maxwellian at the temperature for that

152: species, namely, a polynomial in velocity of degree four (leading

153: Sonine correction). However, the results derived for hard spheres

154: clearly show that the influence of these non-Gaussian

155: contributions to the transport coefficients are in general

156: negligible, except in the case of the heat flux for quite large

157: values of dissipation. \cite{MGD06} Accordingly, a theory

158: incorporating the contributions coming from the deviations of the

159: HCS from its Gaussian form does not seem necessary in practice for

160: computing the NS transport coefficients of the mixture.

161: 

162: 

163: The objective of this paper is twofold. First, given that the

164: results reported in Ref.\ \onlinecite{GD02} are limited to hard

165: spheres, we extend here this derivation to an arbitrary number of

166: dimensions $d$. This goal is not only academic since, from a

167: practical standpoint, many of the experiments reported for flowing

168: granular materials have created (quasi) {\em two-dimensional}

169: systems by confining grains between vertical or on a horizontal or

170: tilted surface, enabling data collection by high-speed video.

171: \cite{exp} Regarding computer simulations, most of them consider

172: hard disks to save computer time and memory. For these reasons, it

173: would be desirable to provide experimentalists and simulators with

174: theoretical tools to work when studying problems both in two and

175: three dimensions. In addition, apart from its practical interest,

176: it is also interesting from a fundamental view to explore what is

177: the influence of dimensionality on the dependence of the transport

178: coefficients on dissipation. As a second target, we want also to

179: present a simplified theory with explicit expressions for the

180: transport coefficients. As the algebra involved in the

181: calculations of Ref.\ \onlinecite{GD02} is complex, the

182: constitutive relations for the fluxes were not explicitly

183: displayed in this paper. Although the work carried out here

184: involves complex algebra as well, the use of Maxwellians at

185: different temperatures for the distribution functions of each

186: species in the reference state allows us to explicitly obtain

187: expressions for the {\em seven} relevant transport coefficients of

188: the mixture in terms of the mechanical parameters of the system:

189: masses, sizes, composition and coefficients of restitution. To

190: assess the degree of accuracy of our (approximated) expressions,

191: we have also performed Monte Carlo simulations for the diffusion

192: and the shear viscosity coefficients for hard disks ($d=2$). As

193: shown below, the good agreement found between the results derived

194: in this paper with computer simulations justifies this

195: simplification and allows one to obtain more simplified forms of

196: the transport coefficients.

197: 

198: 

199: 

200: The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sec.\ \ref{sec2}, the

201: inelastic Boltzmann equation and the corresponding hydrodynamic

202: equations are recalled. The CE expansion adapted to the inelastic

203: binary mixtures is formulated in Sec.\ \ref{sec2bis}. Assuming

204: that gradients and dissipation are independent parameters, the

205: Boltzmann equation is solved by means of an expansion in powers of

206: the spatial gradients around the local HCS distribution

207: $f_i^{(0)}$. It is shown that the use of the local HCS as the

208: reference state is not an assumption of the CE method but a

209: consequence of the exact solution to the Boltzmann equation in the

210: zeroth-order approximation. Section \ref{sec3} deals with the

211: expressions for the NS transport coefficients. As in the case of

212: elastic collisions, these coefficients are the solutions of a set

213: of coupled linear integral equations which involves the (unknown)

214: distributions $f_i^{(0)}$. The integral equations are solved by

215: considering two approximations: First, $f_i^{(0)}$ is replaced by

216: its Maxwellian form at the temperature $T_i$, and second, only the

217: leading terms in a Sonine polynomial expansion of the first-order

218: distribution $f_i^{(1)}$ are retained. Technical details of the

219: calculations carried out here are given in Appendices \ref{appA},

220: \ref{appB}, and \ref{appC}. A comparison with previous results

221: \cite{SGNT06} based on the use of Maxwellians at the same

222: temperature $T$ as a ground state is also illustrated in Sec.\

223: \ref{sec3}, showing significant discrepancies between both

224: descriptions at moderate dissipation. Section \ref{sec4} is

225: devoted to the numerical solutions of the Boltzmann equation by

226: using the direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) method \cite{Bird}

227: in the cases of the diffusion $D$ and shear viscosity $\eta$

228: coefficients for hard disks. To the best of our knowledge, this is

229: the first time that the NS shear viscosity of a granular binary

230: mixture at low density has been numerically obtained from the DSMC

231: method. The paper is closed in Sec.\ \ref{sec5} with a brief discussion of the

232: results presented in this paper.

233: 

234: 

235: 

236: \section{Boltzmann equation and conservation laws}

237: \label{sec2}

238: 

239: Consider a binary mixture composed by smooth inelastic disks

240: ($d=2$) or spheres ($d=3$) of masses $m_{1}$ and $ m_{2} $, and

241: diameters $\sigma _{1}$ and $\sigma _{2}$. The inelasticity of

242: collisions among all pairs is characterized by three independent

243: constant coefficients of restitution $\alpha _{11}$, $\alpha

244: _{22}$, and $\alpha _{12}=\alpha _{21}$, where $\alpha _{ij}\leq

245: 1$ is the coefficient of restitution for collisions between

246: particles of species $i$ and $j$. The mixture is in presence of

247: the gravitational field so that each particle feels the action of

248: the force ${\bf F}_i=m_i{\bf g}$, where ${\bf g}$ is the gravity

249: acceleration. In the low density regime, the distribution

250: functions $f_{i}({\bf r},{\bf v};t)$ $(i=1,2)$ for the two species

251: are determined from the set of nonlinear Boltzmann equations

252: \cite{BDS97}

253: \begin{equation}

254: \left( \partial _{t}+{\bf v}\cdot\nabla+{\bf g} \cdot

255: \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf v}} \right) f_{i}({\bf r},{\bf

256: v},t)=\sum_{j=1}^2 J_{ij}\left[ {\bf v}|f_{i}(t),f_{j}(t)\right]

257: \;, \label{2.1}

258: \end{equation}

259: where the Boltzmann collision operator $J_{ij}\left[ {\bf

260: v}|f_{i},f_{j}\right] $ is

261: \begin{eqnarray}

262: J_{ij}\left[ {\bf v}_{1}|f_{i},f_{j}\right] &=&\sigma

263: _{ij}^{d-1}\int d{\bf v} _{2}\int d\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma

264: }}\,\Theta (\widehat{{\boldsymbol {\sigma }}} \cdot {\bf

265: g}_{12})(\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma }}\cdot {\bf g}_{12})

266: \nonumber

267: \\

268: &&\times \left[ \alpha _{ij}^{-2}f_{i}({\bf r},{\bf v}_{1}^{\prime

269: },t)f_{j}( {\bf r},{\bf v}_{2}^{\prime },t)-f_{i}({\bf r},{\bf v}

270: _{1},t)f_{j}({\bf r}, {\bf v}_{2},t)\right] \;. \label{2.2}

271: \end{eqnarray}

272: In Eq.\ (\ref{2.2}), $d$ is the dimensionality of the system,

273: $\sigma _{ij}=\left( \sigma _{i}+\sigma _{j}\right) /2$,

274: $\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}$ is an unit vector along the line

275: of centers, $\Theta $ is the Heaviside step function, and ${\bf

276: g}_{12}={\bf v}_{1}-{\bf v}_{2}$ is the relative velocity. The

277: primes on the velocities denote the initial values $\{{\bf

278: v}_{1}^{\prime }, {\bf v}_{2}^{\prime }\}$ that lead to $\{{\bf

279: v}_{1},{\bf v}_{2}\}$ following a binary (restituting) collision:

280: \begin{equation}

281: {\bf v}_{1}^{\prime }={\bf v}_{1}-\mu _{ji}\left( 1+\alpha

282: _{ij}^{-1}\right) (\widehat{{\boldsymbol {\sigma }}}\cdot {\bf

283: g}_{12})\widehat{{\boldsymbol {\sigma }}} ,\nonumber\\

284: \end{equation}

285: \begin{equation}

286:  {\bf v}_{2}^{\prime }={\bf v}_{2}+\mu _{ij}\left( 1+\alpha

287: _{ij}^{-1}\right) (\widehat{{\boldsymbol {\sigma }}}\cdot {\bf

288: g}_{12})\widehat{ \boldsymbol {\sigma}} ,  \label{2.3}

289: \end{equation}

290: where $\mu _{ij}\equiv m_{i}/\left( m_{i}+m_{j}\right) $. The

291: relevant hydrodynamic fields are the number densities $n_{i}$, the

292: flow velocity $ {\bf u}$, and the temperature $T$. They are

293: defined in terms of moments of the distributions $f_{i}$ as

294: \begin{equation}

295: n_{i}=\int d{\bf v}f_{i}({\bf v})\;,\quad \rho {\bf u}=\sum_{i=1}^2m_{i}

296: \int d {\bf v}{\bf v}f_{i}({\bf v})\;,

297: \label{2.4}

298: \end{equation}

299: \begin{equation}

300: nT=p=\sum_{i=1}^2 n_i T_i=\sum_{i=1}^2\frac{m_{i}}{d}\int d{\bf

301: v}V^{2}f_{i}({\bf v})\;, \label{2.5}

302: \end{equation}

303: where ${\bf V}={\bf v}-{\bf u}$ is the peculiar velocity, $

304: n=n_{1}+n_{2}$ is the total number density, $\rho

305: =m_{1}n_{1}+m_{2}n_{2}$ is the total mass density, and $p$ is the

306: pressure. Furthermore, the third equality of Eq.\ (\ref{2.5})

307: defines the kinetic temperatures $T_i$ for each species, which

308: measure their mean kinetic energies.

309: 

310: The collision operators conserve the particle number of each

311: species and the total momentum but the total energy is not

312: conserved:

313: \begin{equation}

314: \int d{\bf v}J_{ij}[{\bf v}|f_{i},f_{j}]=0\;,  \label{2.6}

315: \end{equation}

316: \begin{equation}

317: \sum_{i=1}^2\sum_{j=1}^2m_i\int d{\bf v}{\bf v}J_{ij}[{\bf

318: v}|f_{i},f_{j}]=0 \;, \label{2.7}

319: \end{equation}

320: \begin{equation}

321: \sum_{i=1}^2\sum_{j=1}^2m_i\int d{\bf v}V^{2}J_{ij}[{\bf v}

322: |f_{i},f_{j}]=-d nT\zeta \;,  \label{2.8}

323: \end{equation}

324: where $\zeta$ is identified as the total ``cooling rate'' due to

325: inelastic collisions among all species. At a kinetic level, it is

326: also convenient to introduce the ``cooling rates'' $\zeta_i$ for

327: the partial temperatures $T_i$. They are defined as

328: \begin{equation}

329: \label{2.7.1} \zeta_i=\sum_{j=1}^2\zeta_{ij}=-

330: \frac{m_i}{dn_iT_i}\sum_{j=1}^2\int d{\bf v}V^{2}J_{ij}[{\bf

331: v}|f_{i},f_{j}],

332: \end{equation}

333: where the second equality defines the quantities $\zeta_{ij}$. The

334: total cooling rate $\zeta$ can be written in terms of the partial

335: cooling rates $\zeta_i$ as

336: \begin{equation}

337: \label{2.7.2} \zeta=T^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^2\;x_iT_i\zeta_i,

338: \end{equation}

339: where $x_i=n_i/n$ is the mole fraction of species $i$.

340: 

341: 

342: From Eqs.\ (\ref{2.4})--(\ref{2.8}), the macroscopic balance

343: equations for the mixture can be obtained. They are given by

344: \begin{equation}

345: D_{t}n_{i}+n_{i}\nabla \cdot {\bf u}+\frac{\nabla \cdot {\bf

346: j}_{i}}{m_{i}} =0\;,  \label{2.9}

347: \end{equation}

348: \begin{equation}

349: D_{t}{\bf u}+\rho ^{-1}\nabla \cdot {\sf P}={\bf g}\;,

350: \label{2.10}

351: \end{equation}

352: \begin{equation}

353: D_{t}T-\frac{T}{n}\sum_{i=1}^2\frac{\nabla \cdot {\bf

354: j}_{i}}{m_{i}}+\frac{2}{dn} \left( \nabla \cdot {\bf q}+{\sf

355: P}:\nabla {\bf u}\right) =-\zeta \,T\;. \label{2.11}

356: \end{equation}

357: In the above equations, $D_{t}=\partial _{t}+{\bf u}\cdot \nabla $

358: is the material derivative,

359: \begin{equation}

360: {\bf j}_{i}=m_{i}\int d{\bf v}\,{\bf V}\,f_{i}({\bf v})

361: \label{2.11b}

362: \end{equation}

363: is the mass flux for species $i$ relative to the local flow,

364: \begin{equation}

365: {\sf P}=\sum_{i=1}^2\,m_i\,\int d{\bf v}\,{\bf V}{\bf

366: V}\,f_{i}({\bf v})  \label{2.12}

367: \end{equation}

368: is the total pressure tensor, and

369: \begin{equation}

370: {\bf q}=\sum_{i=1}^2\,\frac{m_i}{2}\int d{\bf v}\,V^{2}{\bf

371: V}\,f_{i}({\bf v})  \label{2.13}

372: \end{equation}

373: is the total heat flux.

374: 

375: 

376: The macroscopic balance equations (\ref{2.9})--(\ref{2.11}) are

377: not entirely expressed in terms of the hydrodynamic fields, due to

378: the presence of the cooling rate $\zeta$, the mass flux ${\bf

379: j}_i$, the heat flux ${\bf q}$, and the pressure tensor ${\sf P}$

380: which are given as functionals of the distributions $f_i$.

381: However, it these distributions can be expressed as functionals of

382: the hydrodynamic fields, then the cooling rate and the fluxes also

383: will become functional of the hydrodynamic fields through Eqs.\

384: (\ref{2.7.1}) and (\ref{2.11b})--(\ref{2.13}). Such expressions

385: are called {\em constitutive} relations and they provide a link

386: between the exact balance equations and a closed set of equations

387: for the hydrodynamic fields. This hydrodynamic description can be

388: derived by looking for a {\em normal} solution to the Boltzmann

389: kinetic equation. A normal solution is one whose all space and

390: time dependence of the distribution function $f_i$ occurs through

391: a functional dependence on the hydrodynamic fields,

392: \begin{equation}

393: f_{i}({\bf r},{\bf v},t)=f_{i}\left[{\bf v}|x_{1} ({\bf r}, t),

394: p({\bf r}, t), T({\bf r}, t), {\bf u}({\bf r}, t) \right] \;.

395: \label{2.14}

396: \end{equation}

397: As in previous works, \cite{GD02,MGD06} we have taken the set

398: $\{x_1, p, T, {\bf u}\}$ as the $d+3$ independent fields of the

399: two-component mixture. These are the most accessible fields from

400: an experimental point of view. The determination of this normal

401: solution from the Boltzmann equation (\ref{2.1}) is a very

402: difficult task in general, unless the spatial gradients are small.

403: In this case, the CE method gives an approximate solution.

404: 

405: 

406: \section{Chapman-Enskog solution}

407: \label{sec2bis}

408: 

409: 

410: The CE method is a procedure to construct an approximate normal

411: solution. It is perturbative, using the spatial gradients as the

412: small expansion parameter. More specifically, one assumes that the

413: spatial variations of the hydrodynamic fields $n_i$, ${\bf u}$,

414: $p$, and $T$ are small on the scale of the mean free path. For

415: ordinary gases this can be controlled by the initial or boundary

416: conditions. It is more complicated for granular gases, since in

417: some cases (e.g., steady states such as the simple shear flow

418: problem\cite{SGD04}) the boundary conditions imply a relationship

419: between dissipation and some hydrodynamic gradient. As a

420: consequence, there are examples for which the NS approximation is

421: restricted to the quasi-elastic limit.\cite{SGD04} Here, we also

422: assume that the spatial gradients are independent of the

423: coefficients of restitution so that, the corresponding NS order

424: hydrodynamic equations apply for small gradients but they are not

425: limited {\em a priori} to weak inelasticity. It must be emphasized

426: that our perturbation scheme differs from the one recently carried

427: out by Serero {\em et al.} \cite{SGNT06} where the CE solution is

428: given in powers of both the hydrodynamic gradients (or

429: equivalently, the Knudsen number) and the degree of dissipation

430: $\epsilon_{ij}=1-\alpha_{ij}^2$. The results provided in Ref.\

431: \onlinecite{SGNT06} only agree with our results in the

432: quasielastic domain (small $\epsilon_{ij}$). Moreover, in the

433: presence of an external force it is necessary to characterize the

434: magnitude of the force relative to gradients as well. As in the

435: elastic case, \cite{CC70} it is assumed here that the magnitude of

436: the gravity field is at least of first order in perturbation

437: expansion.

438: 

439: For small spatial variations, the functional dependence

440: (\ref{2.14}) can be made local in space through an expansion in

441: gradients of the hydrodynamic fields. To generate it, $f_{i}$ is

442: written as a series expansion in a formal parameter $\delta$

443: measuring the nonuniformity of the system,

444: \begin{equation}

445: f_{i}=f_{i}^{(0)}+\delta \,f_{i}^{(1)}+\delta^2

446: \,f_{i}^{(2)}+\cdots \;, \label{2.15}

447: \end{equation}

448: where each factor of $\delta$ means an implicit gradient of a

449: hydrodynamic field. The local reference states $f_{i}^{(0)}$ are

450: chosen such that they verify Eqs.\ (\ref{2.4}) and (\ref{2.5}), or

451: equivalently, the remainder of the expansion must obey the

452: orthogonality conditions

453: \begin{equation}

454: \label{2.16bis}

455:  \int d{\bf v}\left[ f_{i}({\bf

456: v})-f_{i}^{(0)}({\bf v})\right] =0\;,\

457: \end{equation}

458: \begin{equation}

459: \sum_{i=1}^2\,m_i\,\int d{\bf v}\,{\bf v}\left[ f_{i}({\bf

460: v})-f_{i}^{(0)}({\bf v})\right] ={\bf 0}\;,  \label{2.16}

461: \end{equation}

462: \begin{equation}

463: \sum_{i=1}^2\,\frac{m_{i}}{2}\,\int d{\bf v}\,V^{2}\left[

464: f_{i}({\bf v})-f_{i}^{(0)}({\bf v})\right] =0\;.  \label{2.17}

465: \end{equation}

466: The time derivatives of the fields are also expanded as $\partial

467: _{t}=\partial _{t}^{(0)}+\epsilon \partial _{t}^{(1)}+\cdots $.

