NLTE abundances of Mn in a sample of metal-poor stars

Abstract: Following our solar work, we perform NLTE calculations of the Mn abundance for fourteen stars with [Fe/H] from 0 to -2.5, mainly to show how NLTE affects Mn abundances in cool stars of different metallicities.The spectrum synthesis and Mn abundances are based on statistical equilibrium calculations using various estimates for the influence of hydrogen collisions.The NLTE abundances of Mn in all studied stars are systematically higher than the LTE abundances. At low metallicities, the NLTE abundance corrections may run up to 0.5 - 0.7 dex. Instead of a strong depletion of Mn relative to Fe in metal-poor stars as found by the other authors, we only find slightly subsolar values of [Mn/Fe] throughout the range of metallicities analyzed here. The [Mn/Fe] trend in metal-poor stars is inconsistent with the predictions of galactic chemical evolution models, where Mn is less produced than Fe.

\section{Introduction}
The abundances of manganese in stars of different populations have been
extensively studied during the past decades (Gratton 1989; Ryan et al.
\cite{RNB96}; Nissen et al. \cite{Nissen00}; Prochaska \& McWilliam
\cite{Proch00}; see also the review of Wheeler et al. \cite{Wheeler89}).
Although different methods and assumptions were applied to determine the Mn
abundances, they all agree that this element is deficient compared to iron in
metal-poor stars. The degree of the derived Mn depletion is claimed to vary from
the thin disk to the halo and bulge populations, and from cluster to field stars
(Gratton \cite{Gratton89}), and it is different for the Milky Way and the Sgr
dwarf galaxy (Prochaska \& McWilliam \cite{Proch00}).

Different assumptions are invoked to explain the trends, but they cannot
reconcile all observational facts simultaneously, especially when other elements
of the iron group (Cr, Co, and Ni) are considered. A critical issue is the main
astrophysical production site of manganese. While some favor the hypothesis of
a Mn overproduction with respect to Fe in supernovae of type Ia (Prochaska \&
McWilliam \cite{Proch00}; Nissen et al. \cite{Nissen00}, Sobeck et al.
\cite{Sobeck06}), McWilliam et al. (\cite{MR03}) suggest that
metallicity-dependent yields from type II supernovae can explain the observed
abundance trend. Both hypotheses imply that the Mn/Fe ratio in supernovae grows
with decreasing metal abundance.

No reliable constraint to Mn nucleosynthesis can be drawn from models of late
stellar evolution, because stellar yields depend on many factors that are poorly
known. As was shown among others by Umeda \& Nomoto (\cite{Umeda02}), the
position of the model mass cut influences the ratio of abundances originating
from the alpha-rich freeze-out and from the incomplete Si-burning. This affects
the abundances of Mn, Cr, and Co produced by the decay of $^{55}$Co, $^{52}$Fe,
and $^{59}$Cu, respectively. The explosion energy is another free parameter in
SN nucleosynthesis calculations (Heger \& Woosley \cite{Heger08}), which changes
the yields of a number of iron group elements simultaneously. Because of this,
the interpretation of yields becomes very non-trivial.

As noted above, different methods are used to calculate the Mn abundances. One
detail, however, is common to all analyses so far. The assumption of LTE, which
was shown to depart from reality for many elements, in particular for metal-poor
stars. Most of the NLTE investigations refer to the lighter elements, such as
C, N, O (Asplund et al. \cite{AS05},b; Takeda \& Honda \cite{TH05}) or Na, Mg,
and Al (Gehren et al. \cite{GS06}), but some also deal with heavier elements,
among them Mashonkina et al. (\cite{LM07}: Ca), Korn et al. (\cite{KSG03}: Fe),
Bruls (\cite{Bruls93}: Ni), Mashonkina et al. (\cite{MGTB03}, \cite{MZG08}: Sr,
Ba and Eu). The purpose of this paper is to show the influence of NLTE effects
on the determination of Mn abundances for a sample of reference stars. At
present, we do not pretend to revise the observed trend completely, but even
from our small sample we conclude that the difference between LTE and NLTE Mn
abundances may become large in metal-poor stars. The use of LTE Mn abundances in
modeling Galactic chemical evolution is therefore not supported.

\begin{table*}
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\renewcommand{\footnoterule}{}
\tabcolsep1.7mm \small \caption{Stellar parameters and their estimated errors
for the selected sample. The final model NLTE and LTE abundances of Mn are given
in the last columns. Temperature and surface gravity errors are estimated,
whereas $\pi/\sigma_\pi$ represents the inverse fractional parallax error. $N$
is the number of Mn lines used for individual stars. See text for further
discussion of the data.}
\label{startab}
\begin{tabular}{lrr@{$\,\pm\,$}lr@{$\,\pm\,$}lcrrrlrr@{$\,\pm\,$}lr@{$\,\pm\,$}l
}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Object\footnote{* marks the stars that were analyzed directly relative to the
Sun. The Mn abundances of all other stars are from analyses relative to
\object{HD 102200}, the results of which were added to the mean logarithmic
abundance ratio [Mn/Fe] of this star relative to the Sun.} & HIP &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$T_{\rm eff}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\log g$} &
   $\xi_{\rm t}$ & [Fe/H] & [Mg/Fe] & $\pi/\sigma_\pi$ & Population & $N$ &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{[Mn/Fe]}\\
  &   & \multicolumn{2}{c}{[K]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ } & [km/s] &   &   &    &
  &   & \multicolumn{2}{c}{NLTE} &
    \multicolumn{2}{c}{LTE} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
HD 19445         &  14594 & 5985 &  80 & 4.39 & 0.05 & 1.5 & $-1.96$ & 0.38 &
22.7 & Halo        & 10 & $-0.20$ & $0.03$ & $-0.52$ & $0.06$ \\
HD 25329         &  18915 & 4800 &  80 & 4.66 & 0.08 & 0.6 & $-1.84$ & 0.42 &
50.1 & Thick disk? &  6 & $-0.06$ & $0.02$ & $-0.23$ & $0.03$ \\
HD 29907         &  21609 & 5573 & 100 & 4.59 & 0.09 & 0.9 & $-1.60$ & 0.43 &
17.3 & Halo?       & 17 & $+0.05$ & $0.03$ & $-0.20$ & $0.03$ \\
HD 34328         &  24316 & 5955 &  70 & 4.47 & 0.07 & 1.3 & $-1.66$ & 0.42 &
14.4 & Halo        & 11 & $-0.10$ & $0.02$ & $-0.37$ & $0.03$ \\
HD 61421*        &  37279 & 6510 & 100 & 3.96 & 0.05 & 1.8 & $-0.03$ & 0.0  &
324.9 & Thin disk   & 17 & $-0.06$ & $0.04$ & $-0.08$ & $0.06$ \\
HD 84937         &  48152 & 6346 & 100 & 4.00 & 0.08 & 1.8 & $-2.16$ & 0.32 &
11.7 & Halo        &  7 & $-0.04$ & $0.02$ & $-0.42$ & $0.08$ \\
HD 102200*       &  57360 & 6120 &  90 & 4.17 & 0.09 & 1.4 & $-1.28$ & 0.34 &
10.5 & Halo        & 11 & $-0.04$ & $0.04$ & $-0.26$ & $0.05$ \\
HD 103095        &  57939 & 5110 & 100 & 4.69 & 0.10 & 1.0 & $-1.35$ & 0.26 &
140.0 & Halo        & 10 & $-0.07$ & $0.02$ & $-0.22$ & $0.03$ \\
BD$-4^\circ3208$ &  59109 & 6310 &  60 & 3.98 & 0.21 & 1.5 & $-2.23$ & 0.34 &
3.7 & Halo        &  4 & $-0.12$ & $0.00$ & $-0.56$ & $0.09$ \\
HD 122196        &  68464 & 5957 &  80 & 3.84 & 0.11 & 1.7 & $-1.78$ & 0.24 &
7.4 & Halo        & 12 & $-0.14$ & $0.03$ & $-0.47$ & $0.07$ \\
HD 122563        &  68594 & 4600 & 100 & 1.50 & 0.20 & 1.9 & $-2.51$ & 0.45 &
5.2 & Halo        &  7 & $-0.15$ & $0.05$ & $-0.59$ & $0.10$ \\
HD 140283        &  76976 & 5773 &  60 & 3.66 & 0.05 & 1.5 & $-2.38$ & 0.43 &
18.0 & Halo        &  7 & $+0.02$ & $0.02$ & $-0.45$ & $0.10$ \\
G20-8            &  86443 & 6115 &  80 & 4.20 & 0.20 & 1.5 & $-2.19$ & 0.4  &
5.1  & Halo        &  2 & $-0.02$ & $0.03$ & $-0.48$ & $0.03$ \\
HD 200580        & 103987 & 5940 &  80 & 3.96 & 0.06 & 1.4 & $-0.82$ & 0.46 &
13.8 & Thick disk  & 10 & $+0.26$ & $0.07$ & $+0.14$ & $0.07$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
The paper is set as follows. The observed spectra and their reduction are
described in Sect. 2. The NLTE calculations and spectrum synthesis are
documented in Sect. 3. We present a considerable amount of details about the
methods of calculation, because this is very important for a judgement of the
resulting abundances. Methods of the abundance calculations and spectrum
synthesis are described in Sect. 4, and the main results are summarized in Sect.
5. They include the run of Mn/Fe abundance ratios with overall metallicity, a
comparison with some recent LTE results for Mn abundances, and their relation
to the chemical evolution of the Milky Way.
\section{Observations and stellar parameters}
Our sample consists of fourteen stars that were observed with the ESO UVES
echelle spectrograph at the VLT UT2 on the Paranal, Chile, in 2001, and with the
FOCES echelle spectrograph mounted on the 2.2m telescope of the CAHA observatory
on Calar Alto, during 1999 and 2000. For four stars (\object{HD 61421},
\object{HD 84937}, \object{HD 140283}, and \object{BD$-4^\circ3208$}), spectra
obtained with both telescopes were available. The UVES spectra have a
slit-determined resolution of $\lambda/\Delta\lambda \sim 50000$ and a
signal-to-noise ratio better than $S/N \sim 300$ near 5000 \AA. The data cover a
spectral range from 3300 to 6700 \AA, with a beam-splitter gap between 4470 and
4620 \AA. For the other stars, either only UVES spectra (\object{HD 29907},
\object{HD 34328}, \object{HD 102200}, \object{HD 122196}) or FOCES spectra
(\object{HD 19445}, \object{HD 25329}, \object{HD 103095}, \object{HD 200580})
were available. The latter have a resolution of $\sim 60000$ but an $S/N$ of
only $\sim 200$ near 5000 \AA, with the exception of \object{G20-8}, which was
observed with a resolution of only $\sim 40000$. The UVES observations of
\object{Procyon} (\object{HD 61421}) and \object{HD 84937} were taken from the
UVESPOP survey (Bagnulo et al. \cite{Bagnulo03}). All stars on our list were
observed at least twice. Table 1 lists the basic stellar parameters and the
abundance results for our stars. The individual population membership is taken
from Gehren et al. (\cite{GS06}), based on the [Al/Mg] ratio and stellar
kinematics. It is evident that most stars of the sample belong to the halo.