468: The action of the operators $\partial _{t}^{(k)}$ can be obtained

469: from the balance equations (\ref{2.9})--(\ref{2.11}) when one

470: takes into account the corresponding expansions for the fluxes and

471: the cooling rate. This is the usual CE method \cite{CC70} for

472: solving kinetic equations. The main difference in the case of

473: inelastic collisions is that the reference state has a time

474: dependence associated with the cooling that is not proportional to

475: the gradients. As a consequence, terms from the time derivative

476: $\partial_t^{(0)}$ are not zero.  In addition, the different

477: approximations $f_i^{(k)}$ are well-defined functions of the

478: coefficients of restitution $\alpha_{ij}$, regardless of the

479: applicability of the corresponding hydrodynamic equations

480: truncated at that order.

481: 

482: 

483: \subsection{Zeroth-order approximation}

484: 

485: 

486: To zeroth order in the gradients, Eq.\ (\ref{2.1}) becomes

487: \begin{equation}

488: \label{2.17.1}

489: \partial_t^{(0)}f_i^{(0)}=\sum_{j=1}^2\;

490: J_{ij}[f_i^{(0)},f_j^{(0)}],

491: \end{equation}

492: where use has been made of the fact that gravity is assumed to be

493: of first order in the uniformity parameter $\delta$. The balance

494: equations to this order give

495: \begin{equation}

496: \label{2.17.2}

497: \partial_t^{(0)}x_1=\partial_t^{(0)}u_\ell=0,\quad

498: T^{-1}\partial_t^{(0)}T=p^{-1}\partial_t^{(0)}p=-\zeta^{(0)},

499: \end{equation}

500: where $\zeta^{(0)}$ is determined by Eqs.\ (\ref{2.7.1}) and

501: (\ref{2.7.2}) to zeroth order in the gradients. Since $f_i^{(0)}$

502: is a normal solution, then the time derivative in Eq.\

503: (\ref{2.17.1}) can be written as

504: \begin{equation}

505: \label{2.17.3}

506: \partial_t^{(0)}f_i^{(0)}=-\zeta^{(0)}\left(T\partial_T+p\partial_p\right)f_i^{(0)}=

507: \frac{1}{2}\zeta^{(0)}\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf V}}\cdot

508: \left({\bf V}f_i^{(0)}\right).

509: \end{equation}

510: The second equality in Eq.\ (\ref{2.17.3}) follows from

511: dimensional analysis which requires that the dependence of

512: $f_i^{(0)}$ on $p$ and $T$ is of the form

513: \begin{equation}

514: \label{2.17.4} f_i^{(0)}(

515: V)=x_i\frac{p}{T}v_0^{-d}\Phi_i\left(V/v_0\right),

516: \end{equation}

517: where $v_0(t)=\sqrt{2T(m_1+m_2)/m_1m_2}$ is a thermal velocity

518: defined in terms of the temperature $T(t)$ of the mixture and

519: $\Phi_i$ is a dimensionless function of the reduced velocity

520: $V/v_0$. The dependence of $f_i^{(0)}$ on the magnitude of ${\bf

521: V}$ follows from the isotropy of the zeroth-order distribution

522: with respect to the peculiar velocity. Thus, the Boltzmann

523: equation at this order reads

524: \begin{equation}

525: \label{2.17.5} \frac{1}{2}\zeta^{(0)}\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf

526: V}}\cdot \left({\bf V}f_i^{(0)}\right) \sum_{j=1}^2\;

527: J_{ij}[f_i^{(0)},f_j^{(0)}].

528: \end{equation}

529: Equation (\ref{2.17.5}) has the same form as the Boltzman equation

530: for a strictly {\em homogeneous} state. The latter is called the

531: homogeneous cooling state (HCS). \cite{GD99b} Here, however, the

532: state is not homogeneous because of the requirements

533: (\ref{2.16bis})--(\ref{2.17}). Instead it is a {\em local} HCS. It

534: must be emphasized that the presence of this local HCS as the

535: ground or reference state is not an assumption of the CE expansion

536: but rather a consequence of the kinetic equations at zeroth order

537: in the gradient expansion.

538: 

539: 

540: The local HCS distribution is the solution of the Boltzmann

541: equation (\ref{2.17.5}). However, its explicit form is not exactly

542: known even in the one-component case.\cite{NE98} An accurate

543: approximation for the zeroth-order solution $f_i^{(0)}$ can be

544: obtained by using low order truncation of a Sonine polynomial

545: expansion. The results show that in general, $f_i^{(0)}$ is close

546: to a Maxwellian at the temperature for that species. Further

547: details of this solution for hard spheres ($d=3$) can be found in

548: Ref.\ \onlinecite{GD99b}. An important consequence is that the

549: kinetic temperatures of each species are different for inelastic

550: collisions and, consequently the total energy is not equally

551: distributed between both species (breakdown of energy

552: equipartition). This violation of energy equipartition has been

553: confirmed by computer simulation studies \cite{computer} as well

554: as by real experiments. \cite{exp1} The condition that $f_i^{(0)}$

555: is {\em normal} in the sense of Eq.\ (\ref{2.14}) (namely, it

556: depends on time only through its functional dependence on $T$ and

557: $p$) implies that the ratio $T_i/T\equiv \gamma_i(x_1)$ depends on

558: the hydrodynamic state through the concentration $x_1$.

559: 

560: 

561: 

562: The dependence of the temperature ratio $\gamma\equiv

563: \gamma_1/\gamma_2=T_1/T_2$ on the parameters of the mixture is

564: obtained by requiring that the partial cooling rates

565: $\zeta_i^{(0)}$ must be equal,\cite{GD99b} i.e.,

566: \begin{equation}

567: \label{2.17bis} \zeta_1^{(0)}=\zeta_2^{(0)}=\zeta^{(0)}.

568: \end{equation}

569: These partial cooling rates are nonlinear functionals of the

570: distributions $f_i^{(0)}$, which are not exactly known. However,

571: to get the temperature ratio, they can be well estimated by using

572: Maxwellians at different temperatures:

573: \begin{equation}

574: \label{2.18} f_i^{(0)}({\bf V})\to f_{i,M}({\bf

575: V})=n_i\left(\frac{m_i}{2\pi T_i}\right)^{d/2}\exp\left(-

576: \frac{m_i V^2}{2T_i}\right).

577: \end{equation}

578: In this approximation, one gets \cite{G02}

579: \begin{eqnarray}

580: \label{2.19}

581: \zeta_i^{(0)}&=&\sum_{j=1}^2\zeta_{ij}^{(0)}=\frac{4\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{d\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}

582: v_0\sum_{j=1}^2

583: n_j\mu_{ji}\sigma_{ij}^{d-1}\left(\frac{\theta_i+\theta_j}

584: {\theta_i\theta_j}\right)^{1/2}\nonumber\\

585: & &\times (1+\alpha_{ij})

586: \left[1-\frac{\mu_{ji}}{2}(1+\alpha_{ij})

587: \frac{\theta_i+\theta_j}{\theta_j}\right],

588: \end{eqnarray}

589: where

590: \begin{equation}

591: \label{2.20} \theta_i=\frac{m_i}{\gamma_i}\sum_{j=1}^2\,m_j^{-1}.

592: \end{equation}

593: It must be remarked that the fact that $T_1(t)\neq T_2(t)$ does

594: not mean that there are additional hydrodynamic degrees of freedom

595: since the partial temperatures $T_i$ can be expressed in terms of

596: the granular temperature $T$ as

597: \begin{equation}

598: \label{2.20.0} T_1(t)=\frac{\gamma}{1+x_1(\gamma-1)}T(t),\quad

599: T_2(t)=\frac{1}{1+x_1(\gamma-1)}T(t).

600: \end{equation}

601: Note that the reference Maxwellians (\ref{2.18}) for the two

602: species can be quite different due to the temperature differences.

603: This contrasts with the ground state considered in more standard

604: derivations \cite{mixture,SGNT06} where $f_i^{(0)}$ is replaced by

605: a Maxwellian defined at the same temperature $T$, i.e.,

606: \begin{equation}

607: \label{2.20.1} f_i^{(0)}({\bf V})\to n_i\left(\frac{m_i}{2\pi

608: T}\right)^{d/2}\exp\left(- \frac{m_i V^2}{2T}\right).

609: \end{equation}

610: As will show later, the approaches (\ref{2.18}) and (\ref{2.20.1})

611: lead to different results for the NS transport coefficients.

612: \begin{figure}[htbp]

613: \begin{center}

614: \resizebox{7cm}{!}{\includegraphics{fig1.eps}}

615: \end{center}

616: \caption{Temperature ratio $\gamma\equiv T_1/T_2$ versus the

617: (common) coefficient of restitution $\alpha$ for an equimolar

618: mixture ($x_1=1/2$) of hard disks ($d=2$) with $\omega=\mu^{1/2}$.

619: Two different values of the mass ratio are considered: $\mu=4$ and

620: $\mu=8$.  The symbols refer to DSMC results while the lines

621: represent the theoretical results obtained from the condition

622: (\ref{2.17bis}).} \label{fig1}

623: \end{figure}

624: 

625: 

626: The solution to Eq.\ (\ref{2.17bis}) gives the temperature ratio

627: $T_1/T_2$ for any dimension $d$ as a function of the mole fraction

628: $x_1$, the mass ratio $\mu\equiv m_1/m_2$, the size ratio

629: $\omega\equiv \sigma_1/\sigma_2$, and the coefficients of

630: restitution $\alpha_{ij}$. To illustrate the violation of

631: equipartition theorem, in Fig.\ \ref{fig1} we plot the temperature

632: ratio versus the coefficient of restitution $\alpha$ for hard

633: disks ($d=2$) in the case of an equimolar mixture

634: $x_1=\frac{1}{2}$ for two different mixtures composed by particles

635: of the same material: $\mu=4$, $\omega=2$, and $\mu=8$,

636: $\omega=\sqrt{8}$. For the sake of simplicity, we have taken a

637: common coefficient of restitution $\alpha\equiv

638: \alpha_{11}=\alpha_{22}=\alpha_{12}$. We also include the

639: simulation data obtained by solving  numerically the Boltzmann

640: equation by means of the DSMC method. \cite{Bird} The excellent

641: agreement between theory and simulation shows the accuracy of the

642: estimate (\ref{2.19}) to compute the temperature ratio from the

643: equality of cooling rates (\ref{2.17bis}). We also observe that

644: the deviations from the energy equipartition increase as the

645: mechanical differences between the particles of each species

646: increase.

647: 

648: 

649: \section{Navier-Stokes transport coefficients}

650: \label{sec3}

651: 

652: 

653: The CE procedure allows one to determine the NS transport

654: coefficients of the mixture in the first order of the expansion.

655: The analysis to first order in gradients is similar to the one

656: worked out in Ref.\ \onlinecite{GD02} for $d=3$. Here, we only

657: present the final results with some technical details being given

658: in Appendix \ref{appA}. The mass, momentum, and heat fluxes are

659: given, respectively, by

660: \begin{equation}

661: {\bf j}_{1}^{(1)}=-\frac{m_{1}m_{2}n}{\rho } D\nabla x_{1}-\frac{

662: \rho }{p}D_{p}\nabla p-\frac{\rho }{T}D^{\prime }\nabla

663: T,\hspace{0.3in}{\bf j}_{2}^{(1)}=-{\bf j}_{1}^{(1)},  \label{3.1}

664: \end{equation}

665: \begin{equation}

666: P_{k \ell}^{(1)}=p\;\delta _{k\ell}-\eta \left( \nabla _{\ell

667: }u_{k}+\nabla _{k}u_{\ell}-\frac{2}{d}\delta _{k\ell} {\bf \nabla

668: \cdot u}\right),  \label{3.2}

669: \end{equation}

670: \begin{equation}

671: {\bf q}^{(1)}=-T^{2}D^{\prime \prime }\nabla x_{1}-L\nabla

672: p-\lambda \nabla T. \label{3.3}

673: \end{equation}

674: The transport coefficients in these equations are the diffusion

675: coefficient $D$, the pressure diffusion coefficient $D_p$, the

676: thermal diffusion coefficient $D'$, the shear viscosity $\eta$,

677: the Dufour coefficient $D''$, the pressure energy coefficient $L$,

678: and the thermal conductivity $\lambda$. These coefficients are

679: defined as

680: \begin{equation}

681: D=-\frac{\rho }{dm_{2}n}\int d{\bf v}\,{\bf V}\cdot {\boldsymbol

682: {\cal A}}_{1}, \label{3.4}

683: \end{equation}

684: \begin{equation}

685: D_{p}=-\frac{m_{1}p}{d\rho}\int d{\bf v}\,{\bf V}\cdot

686: {\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{1}, \label{3.5}

687: \end{equation}

688: \begin{equation}

689: D^{\prime }=-\frac{m_{1}T}{d\rho }\int d{\bf v}\,{\bf V}\cdot

690: {\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{1}, \label{3.6}

691: \end{equation}

692: \begin{equation}

693: \eta =-\frac{1}{(d-1)(d+2)}\sum_{i=1}^2\,m_i\,\int d{\bf v}\, {\bf

694: V}{\bf V}:{\boldsymbol {\cal D}}_{i}, \label{3.7}

695: \end{equation}

696: \begin{equation}

697: D^{\prime \prime

698: }=-\frac{1}{dT^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^2\,\frac{m_i}{2}\,\int d{\bf

699: v}\,V^{2}{\bf V}\cdot {\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{i}, \label{3.8}

700: \end{equation}

701: \begin{equation}

702: L=-\frac{1}{d}\sum_{i=1}^2\,\frac{m_i}{2}\,\int d{\bf

703: v}\,V^{2}{\bf V} \cdot \,{\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{i}, \label{3.9}

704: \end{equation}

705: \begin{equation}

706: \lambda =-\frac{1}{d}\sum_{i=1}^2\,\frac{m_i}{2}\,\int d{\bf

707: v}\,V^{2} {\bf V}\cdot {\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{i}. \label{3.9bis}

708: \end{equation}

709: As for ordinary gases, \cite{CC70} the unknowns ${\boldsymbol

710: {\cal A}}_{i}({\bf V})$, ${\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{i}({\bf V})$,

711: ${\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{i}({\bf V})$, and ${\boldsymbol {\cal

712: D}}_{i}({\bf V})$ are the solutions of the following set of

713: coupled linear integral equations:

714: \begin{subequations}

715: \begin{equation}

716: \left[ -\zeta ^{(0)}\left( T\partial _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right)

717: +{\cal L}_{1} \right] {\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{1}+{\cal

718: M}_{1}{\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{2}={\bf A}_{1}+\left( \frac{\partial

719: \zeta ^{(0)}}{\partial x_{1}}\right) _{p,T}\left( p{\boldsymbol

720: {\cal

721:  B}}_{1}+T{\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{1}\right) ,  \label{3.10a}

722: \end{equation}

723: \begin{equation}

724: \left[ -\zeta ^{(0)}\left( T\partial _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right)

725: +{\cal L}_{2} \right] {\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{2}+{\cal

726: M}_{2}{\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{1}={\bf A}_{2}+\left( \frac{\partial

727: \zeta ^{(0)}}{\partial x_{1}}\right) _{p,T}\left( p{\boldsymbol

728: {\cal

729:  B}}_{2}+T{\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{2}\right) ,  \label{3.10b}

730: \end{equation}

731: \label{3.10}

732: \end{subequations}

733: \begin{subequations}

734: \begin{equation}

735: \left[ -\zeta ^{(0)}\left( T\partial _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right)

736: +{\cal L}_{1}-2\zeta ^{(0)}\right] {\boldsymbol {\cal

737: B}}_{1}+{\cal M}_{1}{\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{2}= {\bf

738: B}_{1}+\frac{T\zeta ^{(0)}}{p}{\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{1},

739: \label{3.11a}

740: \end{equation}

741: \begin{equation}

742: \left[ -\zeta ^{(0)}\left( T\partial _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right)

743: +{\cal L} _{2}-2\zeta ^{(0)}\right] {\boldsymbol {\cal

744: B}}_{2}+{\cal M}_{2}{\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{1}= {\bf

745: B}_{2}+\frac{T\zeta ^{(0)}}{p}{\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{2},

746: \label{3.11b}

747: \end{equation}

748: \label{3.11}

749: \end{subequations}

750: \begin{subequations}

751: \begin{equation}

752: \left[ -\zeta ^{(0)}\left( T\partial _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right)

753: +{\cal L}_{1}-\frac{1}{2}\zeta ^{(0)}\right] {\boldsymbol {\cal

754: C}}_{1}+{\cal M}_{1} {\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{2}= {\bf

755: C}_{1}-\frac{p\zeta ^{(0)}}{2T}{\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{1},

756: \label{3.12a}

757: \end{equation}

758: \begin{equation}

759: \left[ -\zeta ^{(0)}\left( T\partial _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right)

760: +{\cal L}_{2}-\frac{1}{2}\zeta ^{(0)}\right] {\boldsymbol {\cal

761: C}}_{2}+{\cal M}_{2} {\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{1}= {\bf

762: C}_{2}-\frac{p\zeta ^{(0)}}{2T}{\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{2},

763: \label{3.12b}

764: \end{equation}

765: \label{3.12}

766: \end{subequations}

767: \begin{subequations}

768: \begin{equation}

769: \label{3.12.0a} \left[ -\zeta ^{(0)}\left( T\partial

770: _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right) +{\cal L}_{1}\right] {\boldsymbol {\cal

771: D}}_{1} +{\cal M}_{1}{\boldsymbol {\cal D}}_{2}={\sf D}_1,

772: \end{equation}

773: \begin{equation}

774: \label{3.12.0b} \left[ -\zeta ^{(0)}\left( T\partial

775: _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right) +{\cal L}_{2}\right] {\boldsymbol {\cal

776: D}}_{2} +{\cal M}_{2}{\boldsymbol {\cal D}}_{1}={\sf D}_2.

777: \end{equation}

778: \label{3.12.0}

779: \end{subequations}

780: In the above equations, the quantities ${\bf A}_{i}$, ${\bf

781: B}_{i}$, ${\bf C}_{i}$, and ${\sf D}_{i}$ are given by Eqs.\

782: (\ref{a7})--(\ref{a10}), respectively. They depend on the local

783: HCS distribution $f_i^{(0)}$. In addition, we have introduced the

784: linearized Boltzmann collision operators

785: \begin{equation}

786: {\cal L}_{1}X=-\left( J_{11}[f_{1}^{(0)},X]+J_{11}[X,f_{1}^{(0)}]+

787: J_{12}[X,f_{2}^{(0)}]\right) \;, \label{3.12.1}

788: \end{equation}

789: \begin{equation}

790: {\cal M}_{1}X=-J_{12}[f_{1}^{(0)},X].  \label{3.12.2}

791: \end{equation}

792: The corresponding expressions for the operators ${\cal L}_{2}$ and

793: ${\cal M}_{2}$ can be easily obtained from Eqs.\ (\ref{3.12.1})

794: and (\ref{3.12.2}) by just making the changes $1\leftrightarrow

795: 2$. Note that in Eq.\ (\ref{3.10}) the cooling rate $\zeta^{(0)}$

796: depends on $x_1$ explicitly and through its dependence on $\gamma

797: (x_1)$. This dependence gives rise to significant new

798: contributions to the integral equations for the transport

799: coefficients. Furthermore, the external field does not occur in

800: Eqs.\ (\ref{3.10})--(\ref{3.12.0}). This is because the particular

801: form of the gravitational force.

802: 

803: \subsection{Sonine polynomial approximation}

804: 

805: So far, all the results are exact. However, explicit expressions

806: for the NS transport coefficients requires to solve Eqs.\

807: (\ref{3.10})--(\ref{3.12.0}) as well as the integral equations

808: (\ref{2.17.5}) for the reference distributions $f_i^{(0)}$. As

809: said before, the results obtained in the HCS \cite{GD99b} have

810: shown that $f_i^{(0)}$ is well represented by its Maxwellian form

811: (\ref{2.18}) in the region of thermal velocities. For this reason

812: and to provide simple but accurate expressions for the transport

813: coefficients, non-Gaussian corrections to $f_i^{(0)}$ will be

814: neglected in our theory. The full expressions for the transport

815: coefficients in the case $d=3$ (including non-Gaussian

816: corrections) can be found in Ref.\ \onlinecite{GD02}. It must

817: remarked that while the effect of these non-Gaussian corrections

818: on the transport coefficients is not important in the case of the

819: mass flux and the pressure tensor, the same does not happen for

820: the heat flux, where the influence of them is not negligible at

821: high inelasticity. \cite{MGD06} With respect to the functions

822: $\left( {\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{i}, {\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{i},

823: {\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{i}, {\boldsymbol {\cal D}}_{i} \right)$,

824: we will expand them in a series expansion of Sonine polynomials

825: and will consider only the leading terms. The procedure is

826: described in Appendix \ref{appB} and only the final expressions

827: will be provided here.

828: 

829: 

830: 

831: \subsection{Mass flux}

832: 

833: 

834: In dimensionless form, the transport coefficients associated with

835: the mass flux, $D$, $D_p$, and $D'$ can be written as

836: \begin{equation}

837: D=\frac{\rho T}{m_{1}m_{2}\nu _{0}}D^{\ast },\quad

838: D_{p}=\frac{nT}{\rho \nu _{0}}D_{p}^{\ast },\quad D^{\prime

839: }=\frac{nT}{\rho \nu _{0}}D^{\prime}{}^{\ast },  \label{3.n1}

840: \end{equation}

841: where $\nu _{0}=n\sigma _{12}^{d-1}v_{0}$ is an effective

842: collision frequency. The explicit forms are

843: \begin{equation}

844: D^{\ast}=\left( \nu ^{\ast }-\frac{1}{2}\zeta ^{\ast

845: }\right)^{-1}\left[ \left( \frac{\partial }{\partial

846: x_{1}}x_{1}\gamma _{1}\right) _{p,T}+\left( \frac{\partial \zeta

847: ^{\ast }}{\partial x_{1}} \right) _{p,T}\left( 1-\frac{\zeta

848: ^{\ast}}{2\nu ^{\ast }}\right) D_{p}^{\ast }\right] , \label{3.13}

849: \end{equation}

850: \begin{equation}

851: D_{p}^{\ast }=x_{1}\left( \gamma _{1}-\frac{\mu}{x_2+\mu x_1}

852: \right) \left( \nu ^{\ast }-\frac{3}{2}\zeta ^{\ast }+\frac{\zeta

853: ^{\ast 2}}{ 2\nu ^{\ast }}\right) ^{-1}, \label{3.14}

854: \end{equation}

855: \begin{equation}

856: D^{\prime\ast }=-\frac{\zeta ^{\ast }}{2\nu ^{\ast }}D_{p}^{\ast

857: }. \label{3.15}

858: \end{equation}

859: Here, $\zeta^*=\zeta^{(0)}/\nu_0$, and $\nu^*$ is given by

860: \begin{equation}

861: \label{3.16}

862: \nu^*=\frac{2\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{d\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}

863: (1+\alpha_{12})

864: \left(\frac{\theta_1+\theta_2}{\theta_1\theta_2}\right)^{1/2}\left(x_2\mu_{21}+

865: x_1\mu_{12}\right).

866: \end{equation}

867: Since ${\bf j}_{1}^{(1)}=-{\bf j}_{2}^{(1)}$ and $\nabla

868: x_{1}=-\nabla x_{2}$, $D^*$ must be symmetric while $D_{p}^*$ and

869: $D^{\prime \ast}$ must be antisymmetric with respect to the

870: exchange $1\leftrightarrow 2$ . This can be easily verified by

871: noting that $x_{1}\gamma_{1}+x_{2}\gamma_{2}=1$. The expressions

872: for $D^*$, $D_{p}^*$ and $D^{\prime \ast}$ reduce to those

873: recently obtained \cite{BRM05} in the tracer limit ($x_1\to 0$).

874: 

875: \subsection{Pressure tensor}

876: 

877: The shear viscosity coefficient $\eta$ can be written as

878: \begin{equation}

879: \label{3.17}

880: \eta=\frac{p}{\nu_0}\left(x_1\gamma_1^2\eta_1^*+x_2\gamma_2^2\eta_2^*\right),

881: \end{equation}

882: where the expression of the (dimensionless) partial contribution

883: $\eta_i^*$ is

884: \begin{equation}

885: \label{3.18}

886: \eta_1^*=2\frac{\gamma_2(2\tau_{22}-\zeta^{*})-2\gamma_1\tau_{12}}

887: {\gamma_1\gamma_2[\zeta^*-2\zeta^{*}

888: (\tau_{11}+\tau_{22})+4(\tau_{11}\tau_{22}-\tau_{12}\tau_{21})]}.

889: \end{equation}

890: Here, we have introduced the (reduced) collision frequencies

891: $\tau_{11}$ and $\tau_{12}$ given by

892: \begin{widetext}

893: \begin{eqnarray}

894: \label{3.19}

895: \tau_{11}&=&\frac{2\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{d(d+2)\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}\left\{

896: x_1\left(\frac{\sigma_{1}}{\sigma_{12}}\right)^{d-1}(2\theta_1)^{-1/2}(3+2d-3\alpha_{11})

897: (1+\alpha_{11})\right.\nonumber\\

898: & &+2x_2 \mu_{21}(1+\alpha_{12}) \theta_1^{3/2}\theta_2^{-1/2}

899: \left[

900: (d+3)(\mu_{12}\theta_2-\mu_{21}\theta_1)\theta_1^{-2}(\theta_1+\theta_2)^{-1/2}\right.\nonumber\\

901: & &

902: \left.\left.+\frac{3+2d-3\alpha_{12}}{2}\mu_{21}\theta_1^{-2}(\theta_1+\theta_2)^{1/2}

903: +\frac{2d(d+1)-4}{2(d-1)}\theta_1^{-1}(\theta_1+\theta_2)^{-1/2}\right]\right\},

904: \end{eqnarray}

905: \begin{eqnarray}

906: \label{3.20}

907: \tau_{12}&=&\frac{4\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{d(d+2)\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}

908: x_2\frac{\mu_{21}^2}{\mu_{12}}\theta_1^{3/2}\theta_2^{-1/2}

909: (1+\alpha_{12})\nonumber\\

910: & \times&\left[

911: (d+3)(\mu_{12}\theta_2-\mu_{21}\theta_1)\theta_2^{-2}(\theta_1+\theta_2)^{-1/2}\right.\nonumber\\

912: & &

913: \left.+\frac{3+2d-3\alpha_{12}}{2}\mu_{21}\theta_2^{-2}(\theta_1+\theta_2)^{1/2}

914: -\frac{2d(d+1)-4}{2(d-1)}\theta_2^{-1}(\theta_1+\theta_2)^{-1/2}\right].

915: \end{eqnarray}

916: \end{widetext}

917: A similar expression can be obtained for $\eta_2^*$ by just making

918: the changes $1 \leftrightarrow 2$.

919: 

920: \subsection{Heat flux}

921: 

922: The case of the heat flux is more involved since it requires to

923: consider the second Sonine approximation. The transport

924: coefficients appearing in the heat flux, $D''$, $L$, and $\lambda$

925: can be written as

926: \begin{equation}

927: D^{\prime \prime

928: }=-\frac{d+2}{2}\frac{n}{(m_{1}+m_{2})\nu_0}\left[ \frac{

929: x_{1}\gamma _{1}^{3}}{\mu _{12}}d_{1}^*+\frac{x_{2}\gamma

930: _{2}^{3}}{\mu _{21}}d_{2}^*-\left( \frac{\gamma _{1}}{\mu

931: _{12}}-\frac{\gamma _{2}}{\mu _{21}}\right) D^{\ast }\right] ,

932: \label{4.7}

933: \end{equation}

934: \begin{equation}

935: L=-\frac{d+2}{2}\frac{T}{(m_{1}+m_{2})\nu_0}\left[

936: \frac{x_{1}\gamma _{1}^{3}}{\mu _{12}}\ell

937: _{1}^*+\frac{x_{2}\gamma _{2}^{3}}{\mu _{21}}\ell _{2}^*-\left(

938: \frac{\gamma _{1}}{\mu _{12}}-\frac{\gamma _{2}}{\mu _{21}}

939: \right) D_{p}^{\ast }\right] ,  \label{4.8}

940: \end{equation}

941: \begin{equation}

942: \lambda =-\frac{d+2}{2}\frac{nT}{(m_{1}+m_{2})\nu _{0}}\left[

943: \frac{ x_{1}\gamma _{1}^{3}}{\mu _{12}}\lambda

944: _{1}^*+\frac{x_{2}\gamma _{2}^{3}}{\mu_{21}}\lambda _{2}^*-\left(

945: \frac{\gamma _{1}}{\mu _{12}}-\frac{\gamma _{2}}{ \mu

946: _{21}}\right) D^{\prime }{}^{\ast }\right] , \label{4.9}

947: \end{equation}

948: where the coefficients $D^{\ast}$, $D_{p}^{\ast }$, and

949:  $D^{\prime \ast }$ are given by

950:  Eqs.\ (\ref{3.13})--(\ref{3.15}), respectively. The expressions

951:  of the (dimensionless) Sonine coefficients $d_{i}^{*}$, $\ell

952: _{i}^*$, and $\lambda _{i}^*$ are

953: \begin{eqnarray}

954: \label{4.n2} d_1^{*}&=&\frac{1}{\Delta}\left\{2\left[2

955: \nu_{12}Y_2-Y_1(2\nu_{22}-3\zeta^*)\right]\left[\nu_{12}\nu_{21}-\nu_{11}\nu_{22}

956: +2(\nu_{11}+\nu_{22})\zeta^*-4\zeta^{*2}\right]\right.\nonumber\\

957: & &+2\left( \frac{\partial \zeta ^{\ast }}{\partial x_{1}}\right)

958: _{p,T}(Y_3+Y_5)\left[2\nu_{12}\nu_{21}+2\nu_{22}^2-\zeta^*(

959: 7\nu_{22}-6\zeta^{*})\right]\nonumber\\

960: & & \left. -2\nu_{12}\left( \frac{\partial \zeta ^{\ast

961: }}{\partial

962: x_{1}}\right)_{p,T}(Y_4+Y_6)\left(2\nu_{11}+2\nu_{22}-7\zeta^*\right)\right\},

963: \end{eqnarray}

964: \begin{eqnarray}

965: \label{4.n3} \ell_1^*&=&\frac{1}{\Delta}\left\{-2Y_3\left[2

966: (\nu_{12}\nu_{21}-\nu_{11}\nu_{22})\nu_{22}+\zeta^*(7\nu_{11}\nu_{22}-5\nu_{12}\nu_{21}+2\nu_{22}^2

967: -6\nu_{11}\zeta^*-7\nu_{22}\zeta^*+6\zeta^{*2})\right]\right.\nonumber\\

968: &&

969: +2Y_4\nu_{12}\left[2\nu_{12}\nu_{21}-2\nu_{11}\nu_{22}+2\zeta^*(\nu_{11}+\nu_{22})

970: -\zeta^{*2}\right]\nonumber\\

971: & +&

972: \left.2Y_5\zeta^*\left[2\nu_{12}\nu_{21}+\nu_{22}(2\nu_{22}-7\zeta^*)+6\zeta^{*2}\right]

973: -2\nu_{12}\zeta^*Y_6\left[2(\nu_{11}+\nu_{22})-7\zeta^*\right]

974: \right\},

975: \end{eqnarray}

976: \begin{eqnarray}

977: \label{4.n4}

978: \lambda_1^*&=&\frac{1}{\Delta}\left\{-Y_3\zeta^*\left[2

979: \nu_{12}\nu_{21}+\nu_{22}(2\nu_{22}-7\zeta^*)+6\zeta^{*2}\right]+\nu_{12}\zeta^*

980: Y_4\left[2(\nu_{11}+\nu_{22})-7\zeta^*\right] \right. \nonumber\\

981: &

982: &-Y_5\left[4\nu_{12}\nu_{21}(\nu_{22}-\zeta^*)+2\nu_{22}^2(5\zeta^*-2\nu_{11})+2\nu_{11}

983: (7\nu_{22}\zeta^*-6\zeta^{*2})+5\zeta^{*2}(6\zeta^*-7\nu_{22})\right]\nonumber\\

984: & & \left.

985: +\nu_{12}Y_6\left[4\nu_{12}\nu_{21}+2\nu_{11}(5\zeta^*-2\nu_{22})+\zeta^*(10\nu_{22}-

986: 23\zeta^*)\right]\right\},

987: \end{eqnarray}

988: where

989: \begin{equation}

990: \label{4.n5}

991: \Delta=\left[4(\nu_{12}\nu_{21}-\nu_{11}\nu_{22})+6\zeta^*(\nu_{11}+\nu_{22})-9\zeta^{*2}\right]

992: \left[\nu_{12}\nu_{21}-\nu_{11}\nu_{22}+2\zeta^*(\nu_{11}+\nu_{22})-4\zeta^{*2}\right].

993: \end{equation}

994: In the above equations, the Y's are defined by Eqs.\

995: (\ref{4.14})--(\ref{4.16}), while the (reduced) collision

996: frequencies $\nu_{11}$ and $\nu_{12}$ are given by Eqs.\

997: (\ref{c18}) and (\ref{c19}), respectively. The expressions for

998: $d_2^{*}$, $\ell_2^*$, and $\lambda_2^*$ can be obtained from

999: Eqs.\ (\ref{4.n2})--(\ref{4.n5}) by setting $1\leftrightarrow 2$.

1000: As expected, our results for the heat flux show that $D^{\prime

1001: \prime }$ is antisymmetric with respect to the change

1002: $1\leftrightarrow 2$, while $L$ and $ \lambda $ are symmetric.

1003: Consequently, in the case of mechanically equivalent particles

1004: ($m_{1}=m_{2}\equiv m$, $\sigma _{1}=\sigma _{2}\equiv \sigma$,

1005: $\alpha _{ij}\equiv \alpha $), the coefficient $D^{\prime \prime}$

1006: vanishes.