Parameters for most of the stars were taken from the analyses of Gehren et al.
(\cite{GLSZZ04}, \cite{GS06}), and Fuhrmann (\cite{KF04}). They were obtained
using the Balmer line profile fits of H$_\alpha$ and H$_\beta$ for the
determination of $T_{\rm eff}$, a method quantified in Fuhrmann et al.
(\cite{Fuhrmann93}). The errors are obtained directly from profile fitting, and
they are estimated to stay within $\pm 50 \ldots 100$ K depending on a number of
assumptions that add to systematic errors (e.g., line broadening theory,
type of atmospheric models, treatment of convection). Generally, however, the
method is the most reliable among all of the methods available for the
temperature determination of solar-type stars. The calculation of the
surface gravity acceleration $\log g$ is based on {\sc Hipparcos} parallaxes and
on masses estimated from tracks of stellar evolution kindly provided by
VandenBerg et al. (\cite{DV00}) as indicated in Fuhrmann et al. (\cite{F97}) or
Gehren et al. (\cite{GLSZZ04}, \cite{GS06}). Using the common symbol [$X$] to
denote the logarithmic value of a stellar parameter $X$ relative to the
\object{Sun}, it follows that the errors propagate as $\Delta[g] =
\Delta[M]+2\Delta[\pi]+4\Delta[T_{\rm eff}]$ with some minor additional error from
interstellar extinction and bolometric correction. Since the individual errors
in mass, parallax and temperature are largely independent, the errors of $\log
g$ for turnoff stars are caused almost entirely by the parallax errors,
whereas errors in mass determination or temperature are usually at least a
factor of $2$ smaller, and those from reddening or bolometric correction are
even less. Two exceptions to this rule are the cool main sequence stars
\object{HD 29907} and \object{HD 103095}, for which the \emph{mass}
determination is most uncertain. We note that the worst parallax of all stars in
our sample is that of \object{BD$-4^\circ3208$} with $\sigma_\pi/\pi = 0.27$;
this makes that particular surface gravity uncertain by more than $\pm 0.2$ dex.
The iron abundance and microturbulence velocities are derived from fitting
\ion{Fe}{ii} line profiles under the requirement that the Fe abundances are
independent of line strengths. The uncertainties in [Fe/H] and $\xi_{\rm t}$ are
estimated to be 0.05 dex and 0.2 km s$^{-1}$, respectively.

One and the same type of atmospheric model is used to determine stellar
parameters and perform spectrum synthesis. The models are line-blanketed LTE
atmospheres generated by the MAFAGS code (Fuhrmann et al. \cite{F97}). They use
the opacity distribution functions of Kurucz (\cite{Kurucz92}), and they
reproduce the corresponding ATLAS9 models to within $< 20$ K. To account for the
high Fe abundance in these ODFs ($\log\varepsilon_{\rm Fe,\odot} = 7.67$), our
models are scaled down in overall metal abundance by $-0.16$ dex. Since with the
exception of \object{Procyon} our sample contains only thick disk and halo
stars, the ODFs for the rest of the sample were additionally scaled for an
$\alpha$-element overbundance of +0.4 dex, in rough agreement with previous
analyses (Fuhrmann \cite{KF04}; Gehren at al. \cite{GS06}). A few of the stars
are not easy to interpret. HD 25329 is nitrogen-rich, and HD 29907 is a
single-lined binary. Both have an [Al/Mg] ratio that is typical of the thick
disk rather than of the halo, but both have [Fe/H] abundances more typical of
the Galactic halo. The asymmetrical drift velocity of HD 29907 deviates
significantly from the average thick-disk velocity distribution, and its
[Eu/Ba] ratio is also typical of the halo (Mashonkina et al. \cite{MGTB03}).
\section{Methods of NLTE calculations}
The NLTE level departure coefficients $b_i(\tau)$ are calculated using a Mn
model atom similar to that described in Paper I; minor modifications in the
model refer to the treatment of photoionization cross-sections and a number of
levels. The code DETAIL (Butler \& Giddings \cite{Butler85}) based on the method
of accelerated lambda iteration is used. We adopt the effective principal
quantum numbers in calculation of photoionization cross-sections. The model is
constructed with $245$ levels of \ion{Mn}{i} and closed by the ground state of
\ion{Mn}{ii}; it is by a factor of two smaller than the model atom investigated
in Paper I. Neglecting \ion{Mn}{ii} levels and \ion{Mn}{iii} ground state has
almost no influence on the behavior of \ion{Mn}{i} level departure coefficients.
Figure \ref{hd140283} shows that departure coefficients for the levels of
interest calculated for the most metal-poor star \object{HD 140283} are
identical over the whole optical depth scale. The difference in the models is
only reflected in the behavior of the \ion{Mn}{ii} ground state and
highly-excited \ion{Mn}{i} levels in the outer atmosphere. The main advantage is
that the time of computation is decreased significantly with the reduced atomic
model.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{10098Fi1.ps}}\hfill
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{10098Fi2.ps}} \vspace{0mm}
\caption[]{Departure coefficients $b_i$ of selected \ion{Mn}{i} levels for
the metal-poor subgiant \object{HD 140283}: (a) reduced model with 245
levels of \ion{Mn}{i} and closed by the \ion{Mn}{ii} ground state; (b) full
model with 459 levels of \ion{Mn}{i}, \ion{Mn}{ii}, and \ion{Mn}{iii}.}
\label{hd140283}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{-4mm}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{10098Fi3.ps}}\hfill
\vspace{-4mm}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{10098Fi4.ps}}\hfill
\vspace{-4mm}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{10098Fi5.ps}}\hfill
\vspace{-4mm} \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{10098Fi6.ps}}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption[]{Departure coefficients $b_i$ of selected \ion{Mn}{i}
levels for stellar models with different parameters.} \label{reduced}
\end{figure}

We performed test calculations for selected models from a grid of theoretical
atmospheres with the purpose of investigating NLTE effects for \ion{Mn}{i} as a
function of stellar parameters. In this range, $T_\mathrm{eff}$ varies between
5000 and 6200 K, $3.0 \leq \log g \leq 4.6$, and $-3.0 \leq \mathrm{[Fe/H]} \leq
0.0$. The microturbulent velocity $\xi_{\rm t} = 1 $ is assumed in all models. The
inelastic collisions with hydrogen atoms were neglected in the test calculations
($\SH = 0$). This results in slightly stronger NLTE effects compared to the
case when hydrogen collisions are accounted for with our standard value ($\SH =
0.05$). On the other hand, a simple hydrogenic approximation for photoionization
underestimates the NLTE effects in \ion{Mn}{i} (see a discussion in Paper I). As
both assumptions work in opposite directions, we expect that our test models
are representative of the true NLTE effects acting in \ion{Mn}{i}. We show in
Sect. 5 how variation in $\SH$ affects the abundances calculated from the
line-profile fitting.

The departure coefficients $b_i$ computed for four models of the grid with
different metallicities are shown in Figure \ref{reduced}. All \ion{Mn}{i}
levels involved in transitions of interest are underpopulated above $\log
\tau_{\rm 5000} \approx 0$. This is characteristic of all models irrespective of
the temperature, gravity, and metallicity. Hence the NLTE assumption generally
leads to an increase in the \ion{Mn}{i} line formation depths that forces a
weakening of the lines.

The NLTE effects become more pronounced with increasing effective temperature
and decreasing metallicity. In both cases, the UV radiation field is amplified
and increases the rates of b-b and b-f transitions in the \ion{Mn}{i} atom.
However, metallicity has a stronger influence on the populations of levels of
interest than effective temperature. The reason is that with increasing
temperature the collision rates also increase due to a larger kinetic energy of
the particles. This effect counteracts the NLTE influence of the radiation
field. Whereas decreased metallicity implies a lower number density of metals,
which are the major suppliers of free electrons. As a result, the reduced
continuous opacity in the UV and decreased collision rates result in a strong
depopulation of all \ion{Mn}{i} levels.

In the solar metallicity model (Figure \ref{reduced}a), radiative transitions
with strong optical pumping effects are largely responsible for depopulation of
the low and intermediate energy levels. Photoionization from these levels is
inefficient, and that is the result of too low cross-section approximations
(see discussion in Paper I). In the metal-poor models (Figure \ref{reduced}b and
c), the dominant NLTE process is overionization from the low-excitation levels
\Mn{a}{6}{D}{}{}, \Mn{z}{8}{P}{\circ}{} and \Mn{a}{4}{D}{\circ}{} with
thresholds at $\lambda \sim 2330\ \AA$, $\lambda \sim 2406\ \AA$, and $\lambda
\sim 2727\ \AA$, respectively. Radiative b-b transition rates can no longer
compete with photoionization.

Variation of gravity has a marginal effect on the atomic level populations. For
the whole range of stellar parameters considered here, the change in gravity
from $\log g = 4.6$ to $\log g = 3.0$ results in a slightly weaker coupling of
the levels with each other. This is the result of a decreased collision
frequency, which tends to destroy LTE population ratios between the levels.
We show below that only at [Fe/H] $\leq -2$ and $T_{\rm eff} \geq 6000$ K is the
population of the \ion{Mn}{i} ground state is appreciably affected by the change
of gravity.

\subsection{NLTE and HFS effects on spectral lines and Mn abundances}
The abundance corrections $\Delta_\mathrm{NLTE}$ required to equalize the NLTE
and LTE \emph{equivalent widths} are given in Table \ref{grid}. These values
are calculated with the reference model of the Mn atom, but setting the
scaling factor for hydrogen collisions to 0. Table \ref{gridwithsh} shows the
NLTE abundance corrections for the same models calculated with $\SH = 0.05$.
Hyphens refer to the lines with theoretical NLTE equivalent widths below 3
${\rm m\AA}$. We set this lower limit to the calculated $W_\lambda$ because our spectra
do not have a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio to measure the abundances from
such weak lines with an accuracy of less than 10 \%. For clarity, the
discussion below is based on the data from Table \ref{grid} calculated with
$\SH = 0$. Apart from the guesswork that collisions with neutral hydrogen atoms
may become a main thermalizing mechanism in metal-poor stars, we know nothing
about them.

The NLTE effects on a \ion{Mn}{i} line at $4033$ \AA\ for selected stellar
models from the grid are shown in Figure \ref{grid_figure}a. As in the previous
section, we select three models with different metallicities for comparison.
Other model parameteres are equal: $T_{\rm eff} = 6000$ K and $\log g = 4$.

The NLTE mechanisms, responsible for the behavior of line profiles at a solar
metallicity, were explained in Paper I in detail. The strong lines are
characterized by an amplified absorption in the core and a decreased absorption
in the wings relative to LTE. The physics behind it is the overionization at
the depth of the line-wing formation, where $b_i < 1$ and $b_i < b_j$. At the
depths of the core formation, photon losses in the line wings result in $b_i >
b_j$, so the core in NLTE is deeper than in LTE. The effect on the abundances is
relatively small. As can be seen in Table \ref{grid}, the NLTE abundance
corrections $\Delta_\mathrm{NLTE}$ vary from $+0.1$ to $-0.1$ dex for any model
with [Fe/H] $ = 0$.

With decreasing metallicity, line formation shifts to deeper layers, where
photoionization is dominant in depopulating all \ion{Mn}{i} levels. Maximum
$\Delta_\mathrm{NLTE}$ are found for the excited lines in the models with
$T_\mathrm{eff} \leq 5500$ K and [Fe/H] $\geq -2$.

With increasing $T_\mathrm{eff}$, the stellar flux maximum is shifted to the
shorter wavelengths, and ionization from the ground state of \ion{Mn}{i} becomes
more important. In the models with $T_\mathrm{eff} \geq 6000$ K and [Fe/H] $\leq
-2$, the NLTE abundance effect is more pronounced for the resonance triplet at
403 nm. However, as emphasized above, increasing $T_{\rm eff}$ also increases the
rates of collisions, so maximum NLTE effects for the resonance
lines are in fact found for the moderately warm model ($T_\mathrm{eff} \geq
5500$) with lowest metallicity (least amount of free electrons).

It is remarkable that, for all models with very low metal abundance except
$T_{\rm eff} \sim 5000$ K, we find a difference of $\sim +0.2$ dex between the
NLTE corrections for resonance and excited lines. This difference is enhanced
for the model with lower gravity ($\log g = 3.4$). Thus, NLTE can solve the
discrepancy between the abundances derived from the \ion{Mn}{i} resonance
triplet at $403$ nm and excited lines, which is found in analyses of metal-poor
subdwarfs and subgiants (Gratton \cite{Gratton87}, Gratton \cite{Gratton89}, Lai
et al. \cite{Lai08}). The test calculations for the cool giant model ($T_{\rm eff} =
4800$ K, $\log g = 1.8$, [Fe/H] $= -3.3$, not shown in Table \ref{grid}) also
indicate that the NLTE corrections for the resonance lines are by $\sim 0.15$
dex higher than those for excited lines at $4783$ and $4823$ \AA. This is the
first proof that the discrepancies between two line sets found by Johnson
(\cite{JJ02}) and Cayrel et al. (\cite{Cayrel04}) in their studies of giant
stars are due to NLTE.