1007: 

1008: In the three-dimensional case ($d=3$), all the above expressions

1009: for the transport coefficients reduce to those previously derived

1010: for hard spheres \cite{GD02,MGD06} when one takes Maxwellian

1011: distributions (\ref{2.18}) for the zeroth-order approximations

1012: $f_i^{(0)}$. For mechanically equivalent particles, the results

1013: obtained by Brey and Cubero \cite{BC01} for a $d$-dimensional

1014: monocomponent gas are also recovered. This confirms the

1015: self-consistency of the results derived here.

1016: 

1017: 

1018: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1019: \begin{center}

1020: \resizebox{8cm}{!}{\includegraphics{equi1.eps}}

1021: \end{center}

1022: \caption{Plot of the reduced pressure diffusion coefficient

1023: $D_p(\alpha)/D_p(1)$ as a function of the (common) coefficient of

1024: restitution $\alpha$ for binary mixtures with $x_1=0.2$,

1025: $\omega=1$ in the case of a three-dimensional system ($d=3$) and

1026: two values of the mass ratio $\mu$: $\mu=0.5$ (a) and  $\mu=4$

1027: (b). The solid lines refer to the results derived here and the

1028: dashed lines correspond to the results assuming the equality of

1029: the partial temperatures.} \label{fig4}

1030: \end{figure}

1031: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1032: \begin{center}

1033: \resizebox{8cm}{!}{\includegraphics{equi2bis.eps}}

1034: \end{center}

1035: \caption{Plot of the reduced thermal conductivity coefficient

1036: $\lambda(\alpha)/\lambda(1)$ as a function of the (common)

1037: coefficient of restitution $\alpha$ for binary mixtures with

1038: $x_1=0.2$, $\omega=1$ in the case of a three-dimensional system

1039: ($d=3$) and two values of the mass ratio $\mu$: $\mu=0.5$ (a) and

1040: $\mu=4$ (b). The solid lines refer to the results derived here and

1041: the dashed lines correspond to the results assuming the equality

1042: of the partial temperatures.} \label{fig5}

1043: \end{figure}

1044: 

1045: 

1046: 

1047: 

1048: 

1049: 

1050: \subsection{Comparison with other theories}

1051: 

1052: Before checking the accuracy of our expressions by comparing them

1053: with computer simulations, it is instructive first to make some

1054: comparison with previous results. \cite{mixture,SGNT06} These

1055: results assume energy equipartition ($T_i=T$) and so, they are

1056: based on a standard CE expansion around the Maxwellian

1057: (\ref{2.20.1}) instead of the local HCS distribution. Figures

1058: \ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5} show the dependence of the reduced

1059: pressure diffusion coefficient $D_p(\alpha)/D_p(1)$ and the

1060: reduced thermal conductivity coefficient

1061: $\lambda(\alpha)/\lambda(1)$, respectively, as a function of the

1062: (common) coefficient of restitution $\alpha_{ij}\equiv \alpha$ for

1063: $d=3$, $\omega=1$, $x_1=0.2$, and two different mass ratios $\mu$:

1064: $\mu=0.5$ (a) and  $\mu=4$ (b). Here, $D_p(1)$ and $\lambda(1)$

1065: are the values of $D_p$ and $\lambda$ for elastic collisions. We

1066: see that the deviation from the functional form for elastic

1067: collisions is quite important in both theories, even for moderate

1068: dissipation. It is apparent that the dependence of the transport

1069: coefficients on dissipation is quantitatively different in both

1070: models, especially at strong dissipation (say for instance,

1071: $\alpha=0.5$). This clearly shows the real quantitative effect of

1072: two different species temperatures on transport in granular

1073: mixtures.

1074: 

1075: 

1076: 

1077: 

1078: 

1079: 

1080: 

1081: 

1082: 

1083: \section{Comparison with Monte Carlo simulations}

1084: \label{sec4}

1085: 

1086: 

1087: A said before, the expressions derived in Sec.\ \ref{sec3} for the

1088: NS transport coefficients have been obtained by considering two

1089: different approximations. First, since the deviation of

1090: $f_i^{(0)}$ from its Maxwellian form (\ref{2.18}) is quite small

1091: in the region of thermal velocities, we have used the Maxwellian

1092: distribution (\ref{2.18}) as a trial function for $f_i^{(0)}$.

1093: Second, we have only considered the leading terms of an expansion

1094: of the distribution $f_i^{(1)}$ in Sonine polynomials. Both

1095: approximations allow one to offer a simplified kinetic theory for

1096: a $d$-dimensional granular binary mixture. To check the accuracy

1097: of the above predictions, in this Section we numerically solve the

1098: Boltzmann equation by means of the DSMC method \cite{Bird} and

1099: compare theory and simulation in the cases of the diffusion

1100: coefficient $D$ (in the tracer limit) and the shear viscosity

1101: coefficient $\eta$. Previous comparisons carried out for hard

1102: spheres \cite{GM04,MG03} when one takes into account the

1103: deviations of $f_i^{(0)}$ from their Maxwellian forms have shown

1104: good agreement between theory and simulation, even for strong

1105: dissipation (say $\alpha \gtrsim  0.5$). Here, we expect that such

1106: good agreement is also maintained in the case of hard disks when

1107: one replaces $f_i^{(0)}\to f_{i,M}$. Let us study each coefficient

1108: separately.

1109: 

1110: \subsection{Tracer diffusion coefficient}

1111: 

1112: We consider the special case in which one of the components of the

1113: mixture (say, for instance, species $1$) is present in tracer

1114: concentration ($x_1\to 0$). In this situation, $\partial

1115: \zeta^*/\partial x_1 \to 0$ and so, the expression (\ref{3.13})

1116: for the reduced diffusion coefficient $D^*$ becomes

1117: \begin{equation}

1118: \label{4.1} D^*=\frac{\gamma}{\nu^*-\frac{1}{2}\zeta^{*}},

1119: \end{equation}

1120: where now

1121: \begin{equation}

1122: \label{4.2}

1123: \zeta^{*}=\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{d\Gamma\left(d/2\right)}

1124: \left(\frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_{12}}\right)^{d-1}\sqrt{2\mu_{12}}

1125: (1-\alpha_{22}^2),

1126: \end{equation}

1127: \begin{equation}

1128: \label{4.3} \nu^*=\frac{2\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{d\Gamma\left(d/2\right)}

1129: \mu_{21} \sqrt{\mu_{12}+\mu_{21}\gamma}

1130:  (1+\alpha_{12}).

1131: \end{equation}

1132: 

1133: 

1134: The diffusion coefficient of impurities in a granular gas

1135: undergoing homogeneous cooling state can be measured in simulation

1136: from the mean square displacement of

1137: the tracer particle after a time interval $t$: \cite{M89,GM04}

1138: \begin{equation}

1139: \label{4.4} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\langle |{\bf r}(t)-{\bf

1140: r}(0)|^2 \rangle =\frac{2dD}{n_2}.

1141: \end{equation}

1142: Equation (\ref{4.4}) is the Einstein form. This relation

1143: (written in appropriate dimensionless variables to eliminate the

1144: time dependence of $D(t)$) was used in Ref.\ \onlinecite {GM04} to

1145: measure the diffusion coefficient for hard spheres. More details

1146: on this procedure can be found in Ref.\ \onlinecite {GM04}.

1147: 

1148: If the hydrodynamic description (or normal solution in the context

1149: of the CE method) applies, then the diffusion coefficient $D(t)$

1150: depends on time only through its dependence on the temperature

1151: $T(t)$. In this case, after a transient regime, the reduced

1152: diffusion coefficient $D^*=(m_1m_2/\rho)D(t)\nu_0(t)/T(t)$

1153: achieves a time-independent value. Here, we compare the steady

1154: state values of $D^*$ obtained from Monte Carlo simulations with

1155: the theoretical predictions given by the first Sonine

1156: approximation (\ref{4.1}). The dependence of $D^*$ on the common

1157: coefficient of restitution $\alpha_{ij}\equiv \alpha$ is shown in

1158: Fig.\ \ref{fig2} in the case of hard disks for three different

1159: systems. The symbols refer to computer simulations while the lines

1160: correspond to the kinetic theory results given by Eq.\

1161: (\ref{4.1}). Molecular dynamics (MD) results reported in Ref.\

1162: \onlinecite{BRCG00} when impurities and particles of the gas are

1163: mechanically equivalent have also been included. We observe that

1164: MD and DSMC results for $\mu=\omega=1$ are consistent among

1165: themselves in the range of values of $\alpha$ explored. This good

1166: agreement gives support to the applicability of the inelastic

1167: Boltzmann equation beyond the quasielastic limit. It is apparent

1168: that the agreement between the first Sonine approximation and

1169: simulation results is excellent when impurities and particles of

1170: the gas are mechanically equivalent and when impurities are much

1171: heavier and/or much larger than the particles of the gas (Brownian

1172: limit). However, some discrepancies between simulation an theory

1173: are found with decreasing values of the mass ratio $m_1/m_2$ and

1174: the size ratio $\sigma_1/\sigma_2$. These discrepancies are not

1175: easily observed in Fig.\ \ref{fig2} because of the small magnitude

1176: of $D^*$ for $\mu=1/4$. The above findings agree with those

1177: previously reported for hard spheres, \cite{GM04} where it was

1178: shown that the second Sonine approximation improves the

1179: qualitative predictions from the first Sonine approximation for

1180: the cases in which the gas particles are heavier and/or larger

1181: than impurities. The comparison carried out here for disks

1182: confirms the above expectations and shows that the Sonine

1183: polynomial expansion exhibits a slow convergence for sufficiently

1184: small values of the mass ratio $\mu$ and/or the size ratio

1185: $\omega$.

1186: 

1187: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1188: \begin{center}

1189: \resizebox{7cm}{!}{\includegraphics{fig2bis.eps}}

1190: \end{center}

1191: \caption{Plot of the reduced diffusion coefficient $D^*$ as a

1192: function of the (common) coefficient of restitution $\alpha$ for

1193: binary mixtures with $\omega=\mu$ in the case of a two-dimensional

1194: system ($d=2$). The symbols are computer simulation results

1195: obtained from the mean square displacement and the lines are the

1196: theoretical results obtained in the first Sonine approximation.

1197: The DSMC results correspond to $\mu=1/4$ ({\Large $\bullet$}),

1198: $\mu=4$ ({\Large $\circ$}) and $\mu=1$ ({\Large $\diamond$}).

1199: Molecular dynamics results reported in Ref.\ \onlinecite{BRCG00}

1200: for $\mu=1$ ($\triangle$) have also been included.} \label{fig2}

1201: \end{figure}

1202: 

1203: \subsection{Shear viscosity coefficient}

1204: 

1205: The shear viscosity $\eta$ is perhaps the most widely studied

1206: transport coefficient in granular fluids. In the case of granular

1207: mixtures, this coefficient has been measured \cite{MG03} when the

1208: system is {\em heated} by the action of an external driving force

1209: (thermostat) that exactly compensates for cooling effects

1210: associated with dissipation of collisions. The corresponding shear

1211: viscosity of the mixture (which slightly differs from the one

1212: obtained in the free cooling case) has been determined by means of

1213: the CE method in the low-density regime \cite{MG03} as well as for

1214: a moderate dense mixture. \cite{GM03} The theoretical predictions

1215: compare reasonably well with the corresponding numerical solutions

1216: of the Boltzmann and Enskog kinetic equations.

1217: 

1218: More recently, a new alternative method has been proposed to

1219: measure the (true) NS shear viscosity coefficient. \cite{MSG05}

1220: The method is based on the simple shear flow state modified by the

1221: introduction of a deterministic non-conservative force (which

1222: compensates for the collisional cooling) along with a stochastic

1223: process. While the external force is introduced to allow the

1224: granular fluid to approach a Newtonian regime, the stochastic

1225: process is introduced to mimic the conditions appearing in the CE

1226: method to NS order. Although the method was originally devised to

1227: a single granular gas, its extension to multicomponent systems is

1228: straightforward. Here, we use this procedure to measure the shear

1229: viscosity of the mixture by means of the DSMC method. More

1230: technical details on this procedure and its application to dense

1231: gases can be found in Ref.\ \onlinecite{MSG05}.

1232: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1233: \begin{center}

1234: \resizebox{7cm}{!}{\includegraphics{fig3.eps}}

1235: \end{center}

1236: \caption{Plot of the reduced shear viscosity

1237: $\eta^*(\alpha)=\eta(\alpha)/\eta(1)$ as a function of the

1238: (common) coefficient of restitution $\alpha$ for binary mixtures

1239: constituted by particles of the same mass density

1240: ($\omega=\mu^{1/2}$) in the case of a two-dimensional system

1241: ($d=2$). The symbols are computer simulation results and the lines

1242: are the theoretical results obtained in the first Sonine

1243: approximation. The DSMC results correspond to $\mu=1$ ({\Large

1244: $\circ$}), $\mu=4$ ({\Large $\bullet$}) and $\mu=8$ ({\Large

1245: $\diamond$}). We have also included DSMC results obtained in Ref.\

1246: \onlinecite{BRM04} for $\mu=1$ ($\triangle$) from the Green-Kubo

1247: relation.} \label{fig3}

1248: \end{figure}

1249: 

1250: Comparison between the first Sonine approximation and computer

1251: simulations for $\eta^*(\alpha)=\eta(\alpha)/\eta(1)$ is shown in

1252: Fig.\ \ref{fig3} for three different mixtures constituted by

1253: particles of the same mass density (i.e., $\mu=\omega^d$) in the

1254: case of a two-dimensional system. Here, $\eta(1)$ refers to the

1255: elastic value for the shear viscosity coefficient and we have

1256: assumed again a common value of the coefficient of restitution

1257: $\alpha$. The symbols represent the simulation data and the lines

1258: correspond to the theoretical results. We have also included

1259: recent simulation results \cite{BRM04} for $\eta^*$ obtained from

1260: the Green-Kubo relation in the one-component case. Good agreement

1261: among the data presented here and those reported in Ref.\

1262: \onlinecite{BRM04} for $\mu=1$ is observed. In addition, as

1263: happens for hard spheres, \cite{MG03} we see that in general the

1264: agreement between the first Sonine approximation and simulation is

1265: quite good. At a quantitative level, the theory slightly

1266: overestimates the simulation data, especially for strong

1267: dissipation and for mixtures of particles of different masses

1268: and/or sizes. However, such discrepancies are quite small since

1269: for instance, they are smaller than 3\% at $\alpha=0.5$ for

1270: $\mu=8$ and $\omega=\sqrt{8}$. This shows again the reliability of

1271: the first Sonine approximation for the shear viscosity

1272: coefficient. It must be noted that this conclusion cannot in

1273: principle be extended to the transport coefficients associated with

1274: the heat flux since recent comparisons for a single gas

1275: \cite{BRM04,BRMMG05,MSG06} have shown significant discrepancies between

1276: the first Sonine approximation and computer simulations for high

1277: inelasticity (say $\alpha \lesssim 0.7$). In this case, the

1278: agreement between theory and simulation can be significantly

1279: improved by the use of a modified first Sonine approximation.

1280: \cite{GSM06}

1281: 

1282: 

1283: \section{Discussion}

1284: \label{sec5}

1285: 

1286: The main objective of this work has been to obtain the NS

1287: transport coefficients of a granular binary mixture at low

1288: density. In contrast to previous works, \cite{mixture,SGNT06} the

1289: present study is based on a modified CE solution of the inelastic

1290: Boltzmann equation that takes into account non-equipartition of

1291: energy. There is no phenomenology involved as the equations and

1292: the transport coefficients have been derived systematically from

1293: the inelastic Boltzmann equation by the CE expansion around the

1294: local HCS. Since the spatial gradients are assumed to be

1295: independent of the coefficients of restitution, although the NS

1296: equations restrict their applicability to first order in gradients

1297: the corresponding transport coefficients hold {\em a priori} to

1298: arbitrary degree of inelasticity. All the calculations have been

1299: performed in an arbitrary number $d$ of dimensions, previous

1300: results \cite{GD02} being recovered for $d=3$.

1301: 

1302: The constitutive equations to NS order for the mass flux, the

1303: stress tensor, and the heat flux are given  by Eqs.\

1304: (\ref{3.1})--(\ref{3.3}), respectively. The associated transport

1305: coefficients are the mutual diffusion coefficient $D$, the

1306: pressure diffusion coefficient $D_p$, and the thermal diffusion

1307: coefficient $D'$ in the case of the mass flux, the shear viscosity

1308: coefficient $\eta$ for the pressure tensor, and the Dufour

1309: coefficient $D''$, the pressure energy coefficient $L$, and the

1310: thermal conductivity $\lambda$ in the case of the heat flux. These

1311: coefficients are determined from the solutions of the set of

1312: coupled linear integral equations (\ref{3.10})--(\ref{3.12.0}). In

1313: addition, the NS transport coefficients also depend on the

1314: reference distributions $f_i^{(0)}$, which are not Maxwellians

1315: because they obey the integral equations (\ref{2.17.5}). To solve

1316: the above integral equations and provide good estimates for the

1317: transport coefficients, we have considered two approximations: (i)

1318: the distributions $f_i^{(0)}$ have been replaced by their

1319: Maxwellian forms (\ref{2.18}) at the temperature $T_i$ for that

1320: species and, (ii) we have only considered the leading terms in a

1321: series of Sonine polynomials for the first-order distribution

1322: $f_i^{(1)}$. By using both approximations, explicit expressions of

1323: the {\em seven} NS transport coefficients have been obtained as

1324: functions of the coefficients of restitution and the concentration

1325: and the ratios of mass and diameters. In dimensionless forms, the

1326: coefficients $D$, $D_p$, and $D'$ are given by Eqs.\

1327: (\ref{3.13})--(\ref{3.15}), respectively, the shear viscosity

1328: $\eta$ is given by Eqs.\ (\ref{3.17}) and (\ref{3.18}), while the

1329: expressions of the coefficients $D''$, $L$, and $\lambda$ are

1330: provided by Eqs.\ (\ref{4.7})--(\ref{4.n5}).

1331: 

1332: 

1333: 

1334: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1335: \begin{center}

1336: \resizebox{7cm}{!}{\includegraphics{fig6.eps}}

1337: \end{center}

1338: \caption{Plot of the reduced shear viscosity coefficient

1339: $\eta^*=\eta(\alpha)/\eta(1)$ as a function of the (common)

1340: coefficient of restitution $\alpha$ for binary mixtures with

1341: $x_1=0.2$, $\omega=1$ and two values of the mass ratio $\mu$:

1342: $\mu=0.5$ (a) and $\mu=4$ (b). The solid lines refer to spheres

1343: ($d=3$) while the dashed lines correspond to disks ($d=2$).}

1344: \label{fig6}

1345: \end{figure}

1346: 

1347: 

1348: 

1349: 

1350: Previous results \cite{mixture} derived from the CE method have

1351: typically introduced additional assumptions for convenience that

1352: are not internally consistent with constructing a solution to the

1353: Boltzmann equation. Thus, in most of the cases the reference state

1354: $f_i^{(0)}$ has been chosen to be a Maxwellian at the same

1355: temperature [see Eq.\ (\ref{2.20.1})]. This assumption is presumed

1356: to give accurate results at weak dissipation where energy

1357: equipartition can be still considered as a good approximation.

1358: However, as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig1}, the temperature ratio

1359: $T_1/T_2$ clearly differs from 1 as dissipation increases. Here,

1360: we have replaced $f_i^{(0)}\to f_{i,M}$ so that, the influence of

1361: the fourth-cumulants $c_i$ of $f_i^{(0)}$ has been

1362: ignored.\cite{GD99b} Comparison between the expressions derived in

1363: this paper by taking the approximation (\ref{2.18}) with those

1364: obtained by assuming energy equipartition shows important

1365: discrepancies as the coefficient of restitution decreases [see

1366: Figs.\ \ref{fig4} and \ref{fig5}]. Moreover, as an added value of

1367: our theory, the use of the Maxwellian approximation (\ref{2.18})

1368: for $f_i^{(0)}$ allows one to provide simple and explicit

1369: expressions for all the transport coefficients in terms of the

1370: parameters of the mixture. This contrasts with the relatively

1371: recent study for hard spheres \cite{GD02} where the constitutive

1372: relations for the fluxes were not explicitly displayed.

1373: 

1374: 

1375: 

1376: As a complementary route and to check the reliability of our

1377: theory, the analytical results derived for the diffusion

1378: coefficient $D$ and the shear viscosity $\eta$ in the first Sonine

1379: approximation have been compared with those obtained from

1380: numerical solutions of the Boltzmann equation by means of the DSMC

1381: method for a two-dimensional system. For the sake of simplicity,

1382: all the simulations have considered a common coefficient of

1383: restitution $\alpha\equiv \alpha_{ij}$. As expected, theory and

1384: simulation clearly show that the influence of dissipation on mass

1385: and momentum transport is quite important since there is a

1386: relevant dependence of the diffusion $D$ and viscosity $\eta$

1387: coefficients on $\alpha$. With respect to the accuracy of the

1388: theoretical predictions, we see that in general the CE results in

1389: the first Sonine approximation exhibit a good agreement with the

1390: simulation data. Exceptions to this agreement are extreme mass or

1391: size ratios and strong dissipation. These discrepancies are

1392: basically due to the use of the first Sonine approximation and can

1393: be partially mitigated by considering the second and third Sonine

1394: approximations \cite{GM04} or the use of a modified first Sonine

1395: approximation. \cite{GSM06}

1396: 

1397: 

1398: As said in the Introduction, the results obtained in this paper

1399: are of great practical interest since most of the experiments and

1400: simulations are performed in two dimensions. On the other hand,

1401: apart from this practical interest, the knowledge of the NS

1402: transport coefficients of a $d$-dimensional mixture allows one to

1403: investigate the influence of dimensionality on the transport

1404: properties of the system. To illustrate this effect, in Fig.\

1405: \ref{fig6} we plot the reduced shear viscosity

1406: $\eta^*\equiv\eta(\alpha)/\eta(1)$ versus the coefficient of

1407: restitution $\alpha$ for $\omega=1$, $x_1=0.2$, and two different

1408: mass ratios $\mu$: $\mu=0.5$ (a) and $\mu=4$ (b). We have

1409: considered the physical cases of hard spheres (solid lines) and

1410: hard disks (dashed lines). Although the qualitative dependence of

1411: $\eta^*$ on $\alpha$ is quite similar in both systems, we observe

1412: that the influence of dissipation on momentum transport is

1413: stronger for $d=3$ than for $d=2$. This trend is also observed in

1414: general in the remaining transport coefficients.

1415: 

1416: 

1417: 

1418: 

1419: One of the main limitations of our theory is its restriction to

1420: dilute gases. In this situation, the collisional transfer

1421: contributions to the fluxes are neglected and only their kinetic

1422: contributions are considered. Possible extension of the present

1423: kinetic theory to higher densities can be done in the context of

1424: the revised Enskog theory. Preliminary results \cite{GM03} have

1425: been focused on the uniform shear flow state to get directly the

1426: shear viscosity coefficient. The extension of this study

1427: \cite{GM03} to states with gradients of concentration, pressure,

1428: and temperature is somewhat intricate due to subtleties associated

1429: with the spatial dependence of the pair correlations functions

1430: considered in the revised Enskog theory. On the other hand, it

1431: must be remarked that many of the collision integrals appearing in

1432: the Enskog description are the same as those appearing in the

1433: Boltzmann limit so that one can take advantage of the results

1434: reported in this paper. We plan to extend the results derived for

1435: moderately dense mixtures of smooth {\em elastic} hard spheres

1436: \cite{MCK83} to inelastic collisions in the near future.

1437: 

1438: 

1439: 

1440: 

1441: \acknowledgments

1442: 

1443: Partial support of the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnolog\'{\i}a

1444: (Spain) through Grant No.  FIS2004-01399 (partially financed by

1445: FEDER funds) in the case of V.G. and ESP2003-02859 (partially

1446: financed by FEDER funds) in the case of J.M.M. is acknowledged. V.

1447: G. also acknowledges support from the European Community's Human

1448: Potential Programme HPRN-CT-2002-00307 (DYGLAGEMEM).

1449: 

1450: 

1451: 

1452: \appendix

1453: \section{Chapman-Enskog method}

1454: \label{appA}

1455: 

1456: 

1457: 

1458: The velocity distribution function $f_1^{(1)}$ obeys the equation

1459: \begin{equation}

1460: \left( \partial _{t}^{(0)}+{\cal L}_{1}\right) f_{1}^{(1)}+{\cal

1461: M} _{1}f_{2}^{(1)}=-\left( \partial _{t}^{(1)}+{\bf v}\cdot

1462: \nabla+ {\bf g}\cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf

1463: v}} \right)f_{1}^{(0)}\;, \label{a1}

1464: \end{equation}

1465: where the linear operators ${\cal L}_{1}$ and ${\cal M}_{1}$ are

1466: defined by Eqs.\ (\ref{3.12.1}) and (\ref{3.12.2}), respectively.

1467: A similar equation can be obtained for $f_2^{(1)}$ by

1468: interchanging $1\leftrightarrow 2$. The action of the time

1469: derivatives $\partial _{t}^{(1)}$ on the hydrodynamic fields is

1470: \begin{equation}

1471: D_{t}^{(1)}x_{1}=0,  \label{a2}

1472: \end{equation}

1473: \begin{equation}

1474: D_{t}^{(1)}p=-\frac{d+2}{d}p\nabla \cdot {\bf u},  \label{a3}

1475: \end{equation}

1476: \begin{equation}

1477: D_{t}^{(1)}T=-\frac{2T}{d}\nabla \cdot {\bf u},  \label{a4}

1478: \end{equation}

1479: \begin{equation}

1480: D_{t}^{(1)}{\bf u}=-\rho ^{-1}{\bf \nabla }p+{\bf g},  \label{a5}

1481: \end{equation}

1482: where $D_{t}^{(1)}=\partial _{t}^{(1)}+{\bf u\cdot \nabla }$ and

1483: use has been made of the results ${\bf j}_{i}^{(0)}={\bf

1484: q}^{(0)}=\zeta ^{(1)}=0$. The last equality follows from the fact

1485: that the cooling rate is a scalar, and corrections to first order

1486: in the gradients can arise only from the divergence of a vector

1487: field. However, as is demonstrated  below, there is no

1488: contribution to the distribution function proportional to this

1489: divergence. We note that this is special to the low density

1490: Boltzmann equation and such terms do occur at higher densities.

1491: \cite{GD99a} Use of Eqs.\ (\ref{a2})--(\ref{a5}) yields

1492: \begin{eqnarray}

1493: -\left( \partial _{t}^{(1)}+{\bf v}\cdot \nabla + {\bf g}\cdot

1494: \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf v}} \right)

1495: f_{1}^{(0)} &=&-\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial

1496: x_{1}}f_{1}^{(0)}\right) _{p,T}{\bf V} \cdot \nabla x_{1}-\left[

1497: f_{1}^{(0)}{\bf V}+\frac{n T}{\rho}\left( \frac{

1498: \partial }{\partial {\bf V}}f_{1}^{(0)}\right) \right] \cdot \nabla \ln p

1499: \nonumber \\

1500: &&+\left[ f_{1}^{(0)}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf

1501: V}}\cdot \left({\bf V}f_{1}^{(0)}\right) \right] {\bf V}\cdot

1502: \nabla \ln T

1503: \nonumber \\

1504: &&+\left( V_{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial V_{\ell

1505: }}f_{1}^{(0)}-\frac{1}{d}\delta _{k\ell}{\bf V}\cdot

1506: \frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf V}} f_{1}^{(0)}\right)

1507: \nabla _{k}u_{\ell}. \label{a5bis}

1508: \end{eqnarray}

1509: Note that the external field does not appear in the right-hand

1510: side of Eq.\ (\ref{a5bis}). This is due to the particular form of

1511: the gravitational force. Using Eq.\ (\ref{a5bis}), Eq.\ (\ref{a1})

1512: can be written as

1513: \begin{equation}

1514: \left( \partial _{t}^{(0)}+{\cal L}_{1}\right) f_{1}^{(1)}+{\cal

1515: M} _{1}f_{2}^{(1)}={\bf A}_{1}\cdot \nabla x_{1}+{\bf B}_{1}\cdot

1516: \nabla p+{\bf C}_{1}\cdot \nabla T +{\sf D}_{1}:

1517: \nabla {\bf u}, \label{a6}

1518: \end{equation}

1519: where

1520: \begin{equation}

1521: {\bf A}_{i}({\bf V})=-\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1}}

1522: f_{i}^{(0)}\right)_{p,T}{\bf V}, \label{a7}

1523: \end{equation}

1524: \begin{equation}

1525: {\bf B}_{i}({\bf V})=-\frac{1}{p}\left[ f_{i}^{(0)}{\bf

1526: V}+\frac{nT}{\rho } \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf

1527: V}}f_{i}^{(0)}\right) \right] , \label{a8}

1528: \end{equation}

1529: \begin{equation}

1530: {\bf C}_{i}({\bf V})=\frac{1}{T}\left[

1531: f_{i}^{(0)}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial {\bf V}}\cdot

1532: \left( {\bf V}f_{i}^{(0)}\right) \right] {\bf V}, \label{a9}

1533: \end{equation}

1534: \begin{equation}

1535: {\sf D}_{i}({\bf V})={\bf V}\frac{\partial }{\partial {\bf V}}

1536: f_{i}^{(0)}-\frac{1}{d}\openone {\bf V}\cdot \frac{\partial

1537: }{\partial {\bf V}}f_{i}^{(0)}.  \label{a10}

1538: \end{equation}

1539: In Eqs.\ (\ref{a7})--(\ref{a10}) it is understood that $i=1,2$ and $\openone$ is the unit

1540: tensor in $d$ dimensions. Note that the trace of ${\sf D}_{i}$ vanishes, confirming that the

1541: distribution function does not have contribution from the divergence of

1542: the flow field.  The solutions to Eqs.\ (\ref{a6}) are of the form

1543: \begin{equation}

1544: f_{i}^{(1)}={\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{i}\cdot \nabla

1545: x_{1}+{\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{i}\cdot \nabla p+{\boldsymbol {\cal

1546: C}}_{i}\cdot \nabla T+{\cal D}_{i,k\ell }\nabla _{k}u_{\ell}\;.

1547: \label{a11}

1548: \end{equation}

1549: The coefficients ${\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{i}$, ${\boldsymbol {\cal

1550: B}}_{i}$, ${\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{i}$, and ${\boldsymbol {\cal D}}_{i}$

1551: are functions of the peculiar velocity ${\bf V}$ and the

1552: hydrodynamic fields. The cooling rate depends on space through its

1553: dependence on $x_{1}$, $p$, and $T$. The time derivative $\partial

1554: _{t}^{(0)}$ acting on these quantities can be evaluated by the

1555: replacement $\partial _{t}^{(0)}\rightarrow -\zeta ^{(0)}\left(

1556: T\partial _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right) $. In addition, there are

1557: contributions from $\partial _{t}^{(0)}$ acting on the temperature

1558: and pressure gradients given by

1559: \begin{eqnarray}

1560: \partial _{t}^{(0)}\nabla T &=&-\nabla \left( T\zeta ^{(0)}\right)

1561: =-\zeta

1562: ^{(0)}\nabla T-T\nabla \zeta ^{(0)}  \nonumber \\

1563: &=&-\frac{\zeta ^{(0)}}{2}\nabla T -T\left[ \left( \frac{\partial

1564: \zeta ^{(0)}}{\partial x_{1}}\right) _{p,T}\nabla x_{1}

1565: +\frac{\zeta ^{(0)}}{p} \nabla p\right], \label{a12}

1566: \end{eqnarray}

1567: \begin{eqnarray}

1568: \partial _{t}^{(0)}\nabla p &=&-\nabla \left( p\zeta ^{(0)}\right) =-\zeta

1569: ^{(0)}\nabla p-p\nabla \zeta ^{(0)}  \nonumber \\

1570: &=&-2\zeta ^{(0)}\nabla p-p\left[ \left( \frac{\partial \zeta

1571: ^{(0)}}{

1572: \partial x_{1}}\right) _{p,T}\nabla x_{1}-\frac{\zeta ^{(0)}}{2T}\nabla T

1573: \right] . \label{a13}

1574: \end{eqnarray}

1575: The corresponding integral equations for the unknowns

1576: ${\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{i}$, ${\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{i}$,

1577: ${\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{i}$, and ${\boldsymbol {\cal D}}_{i}$ are

1578: identified as the coefficients of the independent gradients in

1579: (\ref{a11}). This leads to Eqs.\ (\ref{3.10})--(\ref{3.12.0}).

1580: 

1581: 

1582: \section{Leading Sonine approximations}

1583: \label{appB}

1584: 

1585: In this Appendix, we get the explicit expressions of the mass,

1586: momentum, and heat fluxes in the first Sonine approximation and

1587: neglecting the non-Gaussian corrections to the reference

1588: distributions $f_i^{(0)}$ (i.e., the cumulants $c_i=0$). The

1589: procedure to get the leading order contributions in the Sonine

1590: polynomial expansion to the transport coefficients is quite

1591: similar to the one previously used in the three-dimensional case.

1592: \cite{GD02} Only some partial results will be presented here.

1593: 

1594: 

1595: \subsection{Leading Sonine approximation to Mass Flux}

1596: 

1597: In the case of the mass flux, the leading Sonine approximations

1598: (lowest degree polynomial) of the quantities ${\boldsymbol {\cal

1599: A}}_{i}$, ${\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{i}$, ${\boldsymbol {\cal

1600: C}}_{i}$ are

1601: \begin{equation}

1602: \label{b1} {\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{1}({\bf V})\to -f_{1,M}{\bf

1603: V}\frac{m_1m_2n}{\rho n_1T_1}D,\quad {\boldsymbol {\cal

1604: A}}_{2}({\bf V})\to f_{2,M}{\bf V}\frac{m_1m_2n}{\rho n_2T_2}D

1605: \end{equation}

1606: \begin{equation}

1607: \label{b2} {\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{1}({\bf V})\to -f_{1,M}{\bf

1608: V}\frac{\rho}{p n_1T_1}D_p ,\quad {\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{2}({\bf

1609: V})\to f_{2,M}{\bf V}\frac{\rho}{p n_2T_2}D_p

1610: \end{equation}

1611: \begin{equation}

1612: \label{b3} {\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{1}({\bf V})\to -f_{1,M}{\bf

1613: V}\frac{\rho}{T n_1T_1}D',\quad {\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{2}({\bf

1614: V})\to f_{2,M}{\bf V}\frac{\rho}{T n_2T_2}D',

1615: \end{equation}

1616: where $f_{i,M}$ are the Maxwellian distributions (\ref{2.18}).