\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{10098Fi7.ps}}}
\vspace{0mm} \caption[]{NLTE abundance corrections $\Delta_\mathrm{NLTE}$ (see
text) calculated with three different values of a scaling factor to inelastic
collisions with hydrogen $\SH = 0, 0.05, 1$: the average for the resonance
triplet at $403$ nm (top), the average for excited lines at $4783$ and $4823$
\AA. Calculations were performed for four models with $T_{\rm eff} = 6000, \log g =
4,\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = 0,-1,-2, -3$.}
\label{nlte_abcor}
\end{figure}

It is useful to inspect the sensitivity of NLTE abundance corrections
$\Delta_\mathrm{NLTE}$ to the treatment of inelastic collisions with hydrogen.
This is a factor that can produce systematic errors in NLTE calculations. In the
following sections, we will show how the \textit{differential} [Mn/Fe] ratios
for the program stars react to changes in $\SH$. Here, we instead concentrate on
the change in NLTE abundance corrections derived for individual lines for
several models from the grid. Figure \ref{nlte_abcor} demonstrates the behaviour
of $\Delta_\mathrm{NLTE}$ calculated with three different scaling factors to the
standard Drawins formula $0, 0.05, 1$ (solid, dashed, and dotted lines,
respectively) as a function of a model metallicity ($T_{\rm eff} = 6000$ K and $\log g
= 4$). Here, the average $\Delta_\mathrm{NLTE}$ derived for the resonance
triplet at $403$ nm are shown in the top panel, and that for the excited lines
at $4783$ and $4823$ in the bottom panel. These $five$ lines are traditionally
used in the analyses of Mn in metal-poor stars. The resonance lines are weakly
sensitive to H collisions at all metallicities, except for [Fe/H]$ \sim -2$. But
in the latter case, $\Delta_\mathrm{NLTE}$ is already large enough. The excited
lines steadily decrease in sensitivity to H collisions for decreasing Fe
abundance. This is expected because the major overionization in \ion{Mn}{i} is
expected to occur from the low-excited levels, e.g., $\Mn{z}{8}{P}{o}{}$, but
not from the ground state (see Paper I). In the metal-poor stars, overionization
is strongly amplified, as is obvious from the \textit{magnitude} of NLTE
corrections thus reducing the impact of collisions on level populations. The
important result following from Figure \ref{nlte_abcor} is that any collision
scaling factor chosen within the reasonable range (see below) leads to a
qualitatively similar behavior of NLTE abundance corrections. As a result, the
error introduced by our poor knowledge of $\SH$ is systematic, much like the
errors in stellar parameters and models. With a \textit{free} choice of
$\SH$ from $0$ to $1$, one would most likely choose the value that produces the
NLTE abundance corrections lying in the middle of the upper and lower limits.
In this respect, $\SH = 0.05$ (our reference value) seems to be a good choice.
We show below that this value is also supported by the smallest fitted-abundance
spread between different lines of selected stars.

We have also checked the influence of hyperfine splitting (HFS) on \ion{Mn}{i}
line formation. Figure \ref{grid_figure}b shows NLTE profiles of \ion{Mn}{i}
line at $4823$ \AA\ calculated for three models with different metallicities
($\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = 0,-1,-2$, $T_{\rm eff} = 5500$ K, $\log g = 4$). The synthetic
profiles computed with and without HFS are marked with solid and dotted lines,
respectively. The line is split into six HFS components. In the solar
metallicity model, the profile computed without HFS overestimates the abundance
by 0.35 dex. In the models with [Fe/H]$= -1$ and $-2$, the difference in
profiles corresponds to an abundance correction of 0.08 dex and 0.01 dex,
respectively. This example demonstrates the significance of HFS effects, which
must be treated correctly even when the abundance analysis of metal-poor stars
is performed.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{10098Fi8.ps}}\hfill
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{10098Fi9.ps}}
\vspace{0mm} \caption[]{Synthetic NLTE profiles of \ion{Mn}{i} lines for
different models from the grid. (a) NLTE effects on the line at 4033 $\AA$ for
the models with constant effective temperature and gravity ($T_{\rm eff} =
6000, \log g = 4$) and different metallicities ($\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = 0,-1,-2$).
(b) HFS effects on the line at 4823 $\AA$ for the models with $T_{\rm eff} = 5500,
\log g = 4,\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = 0,-1,-2$ (bottom to top).}
\label{grid_figure}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\caption{ NLTE abundance corrections for selected models of the grid.
Collisions with neutral hydrogen are neglected, $S_\mathrm{H} = 0$.}
\label{grid}
\tabcolsep1.2mm
\begin{tabular}{l|lllll|llll|lllll|llll}
\hline
$T_\mathrm{eff}$/$\log g$/ & \multicolumn{18}{c}{$\Delta_\mathrm{NLTE}$} \\
\cline{2-19}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{[Fe/H]} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4018} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4030}
&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{4033} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4034} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4041}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{4055} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4451} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4739}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{4754} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4761} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4762}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{4765} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4766} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4783}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{4823} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{6013} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{6016}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{6021}
\\
\hline
5000/4/ 0 & 0.03 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.02 & 0.03
& 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.04 & -0.09 & -0.1 & -0.08 \\
5000/4/-1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 0.2 & 0.24 & 0.09 & 0.25
& 0.18 & 0.24 & 0.24 & 0.13 & 0.12 & 0.17 & 0.16 & 0.13 \\
5000/4/-2 & 0.47 & 0.23 & 0.24 & 0.24 & 0.42 & 0.49 & 0.43 & - & 0.36 & - &
0.39 & 0.41 & 0.42 & 0.35 & 0.34 & - & - & - \\
5000/4/-3 & 0.54 & 0.45 & 0.45 & 0.49 & 0.56 & - & - & - & 0.48 & - & - & - & -
& 0.5 & 0.49 & - & - & - \\
5500/4/ 0 & 0.05 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.05 & 0.1 & 0.05 & 0.1 &
0.05 & 0.1 & 0.06 & -0.01 & -0.01 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.01 \\
5500/4/-1 & 0.28 & 0.1 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.26 & 0.25 & 0.26 & 0.27 & 0.15 & 0.29
& 0.22 & 0.3  & 0.29 & 0.14 & 0.14 & 0.24 & 0.24 & 0.22 \\
5500/4/-2 & 0.42 & 0.28 & 0.31 & 0.35 & 0.48 & 0.43 & 0.39 & - & 0.38 & - & 0.38
& 0.38 & 0.38 & 0.4 & 0.4 & - & - & - \\
5500/4/-3 & 0.51 & 0.69 & 0.7 & 0.72 & 0.51 & - & - & - & 0.5 & - & - & - & - &
0.52 & 0.52 & - & - & - \\
6000/4/ 0 & 0.1 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.05 &-0.02 & 0.05 & 0.11 & -0.02 & 0.11
& 0.05 & 0.1 & 0.08 & -0.03 & -0.04 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.01 \\
6000/4/-1 & 0.28 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.27 & 0.29 & 0.26 & 0.26 & 0.19 & 0.27 &
0.22 & 0.3  & 0.3  & 0.17 & 0.15 & 0.22 & 0.23 & 0.22 \\
6000/4/-2 & 0.38 & 0.4  & 0.42 & 0.42 & 0.38 & 0.41 & 0.36 & - & 0.35 & - &
0.34 & 0.35 & 0.35 & 0.37 & 0.37 & - & - & - \\
6000/4/-3 & - & 0.63 & 0.64 & 0.64 & 0.4 &- &- &- &- &- &- &- &- & 0.42 & 0.42
&- &- &- \\
6200/3.4/ 0   & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.1 & -0.07 &
0.09 & 0 & 0.06 & 0.04 & -0.07 & -0.07 & 0 & -0.03 & -0.07 \\
6200/3.4/-1.2 & 0.32 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.15 & 0.31 & 0.38 & 0.32 & 0.28 & 0.27 &
0.28 & 0.28 & 0.31 & 0.31 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.24 & 0.25 \\
6200/3.4/-2.4 & 0.4  & 0.55 & 0.6  & 0.63 & 0.4  & 0.41 & 0.36 & - & 0.36 & - &
0.35 & 0.35 & 0.36 & 0.39 & 0.4 & - & - & - \\
6200/4.6/ 0   & 0.05 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.07 & 0.02 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.1 & -0.01 &
0.08 & 0.04 & 0.06 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0 & -0.03 \\
6200/4.6/-1.2 & 0.28 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.26 & 0.31 & 0.28 & 0.26 & 0.24 &
0.26 & 0.25 & 0.28 & 0.28 & 0.23 & 0.22 & 0.23 & 0.23 & 0.23 \\
6200/4.6/-2.4 & 0.38 & 0.43 & 0.47 & 0.51 & 0.39 & 0.39 & 0.35 & - & 0.35 & - &
0.34 & 0.34 & 0.34 & 0.36 & 0.36 & - & - & - \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{ NLTE abundance corrections for selected models of the grid. Collisions
with neutral hydrogen are included with a scaling factor $S_\mathrm{H} = 0.05$
(our reference value).}
\label{gridwithsh}
\tabcolsep1.2mm
\begin{tabular}{l|lllll|llll|lllll|llll}
\hline
$T_\mathrm{eff}$/$\log g$/ & \multicolumn{18}{c}{$\Delta_\mathrm{NLTE}$} \\
\cline{2-19}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{[Fe/H]} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4018} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4030}
&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{4033} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4034} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4041}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{4055} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4451} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4739}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{4754} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4761} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4762}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{4765} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4766} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4783}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{4823} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{6013} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{6016}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{6021}
\\
\hline
5000/4/ 0 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.01
& 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.02 & -0.08 & -0.09 & -0.09 \\
5000/4/-1 & 0.15 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.13 & 0.11 & 0.15 & 0.19 & 0.07 & 0.2
& 0.13 & 0.2  & 0.17 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.12 & 0.1  & 0.07 \\
5000/4/-2 & 0.41 & 0.23 & 0.23 & 0.23 & 0.36 & 0.43 & 0.37 & - & 0.31 & - &
0.34 & 0.37 & 0.37 & 0.3  & 0.3  & - & - & - \\
5000/4/-3 & 0.49 & 0.37 & 0.37 & 0.41 & 0.5  & - & - & - & 0.42 & - & - & - & -
& 0.45 & 0.44 & - & - & - \\
5500/4/ 0 & 0.02 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.02 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.04 & 0 & 0.03 &
0 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & -0.08 & -0.12 & -0.1 \\
5500/4/-1 & 0.2 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.2 & 0.23 & 0.07 & 0.24
& 0.16 & 0.24 & 0.23 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.17 & 0.16 & 0.15 \\
5500/4/-2 & 0.41 & 0.27 & 0.28 & 0.29 & 0.42 & 0.39 & 0.42 & - & 0.33 & - &
0.33  & 0.34 & 0.34 & 0.35 & 0.35 & - & - & - \\
5500/4/-3 & 0.46 & 0.59 & 0.6 & 0.61 & 0.45 & - & - & - & 0.44 & - & - & - & - &
0.47 & 0.47 & - & - & - \\
6000/4/ 0 & 0.02 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.06 & -0.04 & 0.04
& 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.02 & -0.02 & -0.02 &-0.02 &-0.06 &-0.08 \\
6000/4/-1 & 0.21 & 0.11& 0.1 & 0.11& 0.18 & 0.21 & 0.2  & 0.2  & 0.13 & 0.21 &
0.17 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.1  & 0.1  & 0.16 & 0.16 & 0.17 \\
6000/4/-2 & 0.35 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.33 & 0.34 & 0.37 & 0.31 & - & 0.3  & - &
0.3  & 0.31 & 0.31 & 0.33 & 0.33 & - & - & - \\
6000/4/-3 & - & 0.6 & 0.61 & 0.61 & 0.38 &- &- &- &- &- &- &- &- & 0.38 & 0.39
&- &- &- \\
6200/3.4/ 0   & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.07 &-0.03 & 0.01 &  0  & 0.08 & -0.1  &
0.07 & 0 & 0.07 & 0.03 & -0.08 & -0.1  & 0 & -0.03 & -0.07 \\
6200/3.4/-1.2 & 0.27 & 0.05 & 0.06& 0.11 & 0.26 & 0.32 & 0.26 & 0.24 & 0.22 &
0.24 & 0.22 & 0.25 & 0.26 & 0.2  & 0.2  & 0.2  & 0.19 & 0.2 \\
6200/3.4/-2.4 & 0.35 & 0.5  & 0.52 & 0.56 & 0.35 & 0.37 & 0.32 & - & 0.31 & - &
0.31 & 0.31 & 0.31 & 0.34 & 0.34 & - & - & - \\
6200/4.6/ 0   & 0.01 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.06 & -0.02 &
0.04 & 0.02 & 0.04 & 0.02 &-0.01 &-0.02 & 0 & -0.02 & -0.04 \\
6200/4.6/-1.2 & 0.22 & 0.1  & 0.1  & 0.11 & 0.2  & 0.25 & 0.22 & 0.21 & 0.18 &
0.21 & 0.19 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.17 & 0.16 & 0.17 & 0.17 & 0.17 \\
6200/4.6/-2.4 & 0.34 & 0.37 & 0.39 & 0.43 & 0.34 & 0.35 & 0.3  & - & 0.31 & - &
0.30 & 0.3  & 0.3  & 0.33 & 0.33 & - & - & - \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{Methods of abundance calculations}
\subsection{Spectrum synthesis}
Spectrum synthesis is carried out with the code SIU using the computed departure
coefficients $b_i(\tau)$ for \ion{Mn}{i} levels. For all other elements, LTE
line formation is assumed. The stellar line profiles are convolved with a
Gaussian of $\sim 3-4$ km/s. Rotational broadening and macroturbulence are
only treated separately for Procyon. Van der Waals damping constants $\log
C_{\rm 6}$ were determined in Paper I from solar line profile fitting. They are
on average $-0.1$ dex lower than the values calculated according to the Anstee
\& O'Mara (\cite{Anstee95}) line broadening tables. Multiplet 22 with lines at
4451, 4453, and 4502 \AA\ was calculated with $\Delta \log C_{\rm 6} = -0.6$
relative to the Anstee \& O'Mara values. This correction was necessary to make
the Mn abundances derived from different lines of the multiplet agree with each
other.