1617: Multiplication of Eqs.\ (\ref{3.10})--(\ref{3.12}) by $m_1 {\bf

1618: V}$ and integrating over the velocity yields

1619: \begin{equation}

1620: \left[ -\zeta ^{(0)}\left( T\partial _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right)

1621: +\nu \right] \left(-\frac{m_1m_2n}{\rho}D\right)=-\left(\frac{

1622: \partial }{\partial x_{1}}n_{1}T_{1}\right)_{p,T}

1623: -\rho\left( \frac{\partial \zeta ^{(0)}}{\partial x_{1}}\right)

1624: _{p,T}\left(D_p+D'\right) ,  \label{b4}

1625: \end{equation}

1626: \begin{equation}

1627: \left[ -\zeta ^{(0)}\left( T\partial _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right)

1628: -2\zeta ^{(0)}+\nu \right]\left(-\frac{\rho}{p}D_p\right) =-\frac{

1629: n_{1}T_{1}}{p}\left( 1-\frac{m_{1}nT}{\rho T_{1}}\right)

1630: -\frac{\rho\zeta ^{(0)}}{p}D',  \label{b5}

1631: \end{equation}

1632: \begin{equation}

1633: \left[-\zeta ^{(0)}\left( T\partial _{T}+p\partial _{p}\right)

1634: -\frac{1}{2} \zeta ^{(0)}+\nu \right]

1635: \left(-\frac{\rho}{T}D'\right)= \frac{\rho\zeta ^{(0)}}{2T}D_p.

1636: \label{b6}

1637: \end{equation}

1638: Here, $\nu $ is the collision frequency defined by

1639: \begin{eqnarray}

1640: \nu  &=&\frac{1}{dn_{1}T_{1}}\int d{\bf V}_{1}m_{1}{\bf

1641: V}_{1}\cdot \left[ {\cal L}_{1}(f_{1,M}{\bf V}_{1})-\delta \gamma

1642: {\cal M}_{1}(f_{2,M}{\bf V}_{2})

1643: \right]   \nonumber \\

1644: &=&-\frac{1}{dn_{1}T_{1}}\int d{\bf V}_{1}m_{1}{\bf V}_{1}\cdot

1645: \left( J_{12}[{\bf v}_{1}|f_{1,M}{\bf V}_{1},f_{2}^{(0)}]-\delta

1646: \gamma J_{12}[{\bf v}_{1}|f_{1}^{(0)},f_{2,M}{\bf V}_{2}]\right),

1647: \label{b7}

1648: \end{eqnarray}

1649: where $\delta\equiv x_1/x_2$. The evaluation of the collision integral

1650: (\ref{b7}) is made in Appendix \ref{appC}. The self-collision

1651: terms of ${\cal L}_{i}$ arising from $J_{11}$ do not occur in Eq.\

1652: (\ref{b7}) since they conserve momentum for species $1$. From

1653: dimensional analysis, $D\sim T^{1/2}$, $ D_p\sim p T^{-1/2}$, and

1654: $D'\sim p T^{-1/2}$ so the temperature and pressure derivatives

1655: can be performed in Eqs.\ (\ref{b4})--(\ref{b6}). After performing

1656: them, one gets the expressions (\ref{3.13}), (\ref{3.14}), and

1657: (\ref{3.15}) for the (reduced) coefficients $D^*$, $D_p^*$, and

1658: $D^{\prime\ast}$, respectively.

1659: 

1660: \subsection{Leading Sonine approximation to Pressure Tensor}

1661: 

1662: 

1663: In the case of the pressure tensor, the leading Sonine

1664: approximation for the function ${\cal D}_{i,k\ell}$ is

1665: \begin{equation}

1666: \label{b8} {\cal D}_{i,k\ell}({\bf V})\to -f_{i,M}({\bf V}) \frac{\eta_{i}}{T}

1667: R_{i,k\ell}({\bf V}),\quad i=1,2

1668: \end{equation}

1669: where

1670: \begin{equation}

1671: \label{b9} R_{i,k\ell}({\bf V})=m_i\left( V_{k}V_{\ell}-

1672: \frac{1}{d}V^2\delta_{k\ell}\right),

1673: \end{equation}

1674: and

1675: \begin{equation}

1676: \label{b10} \eta_i=-\frac{1}{(d-1)(d+2)}\frac{T}{n_iT_i^2}\int

1677: d{\bf v} R_{i,k\ell}({\bf V}){\cal D}_{i,k\ell}({\bf V}).

1678: \end{equation}

1679: The shear viscosity $\eta$ in this approximation can be written as

1680: \begin{equation}

1681: \label{b11} \eta=\frac{p}{\nu_0}\left(x_1\gamma_1^2

1682: \eta_1^*+x_2\gamma_2^2 \eta_2^*\right),

1683: \end{equation}

1684: where $\eta_i^*=\nu_0\eta_i$. The integral equations for the

1685: (reduced) coefficients $\eta_i^*$ are decoupled from the remaining

1686: transport coefficients. The two coefficients $\eta_{i}^*$ are

1687: obtained by multiplying Eqs.\ (\ref{3.12.0}) with $R_{i,k\ell}$

1688: and integrating over the velocity to get the coupled set of

1689: equations

1690: \begin{equation}

1691: \label{b12} \left(

1692: \begin{array}{cc}

1693: \tau_{11}-\frac{1}{2}\zeta^{*}& \tau_{12}\\

1694: \tau_{21}&\tau_{22}-\frac{1}{2}\zeta^{*}

1695: \end{array}

1696: \right) \left(

1697: \begin{array}{c}

1698: \eta_{1}^*\\

1699: \eta_{2}^*

1700: \end{array}

1701: \right) =\left(

1702: \begin{array}{c}

1703: \gamma_1^{-1}\\

1704: \gamma_2^{-1}

1705: \end{array}

1706: \right).

1707: \end{equation}

1708: The (reduced) collision frequencies $\tau_{ij}$ are given in terms

1709: of the linear collision operator by

1710: \begin{equation}

1711: \label{b13}

1712: \tau_{ii}=\frac{1}{(d-1)(d+2)}\frac{1}{n_iT_i^2\nu_0}\int d{\bf

1713: v}_1 R_{i,k\ell} {\cal L}_i\left(f_{i,M}R_{i,k\ell}\right),

1714: \end{equation}

1715: \begin{equation}

1716: \label{b14}

1717: \tau_{ij}=\frac{1}{(d-1)(d+2)}\frac{1}{n_iT_i^2\nu_0}\int d{\bf

1718: v}_1 R_{i,k\ell} {\cal M}_i\left(f_{j,M}R_{j,k\ell}\right) , \quad

1719: i\neq j.

1720: \end{equation}

1721: The evaluation of these collision integrals is also given in

1722: Appendix \ref{appC}. The solution of Eq.\ (\ref{b12})

1723: is elementary and yields Eq.\ (\ref{3.18}).

1724: 

1725: 

1726: \subsection{Leading Sonine approximation to Heat Flux}

1727: 

1728: The heat flux requires going up to the second Sonine

1729: approximation. In this case, the quantities ${\boldsymbol {\cal

1730: A}}_{i}$, ${\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{i}$, ${\boldsymbol {\cal

1731: C}}_{i}$ are taken to be

1732: \begin{equation}

1733: \label{b15} {\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{1}({\bf V})\to

1734: f_{1,M}\left[-\frac{m_1m_2n}{\rho n_1T_1}D{\bf V}+d_1''{\bf

1735: S}_1({\bf V}) \right] ,\quad {\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{2}({\bf

1736: V})\to f_{2,M}\left[\frac{m_1m_2n}{\rho n_2T_2}D{\bf V}+d_2''{\bf

1737: S}_2({\bf V})\right]

1738: \end{equation}

1739: \begin{equation}

1740: \label{b16} {\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{1}({\bf V})\to

1741: f_{1,M}\left[-\frac{\rho}{p n_1T_1}D_p{\bf V}+\ell_1{\bf S}_1({\bf

1742: V}) \right] ,\quad {\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{2}({\bf V})\to

1743: f_{2,M}\left[\frac{\rho}{p n_2T_2}D_p{\bf V}+\ell_2{\bf S}_2({\bf

1744: V})\right]

1745: \end{equation}

1746: \begin{equation}

1747: \label{b17} {\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{1}({\bf V})\to

1748: f_{1,M}\left[-\frac{\rho}{T n_1T_1}D'{\bf V}+\lambda_1{\bf

1749: S}_1({\bf V}) \right] ,\quad {\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{2}({\bf

1750: V})\to f_{2,M}\left[\frac{\rho}{T n_2T_2}D'{\bf V}+\lambda_2{\bf

1751: S}_2({\bf V})\right],

1752: \end{equation}

1753: where

1754: \begin{equation}

1755: \label{b18} {\bf S}_i({\bf

1756: V})=\left(\frac{1}{2}m_iV^2-\frac{d+2}{2}T_i\right){\bf V}.

1757: \end{equation}

1758: In these equations, it is understood that $D$, $D_p$ and $D'$ are

1759: given by Eqs.\ (\ref{3.13}), (\ref{3.14}), and (\ref{3.15}),

1760: respectively. The coefficients $d_i''$, $\ell_i$ and $\lambda_i$

1761: are defined as

1762: \begin{equation}

1763: \left(

1764: \begin{array}{c}

1765: d_i'' \\

1766: \ell_i \\

1767: \lambda_i

1768: \end{array}

1769: \right) =\frac{2}{d(d+2)}\frac{m_i}{n_iT_i^3} \int d{\bf v}\,{\bf

1770: S}_i({\bf V})\cdot\left(

1771: \begin{array}{c}

1772: {\boldsymbol {\cal A}}_{i} \\

1773: {\boldsymbol {\cal B}}_{i} \\

1774: {\boldsymbol {\cal C}}_{i}

1775: \end{array}

1776: \right). \label{b19}

1777: \end{equation}

1778: These coefficients can be determined by multiplying Eqs.\

1779: (\ref{3.10})--(\ref{3.12}) (and their counterparts for the species

1780: 2) by ${\bf S}_i({\bf V})$ and integrating over the velocity. The

1781: final expressions can be obtained by taking into account that

1782: $d_1''\sim T^{-3/2}$, $\ell_1\sim T^{-3/2}/p$, and $\lambda_1\sim

1783: T^{-5/2}$ and the results

1784: \begin{equation}

1785: \int d{\bf v}\,m_{1}{\bf S}_1({\bf V})\cdot {\bf A}_{1}=-

1786: \frac{d(d+2)}{4}\frac{n_1T^2}{m_1} \left( \frac{

1787: \partial }{\partial x_{1}}\gamma_1^2\right) _{p,T},  \label{b20}

1788: \end{equation}

1789: \begin{equation}

1790: \int d{\bf v}\,m_{1}{\bf S}_{1}({\bf V})\cdot {\bf B}_{1}=0,

1791: \label{b21}

1792: \end{equation}

1793: \begin{equation}

1794: \int d{\bf v}\,m_{1}{\bf S}_{1}({\bf V})\cdot {\bf

1795: C}_{1}=-\frac{d(d+2)}{2} \frac{n_1T_1^2}{m_1T}. \label{b22}

1796: \end{equation}

1797: 

1798: 

1799: 

1800: By using matrix notation, the coupled set of six equations for the

1801: quantities

1802: \begin{equation}

1803: \label{4.10} \{d_1^*, d_2^*, \ell_1^*, \ell_2^*, \lambda_1^*,

1804: \lambda_2^*\}

1805: \end{equation}

1806: can be written as

1807: \begin{equation}

1808: \label{4.11} \Lambda_{\sigma \sigma'}X_{\sigma'}=Y_{\sigma}.

1809: \end{equation}

1810: Here, $d_i^*\equiv T\nu_0 d_i^{\prime\prime}$, $\ell_i^*\equiv

1811: pT\nu_0 \ell_i$, $\lambda_i^*\equiv T^2\nu_0 \lambda_i$,

1812: $X_{\sigma'}$ is the column matrix defined by the set (\ref{4.10})

1813: and $\Lambda_{\sigma \sigma'}$ is the square matrix

1814: \begin{equation}

1815: \label{4.12} \Lambda=\left(

1816: \begin{array} {cccccc}

1817: \nu_{11}-\frac{3}{2}\zeta^{*}& \nu_{12}& -\left(\frac{\partial

1818: \zeta ^{*}}{\partial x_{1}}\right)_{p,T}&0&

1819: -\left( \frac{\partial \zeta ^{*}}{\partial x_{1}}\right)_{p,T}&0 \\

1820: \nu_{21}&\nu_{22}-\frac{3}{2}\zeta^{*}&0& -\left( \frac{\partial

1821: \zeta ^{*}}{\partial x_{1}}\right)_{p,T}&0&

1822: -\left( \frac{\partial \zeta ^{*}}{\partial x_{1}}\right)_{p,T}\\

1823: 0& 0& \nu_{11}-\frac{5}{2}\zeta^{*}& \nu_{12}&

1824: -\zeta^{*}&0\\

1825: 0& 0 & \nu_{21} & \nu_{22}-\frac{5}{2}\zeta^{*} & 0 &

1826: -\zeta^{*}\\

1827: 0& 0& \zeta^{*}/2&0&\nu_{11}-\zeta^{*}& \nu_{12}\\

1828: 0& 0& 0&\zeta^{*}/2&\nu_{21}&\nu_{22}-\zeta^{*}

1829: \end{array}

1830: \right).

1831: \end{equation}

1832: The column matrix ${\bf Y}$ is

1833: \begin{equation}

1834: \label{4.13} {\bf Y}=\left(

1835: \begin{array}{c}

1836: Y_1\\

1837: Y_2\\

1838: Y_3\\

1839: Y_4\\

1840: Y_5\\

1841: Y_6

1842: \end{array}

1843: \right),

1844: \end{equation}

1845: where \cite{note}

1846: \begin{equation}

1847: \label{4.14} Y_1= \frac{D^*}{ x_1\gamma_1^2}\left(\omega_{12}-\zeta^{*}\right)-\frac{1}{ \gamma_1^2}

1848: \left(\frac{\partial \gamma_1}{\partial x_1} \right)_{p,T},\quad Y_2= -\frac{D^*}{

1849: x_2\gamma_2^2}\left(\omega_{21}-\zeta^{*}\right)-\frac{1}{ \gamma_2^2} \left(\frac{\partial \gamma_2}{\partial

1850: x_1} \right)_{p,T},

1851: \end{equation}

1852: \begin{equation}

1853: \label{4.15} Y_3=\frac{

1854: D_p^*}{x_1\gamma_1^2}\left(\omega_{12}-\zeta^{*}\right),\quad

1855: Y_4=-\frac{

1856: D_p^*}{x_2\gamma_2^2}\left(\omega_{21}-\zeta^{*}\right),

1857: \end{equation}

1858: \begin{equation}

1859: \label{4.16} Y_5= -\frac{1}{\gamma_1}+\frac{D^{\prime\ast}}{

1860: x_1\gamma_1^2}\left(\omega_{12}-\zeta^{*}\right),\quad Y_6=

1861: -\frac{1}{\gamma_2}-\frac{D^{\prime\ast}}{

1862: x_2\gamma_2^2}\left(\omega_{21}-\zeta^{*}\right).

1863: \end{equation}

1864: Here, we have introduced the (reduced) collision frequencies

1865: \begin{equation}

1866: \label{4.17}

1867: \nu_{ii}=\frac{2}{d(d+2)}\frac{m_i}{n_iT_i^3\nu_0}\int d{\bf v}_1

1868: {\bf S}_i \cdot {\cal L}_i\left(f_{i,M}{\bf S}_i\right),

1869: \end{equation}

1870: \begin{equation}

1871: \label{4.18}

1872: \nu_{ij}=\frac{2}{d(d+2)}\frac{m_i}{n_iT_i^3\nu_0}\int d{\bf v}_1

1873: {\bf S}_i \cdot {\cal M}_i\left(f_{j,M}{\bf S}_j\right), \quad

1874: i\neq j,

1875: \end{equation}

1876: \begin{equation}

1877: \label{4.19} \omega_{12}=\frac{2}{d(d+2)}\frac{m_1}{n_1T_1^2\nu_0}

1878: \left[\int d{\bf v}_1 {\bf S}_1\cdot {\cal L}_1(f_{1,M}{\bf

1879: V}_1)-\delta \gamma \int d{\bf v}_1 {\bf S}_1\cdot {\cal

1880: M}_1(f_{2,M}{\bf V}_2)\right],

1881: \end {equation}

1882: \begin{equation}

1883: \label{4.19.1}

1884: \omega_{21}=\frac{2}{d(d+2)}\frac{m_2}{n_2T_2^2\nu_0} \left[\int

1885: d{\bf v}_1 {\bf S}_2\cdot {\cal L}_2(f_{2,M}{\bf

1886: V}_1)-\frac{1}{\delta \gamma} \int d{\bf v}_1 {\bf S}_2\cdot {\cal

1887: M}_2(f_{1,M}{\bf V}_2)\right].

1888: \end {equation}

1889: The expressions of the collision integrals (\ref{4.17}),

1890: (\ref{4.18}), and (\ref{4.19}) are given in Appendix \ref{appC}.

1891: The solution to Eq.\ (\ref{4.11}) is

1892: \begin{equation}

1893: \label{4.20} X_{\sigma}=\left(\Lambda^{-1}\right)_{\sigma

1894: \sigma'}Y_{\sigma'}.

1895: \end{equation}

1896: From this relation one gets the expressions (\ref{4.n2}),

1897: (\ref{4.n3}), and (\ref{4.n4}) for the coefficients $d_i^*$,

1898: $\ell_i^*$ and $\lambda_i^*$, respectively.