Solar $\log (gf\varepsilon)_{\odot}$ values used here are slightly different from those published
in Bergemann \& Gehren (\cite{Bergemann07}) and Blackwell-Whitehead \& Bergemann
(\cite{Bl-Wh07})). This is due to an error in the treatment of hyperfine
splitting, which we found in our previous analyses. This error led to a
relatively large abundance scatter between different lines; however, the average
NLTE abundance of Mn remained the same, $\log\varepsilon = 5.37 \pm 0.06$ dex.

The resonance triplet at 403 nm was calculated with $\log C_{\rm 6} = -31.2$
dex, that is, $0.65$ dex \emph{higher} than the values predicted by the Anstee
\& O'Mara theory. Also, lower values of microturbulent velocity are required to
fit these lines in the solar spectrum in contrast to all other lines, which are
well-fitted with $\xi_{\rm t} = 0.9$ km/s. This is a result of huge line strengths;
e.g., the line at 4030 \AA\ has an equivalent width $W_\lambda \sim 325\ {\rm m\AA}$.
Such strong lines are formed over a large optical depth interval, and their
profiles reflect the depth-dependent velocity distribution. The cores are formed
above $\log \tau_{\rm 5000} \sim -4.5$ being influenced by the
chromosphere. In this particular case, the NLTE theory produces cores that are
too narrow and deep compared to observations.

The line data used for spectrum synthesis are given in Table \ref{lines}.
Unless otherwise noted, the oscillator strengths are from Blackwell-Whitehead
\& Bergemann (\cite{Bl-Wh07}). The values of microturbulence velocities are
listed in Table \ref{startab}.
\begin{table}
\renewcommand{\footnoterule}{}
\caption{Lines selected for abundance calculation. An asterisk in the $\log gf $
entry refers to the oscillator strengths taken from Booth et al.
(\cite{Booth84}). The $\log (gf\varepsilon)_{\odot}$ values for the five near-UV lines ($ 4018
\leq \lambda \leq 4041 \AA $) in the solar spectrum  cannot be reliably
calculated due to the line blending.}
\label{lines}
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
~$\lambda$ & $E_{\rm low}$ & Lower & Upper & $\log gf $ & $\log C_{\rm 6}$ &
$\log (gf\varepsilon)_{\odot}$ \\
~[\AA] & [eV] & level & level &  &  & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
4018.10 & 2.11  & \Mn{a}{6}{D}{ }{4.5} & \Mn{z}{6}{D}{o}{3.5} & --0.31*&
--31.0~ & - \\
4030.76 & 0.00  & \Mn{a}{6}{S}{ }{2.5} & \Mn{z}{6}{P}{o}{3.5} & --0.47*&
--31.2~ & - \\
4033.07 & 0.00  & \Mn{a}{6}{S}{ }{2.5} & \Mn{z}{6}{P}{o}{2.5} & --0.62*&
--31.2~ & - \\
4034.49 & 0.00  & \Mn{a}{6}{S}{ }{2.5} & \Mn{z}{6}{P}{o}{1.5} & --0.81*&
--31.2~ & - \\
4041.36 & 2.11  & \Mn{a}{6}{D}{ }{4.5} & \Mn{z}{6}{D}{o}{4.5} & ~~0.29*&
--31.0~ & - \\
4055.51 & 2.13  & \Mn{a}{6}{D}{ }{3.5} & \Mn{z}{6}{D}{o}{3.5} & --0.08 &
--31.0~ & 5.29~~ \\
4058.91 & 2.17  & \Mn{a}{6}{D}{ }{1.5} & \Mn{z}{6}{D}{o}{0.5} & --0.46 &
--31.0~ & 4.81~~ \\
4451.58 & 2.88  &  \Mn{a}{4}{D}{ }{3.5} & \Mn{z}{4}{D}{o}{3.5} & ~~0.13 &
--31.3~ & 5.59~~ \\
4453.00 & 2.93  &  \Mn{a}{4}{D}{ }{1.5} & \Mn{z}{4}{D}{o}{0.5} & --0.62 &
--31.3~ & 4.83~~ \\
4502.22 & 2.91  &  \Mn{a}{4}{D}{ }{2.5} & \Mn{z}{4}{D}{o}{3.5} & --0.43 &
--31.3~ & 4.96~~ \\
4709.71 &  2.88  &  \Mn{a}{4}{D}{ }{3.5} & \Mn{z}{4}{F}{o}{3.5} & --0.49 &
--30.74 & 5.36~~ \\
4739.09 &  2.93  &  \Mn{a}{4}{D}{ }{1.5} & \Mn{z}{4}{F}{o}{1.5} & --0.60 &
--30.71 & 5.34~~ \\
4754.02 &  2.27  &  \Mn{z}{8}{P}{o}{2.5} & \Mn{e}{8}{S}{ }{3.5} & --0.07 &
--30.7~ & 5.26~~ \\
4761.51 &  2.94  &  \Mn{a}{4}{D}{ }{0.5} & \Mn{z}{4}{F}{o}{1.5} & --0.27 &
--30.86 & 5.12~~ \\
4762.36 &  2.88  &  \Mn{a}{4}{D}{ }{3.5} & \Mn{z}{4}{F}{o}{4.5} & ~~0.30 &
--30.86 & 5.57~~ \\
4765.85 &  2.93  &  \Mn{a}{4}{D}{ }{1.5} & \Mn{z}{4}{F}{o}{2.5} & --0.08 &
--30.86 & 5.25~~ \\
4766.41 &  2.91  &  \Mn{a}{4}{D}{ }{2.5} & \Mn{z}{4}{F}{o}{3.5} & ~~0.11 &
--30.84 & 5.41~~ \\
4783.39 &  2.29  &  \Mn{z}{8}{P}{o}{3.5} & \Mn{e}{8}{S}{ }{3.5} & ~~0.06 &
--30.7~ & 5.41~~ \\
4823.46 &  2.31  &  \Mn{z}{8}{P}{o}{4.5} & \Mn{e}{8}{S}{ }{3.5} & ~~0.15 &
--30.7~ & 5.52~~ \\
6013.47 &  3.06  &  \Mn{z}{6}{P}{o}{1.5} & \Mn{e}{6}{S}{ }{2.5} & --0.43 &
--30.64 & 5.01~~ \\
6016.59 &  3.06  &  \Mn{z}{6}{P}{o}{2.5} & \Mn{e}{6}{S}{ }{2.5} & --0.25 &
--30.64 & 5.15~~ \\
6021.73 &  3.06  &  \Mn{z}{6}{P}{o}{3.5} & \Mn{e}{6}{S}{ }{2.5} & --0.12 &
--30.64 & 5.28~~ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Some aspects of a differential stellar analysis}
As evident from our previous studies (Bergemann \& Gehren \cite{Bergemann07}),
the scatter among laboratory $gf$-values does not allow an accurate
determination of the solar Mn abundance. Hence, we perform a differential
analysis of stars with respect to the Sun\footnote{Every single abundance for a
line fit in a stellar spectrum is related to the solar abundance from the same
line}, which excludes the use of absolute oscillator strengths, but requires the
knowledge of the $\log (gf\varepsilon)$ values for \emph{each line} under investigation. The
Mn abundance in a metal-poor star relative to the Sun is given by
$$ \mathrm{[Mn/H]}= \log (gf\varepsilon)_{\ast} - \log (gf\varepsilon)_{\odot}. $$

Five strong near-UV lines ($ 4018 \leq \lambda \leq 4041 \AA $) of \ion{Mn}{i}
cannot be used used for a reliable abundance analysis in the solar spectrum due
to a severe blending. Unfortunately, in our spectra of the metal-poor stars,
only these lines and three lines of multiplet $16$ are detected. Hence, we
define another ``reference'' star, \object{HD 102200}, with [Fe/H] $= -1.28$
dex, whose $\log (gf\varepsilon)_{\rm ref}$ values are used for the differential comparison with the
more metal-poor stars. In this case, we calculate an average [Mn/H] from all
detected lines in spectrum of a metal-poor star relative to \object{HD 102200},
and then correct this value by an average [Mn/H] derived from the visual and
near-IR lines of \object{HD 102200} relative to the Sun.

Obviously, our analysis relies on the assumption that the \emph{relative} NLTE
abundances [Mn/H] deduced from near-UV lines of \object{HD 102200} do not
deviate from the abundances deduced from the other lines of this star. Usually,
the large scatter results from the incorrectly treated line blends, which have
a different dependence on the $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$. Incorrect stellar
parameters, e.g., microturbulence and model structure, may decrease the accuracy
of the abundances. This problem can be partly solved by using the ratio of two
similar elements [Mn/Fe], since the same atmospheric models were used to obtain
iron abundances in the stars studied here (see description in Sect. 2).
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{10098F10.ps}}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{10098F11.ps}}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{10098F12.ps}}
\vspace{0mm} \caption[]{The \ion{Fe}{i} blends in the blue and red wings of the
\ion{Mn}{i} line at 4030 \AA\ in spectra of the Sun, \object{HD 102200}, and
\object{HD 19445} (from top to bottom). The best theoretical NLTE profile
calculated with $\log C_{\rm 6} = -31.2$ is marked with a solid line, the same
profile with $\log gf$ for both \ion{Fe}{i} blends increased by 0.1 dex is shown
with a dotted line. The dashed line on the upper panel corresponds to the NLTE
profile calculated with $\log C_{\rm 6} = -30.5$.}
\label{blends}
\end{figure}

We have checked how blends contained in the near-UV \ion{Mn}{i} lines affect the
line profiles and Mn abundances derived from these lines in the Sun and in
metal-poor stars. Figure \ref{blends} shows the line at 4030 \AA\ in the spectra
of the Sun, \object{HD 102200}, and \object{HD 19445}, respectively. Vertical
lines mark the \ion{Fe}{i} blends in the red and blue wings. A solid line
represents the best theoretical NLTE profile, the dotted line shows the same
profile with $\log gf$ for both \ion{Fe}{i} blends increased by 0.1 dex. Even
this small correction produces a poor fit of the \ion{Mn}{i} line wings in the
solar spectrum; hence, we constrain the solar $\log gf$ values for the iron
blends at 4030.5 and 4030.9 $\AA$ to -0.8 and -1.6 dex, respectively. The
uncertainty of these values is $0.05$ dex. The profile of the same \ion{Mn}{i}
line in a metal-poor star is practically insensitive to a variation in iron line
strengths. We, thus, expect that the relative Mn abundances derived from the
near-UV lines in metal-poor stars are reliable.