1899: 

1900: 

1901: 

1902: 

1903: 

1904: \section{Collision integrals}

1905: \label{appC}

1906: 

1907: In this Appendix we compute the different collision integrals

1908: appearing in the expressions of the transport coefficients. To

1909: simplify all the integrals, we use the property

1910: \begin{equation}

1911: \int d{\bf v}_{1}h({\bf V}_{1})J_{ij}\left[ {\bf

1912: v}_{1}|f_{i},f_{j}\right] =\sigma _{ij}^{d-1}\int \,d{\bf

1913: v}_{1}\,\int \,d{\bf v}_{2}f_{i}( {\bf V}_{1})f_{j}({\bf V}_{2})

1914: \int d\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma }}\,\Theta

1915: (\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}} \cdot {\bf

1916: g}_{12})(\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma }}\cdot {\bf

1917: g}_{12})\,\left[ h( {\bf V}_{1}^{^{\prime \prime }})-h({\bf

1918: V}_{1})\right] \;,  \label{c1}

1919: \end{equation}

1920: with

1921: \begin{equation}

1922: {\bf V}_{1}^{^{\prime \prime }}={\bf V}_{1}-\mu _{ji}(1+\alpha

1923: _{ij})( \widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma }}\cdot {\bf

1924: g}_{12})\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}\;. \label{c2}

1925: \end{equation}

1926: This result applies for both $i=j$ and $i\neq j$.

1927: 

1928: Let us start with the collision frequency $\nu$ defined by Eq.\

1929: (\ref{b7}). Use of the identity (\ref{c2}) in (\ref{b7}) gives

1930: \begin{eqnarray}

1931: \nu &=&\frac{m_1}{dn_1T_1}B_3\sigma _{12}^{d-1}\mu _{21}(1+\alpha

1932: _{12}) \int \,d{\bf V}_{1}\,\int \,d{\bf V}_{2}\,g_{12}\left[

1933: f_{1,M}( {\bf V}_{1})f_{2}^{(0)}({\bf V}_{2})({\bf V}_{1}\cdot

1934: {\bf g}_{12})\right.

1935: \nonumber \\

1936: &&\left. -\delta \gamma f_{1}^{(0)}({\bf V}_{1})f_{2,M}({\bf

1937: V}_{2})({\bf V} _{2}\cdot {\bf g}_{12})\right],  \label{c3}

1938: \end{eqnarray}

1939: where use has been made of the result

1940: \begin{equation}

1941: \label{c4} \int d\widehat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\, \Theta

1942: (\widehat{{\boldsymbol {\sigma }}} \cdot {\bf g}_{12})\,

1943: (\widehat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot {\bf g}_{12})^k

1944: \widehat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}=B_{k+1} g_{12}^{k-1}{\bf g}_{12},

1945: \end{equation}

1946: whith \cite{EB02}

1947: \begin{equation}

1948: \label{c5} B_k\equiv \int d\widehat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\, \Theta

1949: (\widehat{{\boldsymbol {\sigma }}} \cdot {\bf g}_{12})\,

1950: (\widehat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot {\widehat{\bf

1951: g}}_{12})^k=\pi^{(d-1)/2} \frac{

1952: \Gamma\left(\frac{k+1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{k+d}{2}\right)}.

1953: \end{equation}

1954: Substitution of the Maxwellian approximation (\ref{2.18}) for

1955: $f_i^{(0)}$ gives

1956: \begin{equation}

1957: \nu =\frac{2}{d}\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}

1958: {\Gamma\left(\frac{d+3}{2}\right)} \nu_0 (1+\alpha _{12}) \pi^{-d}

1959: \left(\theta_1\theta_2\right)^{d/2} \int \,d{\bf c}_{1}\,\int

1960: \,d{\bf c}_{2}\,y\, e^{-(\theta

1961: _{1}c_{1}^{2}+\theta_{2}c_{2}^{2})}\left[ x_2\gamma_1^{-1}({\bf

1962: c}_{1}\cdot {\bf y}) -x_1\gamma_2^{-1}({\bf c}_{2}\cdot {\bf

1963: y})\right], \label{c6}

1964: \end{equation}

1965: where ${\bf c}_{i}\equiv {\bf V}_{i}/v_{0}$ and ${\bf y}\equiv {\bf c}_1-{\bf

1966: c}_2$. The integral can be performed by the change of variables

1967: $\{{\bf c}_1,{\bf c}_2\}\to \{{\bf y},{\bf z}\}$, where ${\bf

1968: z}\equiv \theta _{1} {\bf c}_{1}+\theta _{2}{\bf c}_{2}$ and the

1969: Jacobian is $\left( \theta _{1}+\theta _{2}\right) ^{-d}$. With

1970: this change, Eq.\ (\ref{c6}) becomes

1971: \begin{equation}

1972: \label{c6.1} \nu=\frac{2}{d}\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}

1973: {\Gamma\left(\frac{d+3}{2}\right)} \nu_0 (1+\alpha _{12}) \pi^{-d}

1974: \left(\theta_1\theta_2\right)^{(d+1)/2}\left( \theta _{1}+\theta

1975: _{2}\right) ^{-(1+d)}(x_2\mu_{21}+x_1\mu_{12})\int \,d{\bf

1976: y}\,\int \,d{\bf z}\,y^3 e^{-(a y^{2}+b z^{2})},

1977: \end{equation}

1978: where $a\equiv \theta_1\theta_2\left( \theta _{1}+\theta

1979: _{2}\right) ^{-1}$ and $b\equiv \left( \theta _{1}+\theta

1980: _{2}\right) ^{-1}$. The integral (\ref{c6.1}) can be easily

1981: computed and one directly gets the result (\ref{3.16}) given in

1982: the text for the reduced collision frequency $\nu^*=\nu/\nu_0$.

1983: 

1984: 

1985: The collision frequencies $\tau_{ij}$ defined by Eqs.\

1986: (\ref{4.17}) and (\ref{4.18}) involve collision integrals of the

1987: form

1988: \begin{equation}

1989: \label{c8} \int d{\bf v}_1 {\bf V}_{1}{\bf V}_{1}

1990:  J_{ij}[f_i,f_j]=\sigma_{ij}^{d-1}\int\, d{\bf

1991: v}_1\int\, d{\bf v}_2\, f_i({\bf V}_1) f_j({\bf V}_2)  \int

1992: d\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}\,\Theta (\widehat{\boldsymbol

1993: {\sigma}} \cdot {\bf g}_{12})(\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}\cdot

1994: {\bf g}_{12})\,\left[ {\bf V}_1''{\bf V}_{1}''-{\bf V}_{1}{\bf

1995: V}_{1}\right],

1996: \end{equation}

1997: where the identity (\ref{c1}) has been used. The scattering rule

1998: (\ref{c2}) gives

1999: \begin{equation}

2000: \label{c9} {\bf V}_{1}''{\bf V}_{1}''-{\bf V}_{1}{\bf

2001: V}_{1}=-\mu_{ji}(1+ \alpha_{ij})(\widehat{\boldsymbol

2002: {\sigma}}\cdot {\bf g}_{12})\left[ {\bf

2003: G}_{ij}\widehat{\boldsymbol

2004: {\sigma}}+\widehat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}{\bf G}_{ij} +\mu_{ji}({\bf

2005: g}_{12}\widehat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}+\widehat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}{\bf

2006: g}_{12}) -\mu_{ji}(1+\alpha_{ij})(\widehat{\boldsymbol

2007: {\sigma}}\cdot {\bf g}_{12})

2008: \widehat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\widehat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\right],

2009: \end{equation}

2010: where ${\bf G}_{ij}=\mu_{ij}{\bf V}_1+\mu_{ji}{\bf V}_2$.

2011: Substitution of Eq.\ (\ref{c9}) into Eq.\ (\ref{c8}) allows the

2012: angular integral to be performed with the result

2013: \begin{eqnarray}

2014: \label{c10} \int d\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}\,\Theta

2015: (\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}\cdot {\bf g

2016: }_{12})(\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}\cdot {\bf g}_{12})&&\left[

2017: {\bf V}_{1}''{\bf V}_{1}''-{\bf V}_{1}{\bf V}_{1}\right]= -B_3 m_i

2018: \mu_{ji}(1+\alpha _{ij})\left[g_{12}({\bf G}_{ij}{\bf g}_{12}+

2019: {\bf g}_{12}{\bf G}_{ij})\right. \nonumber\\

2020: & &\left. +3\frac{\mu_{ji}}{d+3}

2021: (1+\frac{2d}{3}-\alpha_{ij})g_{12}{\bf g}_{12}{\bf g}_{12}

2022: -\frac{\mu_{ji}}{d+3}(1+\alpha_{ij})g^3\openone\right].

2023: \end{eqnarray}

2024: Using (\ref{c10}) the integrals defining $\tau_{ij}$ can be calculated by the same

2025: mathematical steps as those made before for $\nu$. After a lengthy calculation, one gets

2026: \begin{eqnarray}

2027: \label{c11} \int d{\bf v}_1 R_{1,k\ell}J_{12}[f_1^{(0)},

2028: f_{2,M}R_{2,k\ell}] &=&

2029: -\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{2d\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}m_1

2030: m_2n_1n_2\mu_{21}(1+\alpha_{12}) \sigma_{12}^{d-1}

2031: v_0^5 \left(\theta_1\theta_2\right)^{-1/2}\nonumber\\

2032: & \times &

2033: \left\{2(d+3)(d-1)(\mu_{12}\theta_2-\mu_{21}\theta_1)\theta_2^{-2}

2034: \left(\theta_1+\theta_2\right)^{-1/2}\right.\nonumber\\

2035: & & +3(d-1)\mu_{21}\left(1+\frac{2d}{3}-\alpha_{12}\right)

2036: \theta_2^{-2}\left(\theta_1+\theta_2\right)^{1/2}\nonumber\\

2037: & & \left.

2038: -\left[2d(d+1)-4\right]\theta_2^{-1}\left(\theta_1+\theta_2\right)^{-1/2}\right\},

2039: \end{eqnarray}

2040: \begin{eqnarray}

2041: \label{c12} \int d{\bf v}_1 R_{1,k\ell}J_{12}[f_{1,M}R_{1,k\ell},

2042: f_2^{(0)}] &=&

2043: -\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{2d\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}m_1

2044: m_2n_1n_2\mu_{21}(1+\alpha_{12}) \sigma_{12}^{d-1}

2045: v_0^5 \left(\theta_1\theta_2\right)^{-1/2}\nonumber\\

2046: & \times &

2047: \left\{2(d+3)(d-1)(\mu_{12}\theta_2-\mu_{21}\theta_1)\theta_1^{-2}

2048: \left(\theta_1+\theta_2\right)^{-1/2}\right.\nonumber\\

2049: & & +3(d-1)\mu_{21}\left(1+\frac{2d}{3}-\alpha_{12}\right)

2050: \theta_1^{-2}\left(\theta_1+\theta_2\right)^{1/2}\nonumber\\

2051: & & \left.

2052: +\left[2d(d+1)-4\right]\theta_1^{-1}\left(\theta_1+\theta_2\right)^{-1/2}\right\},

2053: \end{eqnarray}

2054: \begin{eqnarray}

2055: \label{c13} \int d{\bf v}_1

2056: R_{1,k\ell}\left\{J_{11}[f_1^{(0)},f_{1,M}R_{1,k\ell}]

2057: +J_{11}[f_{1,M}R_{1,k\ell},f_1^{(0)}]\right\}

2058: &=&-\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}m_1^2

2059: n_1^2(1+\alpha_{11})\sigma_1^{d-1} (T_1/m_1)^{5/2}\nonumber\\

2060: & & \times\frac{6(d-1)}{d}

2061: \left(1+\frac{2d}{3}-\alpha_{11}\right).

2062: \end{eqnarray}

2063: The corresponding expressions for $\tau_{ij}$ can be easily

2064: inferred from Eqs. \ (\ref{c11})--(\ref{c13}).

2065: 

2066: 

2067: The collision frequencies $\nu_{ij}$ and $\omega_{ij}$ that

2068: determine the heat flux are defined by Eqs.\ (\ref{4.17}),

2069: (\ref{4.18}), and (\ref{4.19}), respectively. To evaluate these

2070: collision integrals, one needs the partial results

2071: \begin{eqnarray}

2072: \label{c15} {\bf S}_{i}({\bf V}_{1}^{^{\prime \prime}})-{\bf

2073: S}_{i}({\bf V}_{1}) &=& \frac{m_{i}}{2}(1+\alpha

2074: _{ij})\mu_{ji}(\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}\cdot {\bf g

2075: }_{12})\left\{ \left[

2076: (1-\alpha_{ij}^{2})\mu_{ji}^{2}(\widehat{\boldsymbol

2077: {\sigma}}\cdot {\bf

2078: g}_{12})^{2}-G_{ij}^{2}-\mu_{ji}^{2}g_{12}^{2}\right.

2079: \right.   \nonumber \\

2080: &&\left. -2\mu_{ji}({\bf g}_{12}\cdot {\bf

2081: G}_{ij})+2(1+\alpha_{ij})\mu _{ji}(\widehat{\boldsymbol

2082: {\sigma}}\cdot {\bf g}_{12})(\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma }} \cdot

2083: {\bf G}_{ij})+(d+2)\frac{T_{i}}{m_{i}}\right] \widehat{\boldsymbol

2084: {\sigma}}

2085: \nonumber \\

2086: &&-\left[ (1-\alpha_{ij})\mu_{ji}(\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma

2087: }}\cdot {\bf g}_{12} )+2(\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}\cdot {\bf

2088: G}_{ij})\right] {\bf G}_{ij}

2089: \nonumber \\

2090: &&\left.

2091: -\mu_{ji}\left[(1-\alpha_{ij})\mu_{ji}(\widehat{\boldsymbol

2092: {\sigma}} \cdot {\bf g}_{12})+2(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot

2093: {\bf G}_{ij}) \right] {\bf g}_{12}\right\},

2094: \end{eqnarray}

2095: \begin{eqnarray}

2096: \label{c16} \int d\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}\,\Theta

2097: (\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}\cdot {\bf g

2098: }_{12})(\widehat{\boldsymbol {\sigma}}\cdot {\bf g}_{12}) &&\left[

2099: {\bf S}_{i}( {\bf V}_{1}^{^{\prime \prime }})-{\bf S}_{i}({\bf

2100: V}_{1})\right] =-\frac{

2101: m_{i}}{2}\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d+3}{2}\right)}

2102: (1+\alpha_{ij})\mu_{ji}\nonumber\\

2103: & &\times \left\{ \left[

2104: g_{12}G_{ij}^{2}+\mu_{ji}^{2}\frac{4\alpha_{ij}^{2}-(d+3)\alpha

2105: _{ij}+2(d+1)}{d+3} g_{12}^{3}\right.\right.\nonumber\\

2106: & & \left. -2\mu_{ji}\frac{3\alpha_{ij}-2d-3}{d+3} g_{12}\left(

2107: {\bf g}_{12}\cdot {\bf G}_{ij}\right) -(d+2)\frac{T_{i}}{m_{i}}

2108: g_{12}\right] {\bf g}_{12}  \nonumber \\

2109: &&\left. +\left[ 2 g_{12}\left( {\bf g}_{12}\cdot {\bf

2110: G}_{ij}\right) -\mu_{ji}\frac{(d+5)\alpha_{ij}-d-1}{d+3}

2111: g_{12}^{3}\right] {\bf G}_{ij}\right\} \;.

2112: \end{eqnarray}

2113: The integrals $\omega_{ij}$ and $\nu_{ij}$ can be explicitly

2114: evaluated by using (\ref{c16}) and the same mathematical steps as

2115: before. After a lengthy algebra, one gets

2116: \begin{eqnarray}

2117: \label{c17} \omega_{12}&=&\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}

2118: {\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}\frac{2}{d\sqrt{2}}

2119: \left(\frac{\sigma_1}{\sigma_{12}}\right)^{d-1}x_1

2120: \theta_1^{-1/2}(1-\alpha_{11}^2)\nonumber\\

2121: & & +\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}

2122: {\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}\frac{2}{d(d+2)}

2123: x_1\mu_{21}(1+\alpha_{12})(\theta_1+\theta_2)^{-1/2}\theta_1^{1/2}

2124: \theta_2^{-3/2}\left(\frac{x_2}{x_1}A-\gamma B\right),

2125: \end{eqnarray}

2126: \begin{eqnarray}

2127: \label{c18}

2128: \nu_{11}&=&\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}

2129: \frac{8}{d(d+2)}\left(\frac{\sigma_1}{\sigma_{12}}\right)^{d-1}

2130: x_1 (2\theta_1)^{-1/2}

2131: (1+\alpha_{11})\left[\frac{d-1}{2}+\frac{3}{16}(d+8)(1-\alpha_{11})\right]\nonumber\\

2132: & & +\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}

2133: \frac{1}{d(d+2)}x_2\mu_{21}(1+\alpha_{12})\left(\frac{\theta_1}

2134: {\theta_2(\theta_1+\theta_2)}\right)^{3/2}\left[E-(d+2)\frac{\theta_1+\theta_2}{\theta_1}A\right],

2135: \end{eqnarray}

2136: \begin{equation}

2137: \label{c19}

2138: \nu_{12}=-\frac{\pi^{(d-1)/2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)}

2139: \frac{1}{d(d+2)}x_2\frac{\mu_{21}^2}{\mu_{12}}(1+\alpha_{12})\left(\frac{\theta_1}

2140: {\theta_2(\theta_1+\theta_2)}\right)^{3/2}\left[F+(d+2)\frac{\theta_1+\theta_2}{\theta_2}B\right].