It is noteworthy that the \emph{absolute} LTE and NLTE abundances from the
resonance triplet at 403 nm are lower than the abundances from the other lines
on average by $0.07 - 0.2 $ dex. This is a characteristic of all stars in our
sample. In the \emph{differential LTE analysis} relative to \object{HD 102200},
this inconsistency also appears and increases with decreasing metallicity. For
the metal-poor star \object{HD 140283}, we infer the $\Delta
\mathrm{[Mn/H]}_\mathrm{LTE}$ between the resonance and excited lines to be
$\sim 0.3$ dex. This finding supports the results of Cayrel et al.
(\cite{Cayrel04}). In their LTE analysis of Mn in metal-poor stars there is a
systematic difference of $\sim 0.4$ dex between the near-UV (resonance triplet
at 403 nm) and visual \ion{Mn}{i} lines (4754 and 4823 \AA).

The discrepancy is also present in a differential NLTE analysis, but even in the
most metal-poor stars it does not exceed 0.05 dex. We have good reason to
believe that the problem is concealed in the van der Waals damping constants;
namely, when the resonance lines are calculated with $\log C_{\rm 6} = -30.5$,
the abundance differences between resonance and excited lines completely vanish
for all stars in our sample. However, such a strong damping is cannot be
applied to fitting the solar resonance lines. The wings are too broad, and that
discrepancy cannot be removed by adjusting any other parameter in line synthesis
(see upper panel of Figure 4). Because of this, we decided to preserve the $\log
C_{\rm 6} = -31.2$ for the resonance lines, keeping in mind the possible error
of $0.05$ dex introduced by the uncertain $\log C_{\rm 6}$ value.

The problem elucidated above stems from the different sensitivities of strong
and weak lines to the van der Waals damping. A weak line in a metal-poor star
is strong in the solar spectrum, so its $\log (gf\varepsilon)$ value will depend on the
adopted $C_{\rm 6}$ constant.

The most likely explanation for the discrepancy in \textit{absolute} line
abundances is that the oscillator strengths are erroneous. We use different sets
of experimental $gf$-values for the near-UV and visual lines, those of Booth et
al. (\cite{Booth84}) and of Blackwell-Whitehead \& Bergemann (\cite{Bl-Wh07}),
respectively. Cayrel uses the data of Booth et al. (\cite{Booth84}). The
comparison of Booth's values with the recent experiment of Blackwell-Whitehead
revealed significant disagreement for several strong \ion{Mn}{i} transitions.

Finally, a differential analysis requires similar modeling of microscale
velocities in the Sun and stars. In metal-poor stars, only a single
depth-independent value of $\xi_{\rm t}$ can be recovered, so the constant
microturbulence is adopted for the Sun, although its anisotropy and depth
dependence are now well-established (Gray \cite{Gray88}).
\section{Results}
The relative Mn abundance ratios [Mn/Fe] and their standard deviations $\sigma$
for all stars are listed in Table \ref{startab}. Stars with metallicities
higher than that of \object{HD 102200} were analyzed directly relative to the
Sun; in this case, the resonance triplet at 403 nm was not used for the reasons
given above. The Mn abundances in stars more metal-poor than \object{HD 102200}
are calculated relative to this reference star, and corrected by an average Mn
abundance derived for the \object{HD 102200} relative to the Sun. These
differential abundances are consistent within their $\sigma$ with Mn abundances
in stars calculated from the excited lines strictly relative to the Sun.

Figure \ref{abundall} shows [Mn/Fe] ratios for all stars as a function of
metallicity. The binaries are marked with open circles. The most interesting
result is that the NLTE abundances of Mn in all stars are
\textit{systematically} higher than the LTE abundances; as expected, the
difference [Mn/Fe]$_\mathrm{NLTE}$ - [Mn/Fe]$_\mathrm{LTE}$ increases with
decreasing metallicity.

In the most metal-poor stars ([Fe/H] $\leq -2.5$), we find especially large NLTE
corrections for the resonance triplet at 403 nm. It is therefore to be expected
that LTE abundances of Mn in spectra of halo stars, where only the resonance
near-UV lines can be detected, are significantly underestimated. The dependency
of NLTE effects on (a) stellar parameteres ($T_\mathrm{eff}$, $\log g$, [Fe/H],
$\xi_{\rm t}$) and (b) excitation potential of a line is obvious, and it is important
to keep it in mind even when LTE analysis is performed.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{10098F13.ps}}}
\caption[]{[Mn/Fe] vs. [Fe/H] in metal-poor stars. NLTE abundances are marked
with filled circles. LTE abundances are marked with empty squares. The
spectroscopic binaries are shown with open circles.}
\label{abundall}
\end{figure}

The most uncertain parameter in all NLTE calculations is $\SH$, the
scaling factor to the cross-sections for inelastic H collisions, which are
calculated with Drawin's (\cite{HD68}) formula. Fortunately, the [Mn/Fe] ratios
are not very sensitive to the choice of $\SH$, as long as very large scaling
factors ($\SH \gg 1$) are not used. The test calculations for four metal-poor
stars show (Figure \ref{sh34328}) that the change in a scaling factor $\SH =
0\ldots 1$ leads to a variation in the [Mn/Fe] ratios ($\Delta$[Mn/Fe]$_{0\ldots
1}$) in the range of $+0.05 \ldots -0.1$ dex. For stars with [Fe/H]$ > -1$, we
derive $\Delta$[Mn/Fe]$_{0\ldots 1} \sim +0.03 \ldots -0.05$. The error bars
in Figure \ref{sh34328} denote standard  deviations $\sigma$ of [Mn/Fe] values.
Obviosuly, small $\sigma$ are achieved with $\SH \le 0.5$. It is reasonable to
suggest that $\SH = 0.05$ (our reference value) provides the smallest scatter
between different lines when all four stars are taken into account. This value
agrees with the results derived for Ba and Eu by Mashonkina
(\cite{Mashonkina96}) and for Mg emission lines by Sundquist et al.
(\cite{Sundqvist08}), who present convincing arguments in favor of very low
($\ll 1$) but non-zero values for $\SH$. Also, according to Belyaev \& Barklem
(\cite{Belyaev03}), the standard Drawin's formula ($\SH = 1$) strongly
\textit{overestimates} the rate of transitions for Li. If these estimates are
true for Mn as well, we can claim only a slightly subsolar [Mn/Fe] trend with
decreasing metallicity. The variation in $\SH$ within the range $0\ldots 1$
will not change the general trend in Figure \ref{abundall} given the large
differences [Mn/Fe]$_\mathrm{NLTE}$ - [Mn/Fe]$_\mathrm{LTE}$ in metal-poor
stars.

\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{10098F14.ps}}}
\vspace{0mm} \caption[]{[Mn/Fe] ratios for \object{HD 34328}, \object{HD
102200}, \object{HD 140283}, and \object{HD 122196} calculated with $\SH = 0,
0.05, 0.5$, and $1$.} \label{sh34328}
\end{figure}

We also expect that a thermalizing effect of H collisions in metal-poor
stars would be compensated by enhanced photoionization rates. In Paper I and
Paper II, we showed that a hydrogenic approximation for photoionization
cross-sections, which is the only one available to us, underestimates the NLTE
effects in \ion{Mn}{i}. The magnitude of underestimation increases in metal-poor
stars, where the radiation field is stronger than in the Sun. We performed test
NLTE calculations for the star \object{HD 34328} with photoionization
cross-sections for all levels increased by a factor of 300. The effect turned
out to be significant, because Mn abundances derived from the excited lines
increased by $0.4$ dex, on average. The abundances determined from the resonance
lines at $403$ nm only change by $+0.05$ dex. Strongly different NLTE
corrections required for the resonance and excited lines point at the inadequacy
of a simple hydrogenic photoionization approximation. Most likely,
cross-sections for particular low-excitation levels of \ion{Mn}{i} exhibit
resonance structures, as found for \ion{Fe}{i} (Bautista \cite{Baut97}).

\subsection{Comparison with recent work}

Recently, comparative manganese abundance analyses of metal-poor stars in
different populations have appeared in the literature, and \emph{all of them
refer to LTE}. The average Mn abundances for stars with metallicities $-1 \ldots
0$ are in agreement between the compiled analyses as to slope and absolute
values. We find a more or less smooth increase in [Mn/Fe] with [Fe/H] in the
results of Prochaska \& McWilliam (\cite{Proch00}), Nissen et al.
(\cite{Nissen00}), Reddy et al. (\cite{Reddy03}), Reddy et al. (\cite{Reddy06}),
and Feltzing et al. (\cite{FF07}). The Mn abundances in stars with lower
metallicities, [Fe/H] $< -1$, show a relatively large  scatter (Prochaska \&
McWilliam \cite{Proch00}; Bai et al. \cite{Bai04}; Cayrel et al.
\cite{Cayrel04}; Reddy et al. \cite{Reddy06}; Lai et al. \cite{Lai08}). But it
appears that the average [Mn/Fe] trend remains almost constant with the mean
value $-0.4$ dex.

Our NLTE Mn abundances are systematically larger than those from the comparison
studies. The offset of $+0.2$ to $+0.4$ dex is mainly due to the NLTE effects,
as can be predicted from Table \ref{gridwithsh}. In contrast, the Mn
underabundance suggested by our LTE analysis is consistent with the results of
the others. The LTE values of Prochaska \& McWilliam (\cite{Proch00}) corrected
for mean NLTE effects from Table \ref{gridwithsh} agree reasonably well with
our NLTE Mn abundances in the metal-poor stars ($-2 <$ [Fe/H] $< -1$) at a
constant level of [Mn/Fe] $\sim -0.1 \ldots 0.0$. Also, applying NLTE
corrections to the data of Lai et al. (\cite{Lai08}), we can see that
manganese follows the depletion of iron even in the most metal-poor stars. For
stars with $-2.5 <$ [Fe/H] $< -1.5$, our results slightly deviate from the
corrected LTE abundances presented by McWilliam et al. (\cite{MR03}). The reason
for this discrepancy is that in this metallicity range McWilliam et al.
(\cite{MR03}) used the LTE results of Johnson (\cite{JJ02}), which were obtained
by analyzing only \emph{giant} stars. Here, we note that work on incoherent data
compiled from various sources also tends to hide much of the chemical evolution
of the Galaxy in an exceedingly large scatter.

Unfortunately, the results presented by Feltzing et al. (\cite{FF07}) are for
disk stars alone, which are outside the range of metallicities covered by our
stellar sample. However, their finding of different abundance ratios [Mn/O] in
stars of thick and thin disks is not surprising, because it reproduces a similar
effect for the [Fe/Mg] ratio (Fuhrmann \cite{KF04}).

\subsection{Mn nucleosynthesis and chemical evolution}

Manganese is a \emph{neutron-rich} element in the sense that it has a
greater neutron-proton excess than the adjacent elements. It could therefore be
sensitive to the neutron excess available to the progenitor star in either
the carbon-burning or silicon-burning phases. Following the bimodal enrichment
scheme originally proposed by Arnett (\cite{WA71}; see also Woosley \& Weaver
\cite{WW82}), the yields of the neutron-rich elements always seem to depend on
the metals available to the star when the metal abundance of the progenitor
becomes larger than [Fe/H] $\sim -1.5$ (or [$\alpha$/H] $> -1.0$), as long as
the elements do not originate in a complete Si-burning environment. Therefore,
the stars with [Fe/H] $> -1.5$ must have been fed by SNe of a second or later
generation.

Taking into account possible residual systematic errors due to underestimating
photoionization by the hydrogen-like approximation, we can claim that [Mn/Fe] is
only slightly subsolar or even solar throughout the range of metal abundances
analyzed here. This would be confirmed by the results of Feltzing et al.
(\cite{FF07}) for the disk stars after applying the necessary NLTE corrections,
whereas it does not fit the earlier work of Gratton (\cite{Gratton89}) very
well. The models of chemical evolution presented by Timmes et al. (\cite{TWW95})
are, however, fully inadequate for representing the [Mn/Fe] ratio in metal-poor
stars. Based on the discussion in Umeda \& Nomoto (\cite{Umeda02}), it is
tempting to ascribe the discrepancy to the choice of the mass cut. Whether the
required increase in the mass cut or a change in the neutron excess is still
compatible with the observed Co abundances, will be examined in a future paper.
\begin {acknowledgements}
MB acknowledges with gratitude the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial
Physics (Germany) for her PhD fellowship.
\end {acknowledgements}


Stationary bubble formation and cavity collapse in wedge-shaped hoppers

Abstract: The hourglass is one of the apparatuses familiar to everyone, but reveals intriguing behaviors peculiar to granular materials, and many issues are remained to be explored. In this study, we examined the dynamics of falling sand in a special form of hourglass, i.e., a wedge-shaped hopper, when a suspended granular layer is stabilized to a certain degree. As a result, we found remarkably different dynamic regimes of bubbling and cavity. In the bubbling regime, bubbles of nearly equal size are created in the sand at a regular time interval. In the cavity regime, a cavity grows as sand beads fall before a sudden collapse of the cavity. Bubbling found here is quite visible to a level never discussed in the physics literature and the cavity regime is a novel phase, which is neither continuous, intermittent nor completely blocked phase. We elucidate the physical conditions necessary for the bubbling and cavity regimes and develop simple theories for the regimes to successfully explain the observed phenomena by considering the stability of a suspended granular layer and clogging of granular flow at the outlet of the hopper. The bubbling and cavity regimes could be useful for mixing a fluid with granular materials.

\section*{Introduction}

Dynamics of dense granular materials is one of the challenging problems in
physics \cite{PouliquenBook,HerminghausText}. For example, recently, dynamic
aspects of jamming transitions in granular systems have emerged as an
important issue and have received considerable attention both experimentally
and theoretically
\cite{DurianPRL10,bi2011jamming,CloitreNP2011,TakeharaPRL2014,Hayakawa2015PRL}%
. Contrary to this, the flow in an hourglass or the discharge of a silo
through an orifice is a classic and familiar problem of granular dynamics, but
these phenomena still remain an issue actively discussed in recent studies. In
general, such granular flow can be continuous, intermittent
\cite{HourglassTick1993PRL,HourglassPRE1996}, or completely blocked
\cite{HopperJam2001PRL,HopperJam2006PRL}. In the continuous region, standard
views on the hourglass dynamics
\cite{HourglassNature1961,beverloo1961flow,Nedderman1992Granular,JaegerNagelBehringer96RevModPhys}
have recently been questioned via self-similar dynamics
\cite{Hourglass2012PRL}, universal scaling in a pressure transition
\cite{Hourglass2015PRL}, and independent control of the velocity and pressure
\cite{Hourglass2010PRL}. In the intermittent region, clogging transitions
under some agitation (e.g. vibration or random forces) are discussed from a
unified viewpoint \cite{CloggingSciRep2014}. In the blocked region, clogging
in tilted hoppers is discussed to clarify a phase diagram
\cite{DurianCloggingGM2010,DurianCloggingPRE2013} and jamming in a
two-dimensional hopper is explained by associating the arch at the orifice
with a random walk \cite{JammingHopperPRL2001}.

Here, we studied granular flow in an hourglass without circular symmetry (more
specifically, wedge-shaped hoppers) when a suspended granular layer could be
stabilized to a certain extent, with the aid of cohesion force between sand
grains, friction with side walls, and low permeability of the sand layer
(which leads to the pressure difference developed in the layer)
\cite{HourglassTick1993PRL,HourglassPRE1996}. As a result, we found two
spontaneous behaviors: stationary formation of bubbles and cavity collapse. We
show that these two opposite effects emerge via the interplay between
stability of the sand layer and clogging at the orifice. Note that the
clogging discussed in the present study is temporal in the sense that the flow
recovers without adding external perturbation and is governed by the cohesion
between particles unlike in the previous studies
\cite{HopperJam2001PRL,DurianCloggingGM2010,DurianCloggingPRE2013}, and thus
quite different from the clogging studied in the previous studies.

The cavity regime cannot be categorized into any previously known phases: it
is neither continuous, intermittent nor completely blocked phases. Any
systematic physical study on this original regime using a small-scale
laboratory setup have never been discussed in the physics literature. We show
that this intriguing phenomenon can be understood by the balance between the
gravitational and frictional forces.

The bubbling reported here is quite visible to a level never reported in the
literature. Although a similar phenomenon is reported
\cite{HourglassTick1993PRL,HourglassPRE1996} (a density wave or flow pattern
is also reported for much larger grains in hoppers by use of X-Ray radiography
\cite{PatternHopperPRL1989}), the bubbles are much less visible. In fact, what
are called "bubbles" in the previous study \cite{HourglassPRE1996} are quite
localized near the orifice: the "bubble" sizes are typically about 6 mm and
they "rise" at most 2-3 mm in an hourglass with the orifice of size 3.7 mm. In
contrast, in the present case, although the orifice size is smaller and is
typically 2 mm, the bubble sizes can be more than 10 mm and they can rise more
than 70 mm (they typically rise\ to the top surface of the sand layer). In
addition, in the present case, more than one bubble can coexist at the same
time, as often seen when bubbles are created not in sand but in liquid.

Since the bubbling in the present study is so clear as if it appeared in
liquid, it is possible to study the bubble size and the rising speed in
detail. As a result, we elucidate the dependence of the period of bubble
nucleation on the geometry of hourglass and clarify the importance of clogging
in the periodic motion.

Note that, although visible bubbling in a granular layer has been discussed
for fluidized beds \cite{davidson1963fluidised,davidson1985fluidization},
bubbles in the context emerge as a result of an externally imposed fluid flow.
In contrast, bubbles discussed here appear spontaneously and repeatedly in an
hourglass without any externally imposed flow.

\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Fig1}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) Illustration of an hourglass without circular symmetry. The front
and lateral sides are defined as indicated by the arrows. (b) The front view
of the upper half of the acrylic cell in (a). The position of the top and
bottom surfaces of the sand layer measured from the outlet is called $h_{t}$
and $h_{b}$, respectively. The slope is called $\alpha$ ($=\tan\theta$). (c)
Series of snapshots taken from the front side of the cell in the bubbling
regime where the diameter of glass beads $d$, the cell thickness $L$, the half
size of the outlet $w$ and the angle $\theta$ are given as $(d,L,w,\theta
)=(60,3,1,72.4)$ in the units $\mu$m, mm, mm, and deg., respectively. (d$_{1}%
$) Snapshots taken from the lateral side in the cavity regime for
$(d,L,w,\theta)=(30,56,1,72.4)$ in the same units. (d$_{2}$) Snapshots taken
from the front side in the cavity regime for $(d,L,w,\theta)=(30,56,1,72.4)$.
(e) Snapshots from the front side in the intermediate regime for
$(d,L,w,\theta)=(30,3,1,72.4)$. Corresponding movies are available for (c) and
(d$_{1}$), as Supporting Information video files.}%
\label{Fig1}%
\end{figure}

\section*{Results}

We use a transparent closed cell of height $2H$, thickness $L$, and slope
$\alpha$ (that defines the angle $\theta$ via $\alpha=\tan\theta$), as shown
in Fig.~\ref{Fig1}(a) and (b). The cell is half-filled with glass beads, which
are nearly monodisperse. The outlet width $2w$ of the cell is much larger than
the average diameter $d$ of the beads. By rotating the cell upside down, all
the glass beads in the cell that are initially located above the outlet start
falling down through the outlet due to gravity.

\subsection*{Dynamic regimes}

Depending on the parameter set, $d$, $L$, $\theta$, and $w$, the dynamics are
categorized into three regimes. (1) Bubbling regime: small air bubbles are
regularly created at the outlet and goes up to disappear, as shown in
Fig.~\ref{Fig1}(c). (2) Cavity regime: a large cavity starts to grow from the
outlet to finally collapse, as seen in Fig.~\ref{Fig1}(d$_{1}$) and (d$_{2}$).
(3) Intermediate regime: a cavity grows upwards first but later glass beads
accumulate near the clogged outlet, leading to a "rising cavity," as in
Fig.~\ref{Fig1}(e).

\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Fig2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Phase diagram as a function of $\theta$ and $d$ obtained from thin
(a) and thick (b) cells. }%
\label{Fig2}%
\end{figure}

The phase diagrams in Fig.~\ref{Fig2} can be physically understood by
considering the following points:

(1) The dynamic regime is determined as a result of competition of the
stability of the bottom free surface of the sand layer and the clogging at the
orifice. A cavity can keep growing only when the free surface is stable and
only when clogging is difficult to occur. Bubbling occurs under the opposite
conditions (low stability and easy clogging): a bubble looks as if to "rise
up" in the granular medium, as a result of the collapse of the top part (due
to low stability) followed by the accumulation of sand (due to clogging).

(2) The stability is increased when particles are fine. This is because the
cohesive force between particles becomes large when the sand is fine. This is
well-known at least empirically and explained frequently in terms of capillary
bridges between sand particles originating from a tiny amount of water located
at the contacts between grains \cite{PouliquenBook,HerminghausText}. The ratio
of the capillary force $k\gamma d$ to the gravitational force $\rho gd^{3}$
for a particle of diameter $d$, which scales as $k(l/d)^{2}$, becomes larger
when particle becomes small. Here, $\gamma,\rho$ and $g$ are the surface
tension of water, the density of the particle, and the gravitational
acceleration, defining the capillary length $l=\sqrt{\gamma/(\rho g)}$. In the
atmospheric humidity, the numerical coefficient $k$, which reflects the amount
of water at the contacts of particles, would be very small. However, for
example, when $d$ is 30 $\mu$m, the ratio $k(l/d)^{2}$ could become comparable
to unity because $l$ is about 3 mm: for small particles, the cohesive force
can excel the gravitational force. Another reason for the high stability of
fine particles is the small permeability of the sand layer formed by fine
grains. This will help create pressure difference in the sand layer,
contributing the stability. This point will be discussed in more detail in the
next two sections.

(3) The clogging occurs easily when the slope is small and when the cell is
thin. Easy clogging for small slopes is reasonable: the smaller the slope is,
the more concentrated towards the outlet the falling sand beads are. Easy
clogging for thin cells (small $L$) is understandable from snapshots in
Fig.~\ref{Fig1} (d$_{1}$), as explained as follows. In each snapshot, we can
observe streams of falling sand whose width and numbers are changing with time
(for example, in the left-most snapshot in Fig.~\ref{Fig1} (d$_{1}$) we
recognize 4 streams three of which have almost the same width while the
left-most stream is the widest). When the cell thickness is small and
comparable to a typical width of such streams, the flow flux averaged by the
orifice area is essentially the same with the flow flux of the stream.
However, when the cell thickness is large and several streams are observed
with some spacing between them as in Fig.~\ref{Fig1} (d$_{1}$), the average
flux at the orifice is smaller than the flow flux of the streams. As a result,
we expect that clogging is more difficult to occur in a cell of large
thickness because of the smaller average flux (Note that the stability is not
completely independent from the clogging: The flux is correlated with the
stability of the free surface so that high (low) stability implies that
clogging is difficult (easy)). In summary, clogging is easy to occur for thin
cells whose slope is small.

On the basis of the above points (1)-(3), the phase diagrams in
Fig.~\ref{Fig2} can be physically understood: The cavity regime should be
observed only when the diameter $d$ of sand is small (for strong cohesion and
low permeability), the cell thickness $L$ is large, and the angle $\theta$ is
large (for clogging to be difficult), whereas the bubbling regime tends to be
seen under the opposite conditions, i.e., when $d$ is large, $L$ is small, and
$\theta$ is small. These tendencies are clearly confirmed in Fig.~\ref{Fig2}
for $w=1$ mm.

\subsection*{Bubbling regime}

In the bubbling regime, the $n$th bubble is created as follows. First, a
cavity is nucleated at the outlet at time $t=t_{\text{cav}}^{(n)}$ and, then
the cavity grows as beads keep falling ($t_{\text{cav}}^{(n)}$ is the
nucleation time of the $n$th cavity). At time $t=t_{\text{bub}}^{(n)}$,
clogging occurs at the outlet, closing the outlet: this is the moment of
creation of a bubble ($t_{\text{bub}}^{(n)}$ is the creation time of the $n$th
bubble). The $n$th bubble thus created rises up in the granular medium
upwards, whereas after a short waiting time $t_{\text{w}}^{(n)}$ (i.e., at
time $t_{\text{cav}}^{(n+1)}=t_{\text{bub}}^{(n)}+t_{\text{w}}^{(n)}$) the
next $(n+1)$th cavity is nucleated at the clogged part at the bottom, which
leads to the next bubble.

To quantify this dynamics, the positions of the top and bottom surfaces of the
sand layer, $h_{t}$ and $h_{b}$ (defined in Fig.~\ref{Fig1}(b)), are plotted
in Fig.~\ref{Fig3}(a) for a parameter set in the bubbling regime. The position
of the bottom is marked by squares: Filled and open squares correspond to the
data before and after the clogging at $t=t_{\text{bub}}^{(n)}$, respectively.
In other words, filled and open squares stand for the top surface of a cavity
and that of a bubble, respectively.

\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Fig3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) $h_{t}$ and $h_{b}$ (see Fig.~\ref{Fig1}(b)) vs time in the
bubble regime for $d=60$ $\mu$m, $L=3$ mm, $w=1$ mm, and $\theta=72.4^{\circ}$
The quantities $t_{\text{cav}}^{(n)}$, $t_{\text{bub}}^{(n)}$, and
$t_{\text{w}}^{(n)}$ are the nucleation time of the $n$th cavity, the creation
time of the $n$th bubble, and the waiting time for the ($n+1)$th cavity,
respectively. The horizontal dashed line shows the average value $B$ of the
bubble size $B^{(n)}$ at the time of bubble creation. (b) $V$ and $B$ vs $L$
for a given $w,d$, and $\theta$. (c) $V$ and $B$ vs $2w$ for a given $L,d$,
and $\theta$. (d) $V$ and $B$ vs $d$ for a given $w,L$, and $\theta$. (d) $V$
and $B$ vs $\alpha$ $(=\tan\theta$) for a given $L,d$, and $w$. The fitting
curves for (c), (d), and (e) are given as, $B=(0.63\pm0.15)\times
(2w)^{0.43\pm0.28}$, $B=27d^{-0.85}$ and $V=(0.021\pm0.000)\times d$, and
$B=(0.47\pm0.06)\times\alpha^{0.54\pm0.09}$, respectively.}%
\label{Fig3}%
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{Fig3}(a) shows a repeated or regular dynamics: the time interval
between consecutive bubble creations, the rising speed of bubbles, and the
initial bubble size are almost constant. As seen in Fig.~\ref{Fig3}(a), the
cavity nucleation (at time $t=t_{\text{cav}}^{(n)}$) and the bubble formation
(at time $t=t_{\text{bub}}^{(n)}$) occur regularly and the interval defined as
$T^{(n)}=t_{\text{cav}}^{(n+1)}-t_{\text{cav}}^{(n)}$ is almost a constant
$T$. The growing speed of the $n$th cavity $V^{(n)}=(dh/dt)^{(n)}$ defined for
the interval from $t_{\text{cav}}^{(n)}$ to $t_{\text{bub}}^{(n)}$ is also
almost a constant $V$, whereas the velocity $V^{(n)}$ is comparable to the
rising speed of the $n$th bubble defined after $t_{\text{bub}}^{(n)}$. This
means that the initial bubble size $B^{(n)}$, defined as $B^{(n)}%
=h_{b}(t_{\text{bub}}^{(n)})$, is also a constant $B$, as seen in
Fig.~\ref{Fig3}(a), whereas the following equation holds:
\begin{equation}
B^{(n)}=V^{(n)}(T^{(n)}-t_{\text{w}}^{(n)})=V^{(n)}(t_{\text{bub}}%
^{(n)}-t_{\text{cav}}^{(n)}). \label{eq0}%
\end{equation}

The $n$ - independence of the growing speed $V^{(n)}=(dh_{b}/dt)^{(n)}$ is
interpreted as follows. This quantity essentially corresponds to the
collapsing speed of the bottom surface (at height $z=h_{b}$) of the suspended
granular layer, which can be determined as follows. By introducing a life time
$\tau$ of a sand particle after the moment the sand particle is exposed to the
sand-air interface (positioned at height $z=h_{b}$), we simply obtain
\textit{the growing speed of a cavity or the rising speed of a bubble},
\begin{equation}
V=dh_{b}/dt=d/\tau. \label{eq1}%
\end{equation}
As seen in Fig.~\ref{Fig3}(a), the slope $(dh_{b}/dt)^{(n)}$ is almost
independent of $n$ and $h_{b}$ (although the slope has a slight tendency to
increase with $h_{b}$). This means that the life time $\tau$ and the rising
speed of bubbles are also independent of $n$ and $h_{b}$ (although $\tau$ has
a slight tendency to decrease with $h_{b}$ and the average rising speed of
bubbles has a slight tendency to increase with $h_{b}$). The physical nature
of $\tau$ will be explored in Discussion.

The $n$ - independence of the initial bubble size $B^{(n)}$ is interpreted as
follows. We introduce the two dimensional volume fraction of sand beads in the
layer $\phi$, which is practically assumed to be the random closed packing
value $\phi_{c}$ as an approximation. The volume flux created at the bottom
surface of the sand layer, $Q_{b}$, is given as $Q_{b}=\phi SV$, where $S$ is
the surface area of the free surface at $z=h_{b}$ (note that in the bubbling
regime, $L$ is smaller than the typical width of streams of flowing sand
mentioned above) and thus given by $S=Lh_{b}/\alpha$ (when $w$ is small). The
maximum flux at the outlet $Q_{0}$ is estimated as $Q_{0}=\phi_{c}S_{0}V_{0}$,
with the section area $S_{0}=2wL$ of the cell at the outlet ($z=0$) (see
Fig.~\ref{Fig1}(b)) and the velocity at the outlet $V_{0}$. This velocity is
determined by $V_{0}^{2}=2g(h_{b}-\Delta)$, where $g\Delta$ expresses a small
energy dissipation (per unit mass) for sand beads falling off from the surface
after gliding on the cell wall of the slope $\alpha$. By noting that
$Q_{b}\simeq h_{b}$ and $Q_{0}\simeq\sqrt{h_{b}}$ ($\Delta$ is generally small
in the experiments), we see that, just after the nucleation of a cavity, the
clogging does not occur, because $Q_{b}<Q_{0}$ (i.e., $h_{b}<\sqrt{h_{b}}$)
for small $h_{b}$. Then, the critical condition for clogging is given by
$Q_{b}=Q_{o}$. The value of $h_{b}$ obtained by solving this critical
condition in favor of $h_{b}$ corresponds to the bubble size $B$ (This is
because the size of $h_{b}$ at the creation of the bubble is the definition of
the initial size of the bubble, $B$, as defined above). From this clogging
condition and Eq.~(\ref{eq1}), we obtain%
\begin{equation}
B=u\beta\text{ \ with \ }\beta=g(2\alpha w\tau/d)^{2}\label{eq2}%
\end{equation}
where $u=1+\sqrt{1-2\Delta/\beta}$ with $\Delta\ll\beta$. This explains why
the horizontal dashed line in Fig.~\ref{Fig3}(a) gives a well-defined average
value $B$, that is, why $B^{(n)}$ is almost independent of $n$. Since the
waiting time $t_{\text{w}}^{(n)}$, which corresponds to the reorganization
time for an once packed granular layer formed near the outlet to destabilize
(see below for more details), is expected to be $n$-independent, the
$n$-independence of $V^{(n)}$ and $B^{(n)}$ justify the $n$-independence of
$T^{(n)}$ [see Eq.~(\ref{eq0})].

The agreement of the above theory with experiment is seen in different ways in
Figure~\ref{Fig3}(b)-(e), which supports Eqs.~(\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2}).
Note that $B$ is predicted as an increasing function of $\alpha w/d$ from
Eq.~(\ref{eq2}) as understood from the approximate expression $B\simeq2\beta$
obtained in the limit $\Delta\ll\beta$. Then all the following behaviors shown
in Figure~\ref{Fig3}(b)-(e) are consistent with Eqs.~(\ref{eq1}) and
(\ref{eq2}), if the dependence of $\tau$ on $d$ is relatively weak. (1)
Figure~\ref{Fig3}(b) shows that $V$ and $B$ are independent of $L$. (2)
Figure~\ref{Fig3}(c) shows that $V$ is independent of $w$ and that $B$
increases with $w$. (3) Figure~\ref{Fig3}(d) shows that $V$ increases with $d$
and that $B$ decreases with $d$. (4) Figure~\ref{Fig3}(e) shows that $V$ is
independent of $\alpha$ and that $B$ increases with $\alpha$.

The importance of a weak and localized pressure difference created near the
orifice was clearly shown in the intermittent regime
\cite{HourglassTick1993PRL,HourglassPRE1996}. They showed the existence of the
active phase in which the flow through the orifice is maintained and the
pressure difference increases with the increase in $h_{b}$ till the bubble
disappears. This active phase is followed by the inactive phase in which the
flow through the orifice is stopped and the pressure difference decreases till
the creation of the next cavity. During the active phase, because of the
transfer of sand from the upper to lower chamber, the pressure in the sand
layer near the orifice becomes larger than the pressure in the upper chamber
due to the compression and expansion of air in the lower and upper chambers,
respectively, provided that the chambers are closed (Note, however, this is
true only when $h_{t}$ decreases as $h_{b}$ increases; see Fig.~\ref{Fig4A}).
This pressure difference helps stabilize the bottom of the sand layer, leading
to a complete stop of the flow, i.e., to an initiation of the inactive phase.
During the inactive phase the pressure differences thus created is gradually
reduced by the permeation of air in the sand layer till the bottom of the sand
destabilizes again, leading to an intermittent dynamics. They developed a
theory describing the duration of inactive phase $T_{i}$ on the basis of the
Darcy law on the permeation of viscous fluid in porous materials and confirmed
the theory by experiments. However, they did not give a theory describing the
duration of the active phase $T_{a}$ although they indicated the importance of
clogging, by explicitly saying \cite{HourglassPRE1996} "the plug was created
when the flux of particles coming from the free-fall arch (corresponding to
the bottom surface of the sand layer at $z=h_{b}$) was too large to pass
through the orifice rapidly." Note here the following points for this series
of study \cite{HourglassTick1993PRL,HourglassPRE1996}: (1) They claimed that
the period $T_{i}+T_{a}$ was quite robust and independent of the grain size
and explained the characteristic order of the period by the Darcy dynamics in
the first series of study \cite{HourglassTick1993PRL}; (2) However, in the
second series of study \cite{HourglassPRE1996} the view on the robustness was
modified and they suggested the importance of clogging in the active phase as
above but without developing a theory.

\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Fig4.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Creation and non-creation of air pressure difference in the chambers
of an hourglass. The shaded areas stand for the regions occupied by the sand,
which is here considered as completely impermeable. In the change from (a) at
the time $t=0$ to (b) at the time $t=t_{1}$, the pressure difference is
created because of the changes in volume of the air in the chambers (from the
volumes $V_{1}$ and $V_{2}$ to $V_{1}+dV$ and $V_{2}-dV$). In the changes from
the state in (a) to the state in (c), the pressure difference is not created,
corresponding (nearly) to the case in the cavity regime.}%
\label{Fig4A}%
\end{figure}

Bubbling in the present study and in the previous studies
\cite{HourglassTick1993PRL,HourglassPRE1996} are quite different. The size of
bubbles is much larger and the life time of bubbles is much longer in the
present study. A marked difference is that bubbles in the present cases never
disappears before they reach the top of the sand layer $h_{t}$. In addition,
more than one bubble can coexist in the sand layer in the present case.

However, we consider that the pressure difference is still important in the
present bubbling regime, which is an intermittent regime as in the previous
studies \cite{HourglassTick1993PRL,HourglassPRE1996}, although detailed
effects should be rather different (see below). For example, the period
$T_{i}$ in the previous study, in which period the pressure difference is
reduced, corresponds to the waiting time $t_{\text{w}}$ in the present study.
Our theoretical arguments based on the clogging condition given above provides
an estimate for the counterpart of $T_{a}$ in which period the pressure
difference is increased, whereas any explicit estimates are not available in
the previous studies \cite{HourglassTick1993PRL,HourglassPRE1996}. The
counterpart of $T_{a}$ is here defined as $t_{a}\equiv t_{\text{bub}}%
^{(n)}-t_{\text{cav}}^{(n)}$, through the relation $t_{a}\simeq B/V$. This
expression implies that the time $t_{a}$ increases with $\alpha$ and $w$ and
decreases with $d$ (see Eqs.~(\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq2})). We have confirmed
that this is indeed the case in our experiments on the basis of the data shown
in Fig.~\ref{Fig3}(b)-(e).

Note that the dependence of $t_{a}$ on $d$ in the present study is the
opposite to that of $T_{a}$ on $d$: $t_{a}$ decreases with $d$ whereas $T_{a}$
increases with $d$. This is a clear experimental fact while the dependence of
$t_{a}$ on $d$ is explained by the present theory. This suggests that although
the physical mechanisms of bubbling in the present and previous studies are
conceptually similar but the details are quite different.

\subsection*{Cavity regime}

In Fig.~\ref{Fig4}(a), the sudden collapse of the cavity is quantified by
plotting $h_{t}$ as a function of $h_{b}$ at the moment of collapse; the
critical values are respectively denoted $h_{t}^{c}$ and $h_{b}^{c}$ in the plot.

\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Fig5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) $h_{t}^{c}$ vs $h_{b}^{c}$, i.e., $h_{t}$ vs $h_{b}$ (See
Fig.~\ref{Fig1}(b)) at the moment of the collapse of a cavity in the cavity
regime, for various $\theta$, i.e., $\alpha=\tan\theta$ with $L=56$ mm, $2w=2$
mm and $d=30$ $\mu$m. The data for a fixed $\theta$ (or $\alpha$) is on a
straight line as predicted. To avoid overlap, the values of $h_{t}^{c}$ in
each series are scaled as suggested on the plot. (b) $m$ vs $\alpha$. The
quantity $m$ is here obtained experimentally from the slope of the line
fitting the $h_{t}^{c}-h_{b}^{c}$ plot (without the rescaling for avoiding the
overlap). The data are on the straight line as predicted, with the slope
predicts the friction coefficient $\mu$ between sand particles and cell
walls.}%
\label{Fig4}%
\end{figure}

This linear relation $h_{t}^{c}\simeq h_{b}^{c}$ for various conditions shown
in Fig.~\ref{Fig4}(a) can be explained by the condition that the cavity
collapse occurs when gravitational force $F_{g}$ acting on the sand layer
exceeds friction force $F_{\text{fric}}$ acting on the layer from the cell
walls. The force $F_{g}$ is simply estimated by $\rho gL[\left(  h_{t}%
^{c}\right)  ^{2}-\left(  h_{b}^{c}\right)  ^{2}]/\alpha$ with $\rho$
representing the density of the granular layer. The force $F_{\text{fric}}$ is
estimated as $\mu\rho gL(h_{t}^{c}-h_{b}^{c})^{2}$ when $L\gg H$ as shown in
Methods. When a cavity starts growing, the condition $F_{\text{fric}}>F_{g}$
holds. As the cavity becomes larger, both forces decrease but the
gravitational force decreases more slowly. As a result, the condition
$F_{\text{fric}}=F_{g}$ is satisfied in the end, resulting in the collapse of
the cavity. This last condition for $L\gg H$ gives%
\begin{equation}
h_{t}^{c}=\frac{m+1}{m-1}h_{b}^{c} \label{eq3}%
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
m=\mu\tan\theta=\mu\alpha\label{eq4}%
\end{equation}
This equation explains the linear relation shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig4}(a) (All
the data in Fig.~\ref{Fig4} are obtained for $L=56$ mm, which satisfies the
necessary condition $L\gg H$ for Eq.~(\ref{eq3}) to be valid). From the slope
of the linear fitting line that should be equal to $(m+1)/(m-1$), we obtain
$m$ as a function of $\alpha$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig4}(b). As predicted in
Eq. (\ref{eq4}), $m$ is linearly dependent on $\alpha$, from which the
friction coefficient is obtained as $\mu=0.775\pm0.032$. This value also
justifies our theory because this value is a reasonable value as a friction coefficient.

The effect of pressure gradient discussed for an intermittent regime in the
previous studies \cite{HourglassTick1993PRL,HourglassPRE1996} may play an
essential role also in the cavity regime for the stabilization of the
suspended sand layer although the cavity regime is not an intermittent regime.
However, the collapse condition given in Eq.~(\ref{eq3}) is still
predominantly determined not by the pressure difference but by the friction in
the present cavity regime. There are several reasons for this as follows:

(1) The pressure difference that would be accumulated if the sand layer were
completely impermeable seems to be rather small. This is because, during the
cavity formation in which the height $h_{b}$ is increasing, the height $h_{t}$
is almost fixed to the initial position, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Fig4A}%
(c). Note that if $h_{t}$ is completely fixed and the sand layer is completely
impermeable, the pressure difference should not be created at all. This is
because, in such a case, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Fig4A}, there is no
change in volume for the air in the space above the sand layer (i.e., in the
region, $H>z>h_{t}$), and no volume change occurs also for the air in the
space below the sand layer and above the sand accumulated at the bottom of the
lower chamber (i. e., in the region, $h_{b}>z\gtrsim-H$): air is neither
compressed nor expanded.

(2) Even if a small pressure difference is created as suggested in (1), the
pressure difference seems to be considerably reduced in reality during the
formation of the cavity. This is experimentally supported in two ways. (a)
Careful observation near the top surface of the sand layer (at the position
$z\gtrsim h_{t}$) reveals that sand particles are vigorously ejected upwards
because of air flow coming out from the sand layer, which obviously relaxes
the pressure gradient. (b) As soon as $h_{b}$ approaches the critical value,
the cavity collapses without any observable delay; If the sand layer were
predominantly supported by the pressure differences accumulated before
reaching the critical state, the collapse would occur only after a delay time
in which the pressure gradient would be reduced to some extent by the
permeation of air through the sand layer; In fact, in the previous work
\cite{HourglassPRE1996} in which the effect of pressure gradient is important,
they observed such a waiting time $T_{i}$ of the order of a few seconds. The
effect of air permeation during the cavity formation, described in (a),
obviously helps stabilize the sand layer because of the viscous drag due to
air, especially because the permeability becomes smaller when the grain size
is small. However, the fact that the pressure gradient seems almost completely
relaxed by the time of the collapse (if otherwise, the delay time should be
noticeable because of the small permeability), as discussed in (b), implies
that the collapse condition cannot be strongly affected by the pressure gradient.

(3) The collapse condition governed by the gravitational and friction force
can be dimensionally justified. The two forces acting on the suspended
granular layer are given both as $\rho gLH^{2}$ as implied above because
$h_{t}$ and $h_{b}$ are roughly of the same order of magnitude as $H$. These
estimates elucidate why these two forces can balance with each other to give
the collapse condition. On the contrary, the force on the layer that
originates from the pressure difference between two chambers scales as
$cP(\Delta V/V)A$, where $\Delta V$ is very small as implied in (1) and the
numerical coefficient $c$ is also very small as suggested in (2). Here, $P$ is
the initial pressure of the chambers and $A$ is a characteristic area of the
layer, whereas $V$ and $\Delta V$ are a characteristic volume of chambers and
changes in them, respectively. Since $\Delta V/V$ and $A$ roughly scale as
$\delta/H$ and $LH$, respectively, the ratio of the pressure force to the
gravitational or frictional force scales as $c(P/\rho gH)(\delta/H)$. Here,
$\delta$ is the downwards shift of $h_{t}$ during the cavity formation, which
produces the pressure gradient. As mentioned in (1), $\delta$ is significantly
small in the cavity regime. Thus, the ratio $(P/\rho gH)(\delta/H)$ is
typically of the order of unity. This justifies why the pressure effect is
less dominant because $c$ is very small due to the effect of relaxation
described in (2).

(4) The two independent checks for the agreement between theory and experiment
shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig4}(a) and (b) strongly support that the collapse of the
cavity is properly described by the balance between the gravitational and
frictional forces. If the collapse condition is governed not by the friction
force but by the pressure difference, we expect that neither Eq. (\ref{eq3})
nor Eq. (\ref{eq4}) are correct. In reality, both Eq. (\ref{eq3}) and Eq.
(\ref{eq4}) are well confirmed as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig4}(a) and (b), respectively.

\section*{Discussion}

At this point, we discuss crude estimates for $\tau$, although a better
physical understanding of the life time $\tau$ possibly related to a
reorganization time of granular structure will be an important issue to be
resolved in the future. One possibility is based on the free fall motion of a
grain: this gives $\tau\sim\sqrt{d/g}$. Another possibility is based on
viscous drag by the capillary bridges at the contacts: writing the balance
between the viscous and gravitational force as $\eta U/d^{2}\sim\rho g$, with
the viscosity of water being $\eta$ and with the characteristic velocity $U$
scaling as $d/\tau$, we obtain $\tau\sim\eta/(\rho gd)$. Both crude estimates
give similar orders of magnitude: $\tau\sim$ ms. This is comparable to $\tau$
estimated by $V$ and $d$ on the basis of Eq.~(\ref{eq1}). In addition, both
estimates with Eq.~(\ref{eq1}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq2}) are consistent with
qualitative behaviors of $V$ and $B$ in Fig.~\ref{Fig3}(d).

While humidity affects $\tau$ as indicated above, the precise control of
humidity is experimentally difficult. For example, the data in Fig.~\ref{Fig3}%
(a) can be obtained within approximately 10 seconds, so that we observe a well
defined $V,B$, and $T$ in Fig.~\ref{Fig3}(a). However, the data in
Fig.~\ref{Fig3}(b)-(d) cannot be obtained in such a short duration and in fact
obtained within several hours in the same room. Because of this non-precise
control of humidity, we should be satisfied not by a quantitative but by
qualitative agreement between theory and experiment in Fig.~\ref{Fig3}(b)-(d).

However, we expect the humidity dependence is not too strong. This is because
of the following reasons: (1) The bubbling regime appears for larger grains so
that the effect of cohesion should be relatively weak in the bubbling regime;
(2) The qualitative agreement between theory and experiment in the bubbling
regime was obtained, in spite of the non-precise control of humidity; (3) If
$d$-dependence of $\tau$ were strong, it could change qualitative behaviors of
$V$ and $B$ in Fig.~\ref{Fig3}(d).

The reason we observed bubbling and cavity collapse in a hopper that are quite
visible to a level never reported in the literature may be the following. The
key factor that we successfully observed spontaneous bubbling and cavity
collapse in a hopper is the stabilization of a suspended granular layer. When
the bubbling regime is observed, the cell thickness is relatively small and
the cell is quasi-two dimensional. This helps stabilize a suspended layer
because the layer is sandwiched in a small gap between the cell walls, to
create a cavity at the outlet, which is soon closed by