2141: \end{equation}

2142: In the above equations we have introduced the quantities

2143: \cite{note}

2144: \begin{eqnarray}

2145: \label{c20}

2146: A&=&(d+2)(2\beta_{12}+\theta_2)+\mu_{21}(\theta_1+\theta_2)\left\{(d+2)(1-\alpha_{12})

2147: -[(11+d)\alpha_{12}-5d-7]\beta_{12}\theta_1^{-1}\right\}\nonumber\\

2148: & &

2149: +3(d+3)\beta_{12}^2\theta_1^{-1}+2\mu_{21}^2\left(2\alpha_{12}^{2}-\frac{d+3}{2}\alpha

2150: _{12}+d+1\right)\theta_1^{-1}(\theta_1+\theta_2)^2-

2151: (d+2)\theta_2\theta_1^{-1}(\theta_1+\theta_2), \nonumber\\

2152: \end{eqnarray}

2153: \begin{eqnarray}

2154: \label{c21} B&=&

2155: (d+2)(2\beta_{12}-\theta_1)+\mu_{21}(\theta_1+\theta_2)\left\{(d+2)(1-\alpha_{12})

2156: +[(11+d)\alpha_{12}-5d-7]\beta_{12}\theta_2^{-1}\right\}\nonumber\\

2157: & &

2158: -3(d+3)\beta_{12}^2\theta_2^{-1}-2\mu_{21}^2\left(2\alpha_{12}^{2}-\frac{d+3}{2}\alpha

2159: _{12}+d+1\right)\theta_2^{-1}(\theta_1+\theta_2)^2+

2160: (d+2)(\theta_1+\theta_2), \nonumber\\

2161: \end{eqnarray}

2162: \begin{eqnarray}

2163: \label{c22} E&=&

2164:  2\mu_{21}^2\theta_1^{-2}(\theta_1+\theta_2)^2

2165: \left(2\alpha_{12}^{2}-\frac{d+3}{2}\alpha_{12}+d+1\right)

2166: \left[(d+2)\theta_1+(d+5)\theta_2\right]\nonumber\\

2167: & & -\mu_{21}(\theta_1+\theta_2)

2168: \left\{\beta_{12}\theta_1^{-2}[(d+2)\theta_1+(d+5)\theta_2][(11+d)\alpha_{12}

2169: -5d-7]\right.\nonumber\\

2170: & & \left.

2171: -\theta_2\theta_1^{-1}[20+d(15-7\alpha_{12})+d^2(1-\alpha_{12})-28\alpha_{12}]

2172: -(d+2)^2(1-\alpha_{12})\right\}

2173: \nonumber\\

2174: & & +3(d+3)\beta_{12}^2\theta_1^{-2}[(d+2)\theta_1+(d+5)\theta_2]+

2175: 2\beta_{12}\theta_1^{-1}[(d+2)^2\theta_1+(24+11d+d^2)\theta_2]

2176: \nonumber\\

2177: & & +(d+2)\theta_2\theta_1^{-1}

2178: [(d+8)\theta_1+(d+3)\theta_2]-(d+2)(\theta_1+\theta_2)\theta_1^{-2}\theta_2

2179: [(d+2)\theta_1+(d+3)\theta_2],\nonumber\\

2180: \end{eqnarray}

2181: \begin{eqnarray}

2182: \label{c23} F&=&

2183:  2\mu_{21}^2\theta_2^{-2}(\theta_1+\theta_2)^2

2184: \left(2\alpha_{12}^{2}-\frac{d+3}{2}\alpha_{12}+d+1\right)

2185: \left[(d+5)\theta_1+(d+2)\theta_2\right]\nonumber\\

2186: & & -\mu_{21}(\theta_1+\theta_2)

2187: \left\{\beta_{12}\theta_2^{-2}[(d+5)\theta_1+(d+2)\theta_2][(11+d)\alpha_{12}

2188: -5d-7]\right.\nonumber\\

2189: & & \left.

2190: +\theta_1\theta_2^{-1}[20+d(15-7\alpha_{12})+d^2(1-\alpha_{12})-28\alpha_{12}]

2191: +(d+2)^2(1-\alpha_{12})\right\}

2192: \nonumber\\

2193: & & +3(d+3)\beta_{12}^2\theta_2^{-2}[(d+5)\theta_1+(d+2)\theta_2]-

2194: 2\beta_{12}\theta_2^{-1}[(24+11d+d^2)\theta_1+(d+2)^2\theta_2]

2195: \nonumber\\

2196: & & +(d+2)\theta_1\theta_2^{-1}

2197: [(d+3)\theta_1+(d+8)\theta_2]-(d+2)(\theta_1+\theta_2)\theta_2^{-1}

2198: [(d+3)\theta_1+(d+2)\theta_2]. \nonumber\\

2199: \end{eqnarray}

2200: Here, $\beta_{12}=\mu_{12}\theta_2-\mu_{21}\theta_1$. From Eqs.\

2201: (\ref{c17})--(\ref{c23}), one easily gets the expressions for

2202: $\omega_{21}$, $\nu_{22}$ and $\nu_{21}$ by interchanging

2203: $1\leftrightarrow 2$.

2204: 

2205: 

2206: In the case of a three-dimensional system ($d=3$), all the above

2207: results reduce to those previously obtained for hard spheres when

2208: one takes Maxwellian distributions for the reference homogeneous

2209: cooling state. \cite{GD02,MGD06}

2210: 

2211: 

2212: 

2213: \begin{thebibliography} {99}

2214: 

2215: \bibitem{GS95}A. Goldshtein and M. Shapiro, Mechanics of collisional motion of granular materials.

2216: Part 1. General hydrodynamic equations, {\em J. Fluid Mech.} {\bf

2217: 282}:75--114 (1995).

2218: 

2219: \bibitem{BDS97}J. J. Brey, J. W. Dufty, and A. Santos, Dissipative

2220: dynamics for hard spheres, {\em J. Stat. Phys.} {\bf

2221: 87}:1051--1066 (1997).

2222: 

2223: \bibitem{BP04}N. V. Brilliantov and T. P\"oschel, {\em Kinetic Theory

2224: of Granular Gases} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004).

2225: 

2226: \bibitem{CC70}S. Chapman and T. G. Cowling, {\em The Mathematical Theory of Nonuniform Gases}

2227: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970).

2228: 

2229: \bibitem{simple}J. J. Brey, J. W. Dufty, C. S. Kim, and A. Santos,

2230: Hydrodynamics for granular flow at low-density, {\em Phys. Rev. E}

2231: {\bf 58}:4638--4653 (1998); J. J. Brey and D. Cubero, Hydrodynamic

2232: transport coefficients of granular gases, in {\em Granular Gases},

2233: edited by T. P\"oschel and S. Luding, Lecture Notes in Physics

2234: (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2001), pp. 59--78; V. Garz\'o and J. M.

2235: Montanero, Transport coefficients of a heated granular gas, {\em

2236: Physica A} {\bf 313}:336--356 (2002).

2237: 

2238: \bibitem{mixture}J. T. Jenkins and F. Mancini, Kinetic theory for binary

2239: mixtures of smooth, nearly elastic spheres, {\em Phys. Fluids A}

2240: {\bf 1}:2050--2057 (1989); P. Zamankhan, Kinetic theory for

2241: multicomponent dense mixtures of slightly inelastic spherical

2242: particles, {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 52}:4877--4891 (1995); B.

2243: Arnarson and J. T. Willits, Thermal diffusion in binary mixtures

2244: of smooth, nearly elastic spheres with and without gravity, {\em

2245: Phys. Fluids} {\bf 10}:1324--1328 (1998); J. T. Willits and B.

2246: Arnarson, Kinetic theory of a binary mixture of nearly elastic

2247: disks, {\em Phys. Fluids} {\bf 11}:3116--3122 (1999).

2248: 

2249: 

2250: 

2251: \bibitem{GD99b}  V. Garz\'{o} and J. W. Dufty, Homogeneous cooling

2252: state for a granular mixture, {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf

2253: 60}:5706--5713 (1999).

2254: 

2255: \bibitem{MP99}P. A. Martin and J. Piasecki, Thermalization of a particle by

2256: dissipative collisions, {\em Europhys. Lett.} {\bf 46}:613--616

2257: (1999).

2258: 

2259: \bibitem{computer}See for instance, J. M. Montanero and V. Garz\'o,

2260: Monte Carlo simulation of the homogeneous cooling state for a granular mixture, {\em Gran. Matt.} {\bf 4}:17--24

2261: (2002); A. Barrat and E. Trizac, Lack of energy equipartition in homogeneous heated binary granular mixtures,

2262: {\em ibid.} {\bf 4}:57--63 (2002); S. R. Dahl, C. M. Hrenya, V. Garz\'o, and J. W. Dufty, Kinetic temperatures

2263: for a granular mixture, {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 66}:041301 (2002); R. Pagnani, U. M. B. Marconi, and A. Puglisi,

2264: Driven low density granular mixtures, {\em ibid.} {\bf 66}:051304 (2002); D. Paolotti, C. Cattuto, U. M. B.

2265: Marconi, and A. Puglisi, Dynamical properties of vibrofluidized granular mixtures, {\em Gran. Matt.} {\bf

2266: 5}:75--83 (2003); P. Krouskop and J. Talbot, Mass and size effects in three-dimensional vibrofluidized granular

2267: mixtures, {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 68}: 021304 (2003); H. Wang, G. Jin, and Y. Ma, Simulation study on kinetic

2268: temperatures of vibrated binary granular mixtures, {\em ibid.} {\bf 68}:031301 (2003); J. J. Brey, M. J.

2269: Ruiz-Montero, and F. Moreno, Energy partition and segregation for an intruder in a vibrated granular system

2270: under gravity, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 95}:098001 (2005); M. Schr\"oter, S. Ulrich , J. Kreft , J. B. Swift,

2271: and H. L. Swinney, Mechanisms in the size segregation of a binary granular mixture, {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf

2272: 74}:011307 (2006).

2273: 

2274: 

2275: \bibitem{exp1}R. D. Wildman and D. J. Parker, Coexistence of two granular

2276: temperatures in binary vibrofluidized beds, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 88}:064301 (2002); K. Feitosa and N.

2277: Menon, Breakdown of energy equipartition in a 2D binary vibrated granular gas, {\em ibid.} {\bf 88}:198301

2278: (2002).

2279: 

2280: \bibitem{JM87}J. Jenkins and F. Mancini, Balance laws and constitutive relations

2281: for plane flows of a dense binary mixture of smooth, nearly elastic, circular disks, {\em J. Appl. Mech.} {\bf

2282: 54}:27--34 (1987).

2283: 

2284: 

2285: \bibitem{GD02}V. Garz\'o and J. W. Dufty, Hydrodynamics for a granular binary mixture

2286: at low density, {\em Phys. Fluids} {\bf 14}:1476--1490 (2002).

2287: 

2288: \bibitem{GA05}V. Garz\'o  and A. Astillero, Transport coefficients

2289: for inelastic Maxwell mixtures, {\em J. Stat. Phys.} {\bf

2290: 118}:935--971 (2005).

2291: 

2292: 

2293: 

2294: \bibitem{MGD06}V. Garz\'o, J. M. Montanero, and J. W. Dufty, Mass

2295: and heat fluxes for a binary granular mixture at low-density, {\em

2296: Phys. Fluids} {\bf 18}:083305 (2006).

2297: 

2298: \bibitem{GM04}V. Garz\'o and J. M. Montanero, Diffusion of impurities in a granular gas,

2299: {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 69}: 021301 (2004).

2300: 

2301: \bibitem{MG03}J. M. Montanero and V. Garz\'o, Shear viscosity for a heated granular binary mixture

2302: at low-density, {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 67}:021308 (2003).

2303: 

2304: \bibitem{SGNT06}D. Serero, I. Goldhirsch, S. H. Noskowicz, and M.-L. Tan,

2305: Hydrodynamics of granular gases and granular gas mixtures, {\em J. Fluid Mech.} {\bf 554}:237--258 (2006).

2306: 

2307: \bibitem{exp}See for instance,

2308: S. Warr, J. M. Huntley, and G. T. H. Jacques, Fluidization of a

2309: two-dimensional granular system: Experimental study and scaling

2310: behavior, {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 52}:5583--5595 (1995); J. S.

2311: Olafsen and J. S. Urbach, Velocity distribution and density

2312: fluctuations in a granular gas, {\em ibid.} {\bf 60}:R2468--R2471

2313: (1999); R. D. Wildman, J. M. Huntley, and J. P. Hansen,

2314: Self-diffusion of grains in two-dimensional vibrofluidized bed,

2315: {\em ibid.} {\bf 60}:7066--7075 (1999); F. Rouyer and N. Menon,

2316: Velocity fluctuations in a homogeneous 2D granular gas in steady

2317: state, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 85}:3676--3679 (2000); D. L.

2318: Blair and A. Kudrolli, Velocity correlations in dense granular

2319: flows, {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 64}:050301 (2001); S. Horluck, M.

2320: van Hecke, and P. Dimon, Shock waves in two-dimensional granular

2321: flow: Effects of rough walls and polydispersity, {\em ibid.} {\bf

2322: 67}:021304 (2003).

2323: 

2324: \bibitem{Bird}G. A. Bird, {\em Molecular Gas Dynamics and the Direct

2325: Simulation Monte Carlo of Gas Flows} (Clarendon, Oxford, 1994).

2326: 

2327: \bibitem{SGD04}A. Santos, V. Garz\'o, and J. W. Dufty, Inherent

2328: rheology of a granular fluid in uniform shear flow, {\em Phys.

2329: Rev. E} {\bf 69}:061303 (2004).

2330: 

2331: \bibitem{NE98}T. P. C. van Noije and M. H. Ernst, Velocity

2332: distributions in inhomogeneous granular fluids: the free and the heated case,

2333: {\em Gran. Matt.} {\bf 1}:57--64(1998).

2334: 

2335: \bibitem{G02}V. Garz\'o, Tracer diffusion in granular shear flows, {\em Phys. Rev.

2336: E} {\bf 66}:021308 (2002).

2337: 

2338: 

2339: \bibitem{BRM05}J. J. Brey, M. J. Ruiz-Montero, and F. Moreno, Energy partition

2340: and segregation for an intruder in a vibrated granular system

2341: under gravity, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 95}:098001 (2005);

2342: Hydrodynamic profiles for an impurity in an open vibrated granular

2343: gas, {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 73}:031301 (2006).

2344: 

2345: \bibitem{BC01}J. J. Brey and D. Cubero, Hydrodynamic

2346: transport coefficients of granular gases, in {\em Granular Gases},

2347: edited by T. P\"oschel and S. Luding, Lecture Notes in Physics

2348: (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2001), pp. 59--78.

2349: 

2350: 

2351: \bibitem{M89}J. A. McLennan, {\em Introduction to Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics}

2352: (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1989).

2353: 

2354: 

2355: \bibitem{BRCG00} J. J. Brey, M. J. Ruiz-Montero, D. Cubero, and R. Garc\'{\i}a-Rojo, Self-diffusion in

2356: freely evolving granular gases, {\em Phys. Fluids} {\bf

2357: 12}:876--883 (2000).

2358: 

2359: 

2360: \bibitem{GM03}V. Garz\'o and J. M. Montanero, Shear viscosity for a moderately dense granular

2361: binary mixture, {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 68}:041302 (2003).

2362: 

2363: 

2364: \bibitem{MSG05}J. M. Montanero, A. Santos, and V. Garz\'o, DSMC evaluation of the Navier-Stokes

2365: shear viscosity of a granular fluid, in {\em Rarefied Gas Dynamics

2366: 24}, edited by M. Capitelli (American Institute of Physics, Vol.

2367: 762, 2005), pp. 797--802; preprint arXiv: cond-mat/0411219.

2368: 

2369: \bibitem{BRM04}J. J. Brey and M. J. Ruiz-Montero, Simulation

2370: study of the Green-Kubo relations for dilute granular gases, {\em

2371: Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 70}:051301 (2004).

2372: 

2373: \bibitem{BRMMG05}J. J. Brey, M. J. Ruiz-Montero, P. Maynar, and M.

2374: I. Garc\'{\i}a de Soria, Hydrodynamic modes, Green-Kubo relations,

2375: and velocity correlations in dilute granular gases, {\em J. Phys.:

2376: Condens. Matter} {\bf 17}:S2489--S2502 (2005).

2377: 

2378: \bibitem{MSG06}J. M. Montanero,  A. Santos, and V. Garz\'o, First-order

2379: Chapman-Enskog velocity distribution function in a granular gas,

2380: {\em Physica A} {\bf 376}:75--93 (2007).

2381: 

2382: \bibitem{GSM06}V. Garz\'o, A. Santos, and J. M. Montanero,

2383: Modified Sonine approximation for the Navier-Stokes transport

2384: coefficients of a granular gas, {\em Physica A} {\bf 376}:94--107 (2007).

2385: 

2386: \bibitem{MCK83}M. L\'opez de Haro, E. G. D. Cohen, and J. M.

2387: Kincaid, The Enskog theory for multicomponent mixtures. I. Linear

2388: transport theory, {\em J. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 78}:2746--2759 (1983).

2389: 

2390: \bibitem{GD99a}V. Garz\'{o} and J. W. Dufty, Dense fluid transport for inelastic hard spheres,

2391: {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 59}:5895--5911 (1999).

2392: 

2393: 

2394: \bibitem{EB02}M. H. Ernst and R. Brito, Scaling solutions of inelastic Boltzmann

2395: equations with over-populated high energy tails, {\em J. Stat.

2396: Phys.} {\bf 109}:407--432 (2002).

2397: 

2398: \bibitem{note}Some misprints occur in the expressions given in

2399: Ref.\ \onlinecite{GD02} for the heat flux. The results displayed

2400: here correct and extend such results to $d$ dimensions.

2401: 

2402: 

2403: \end{thebibliography}

2404: 

2405: 

2406: \end{document}

2407: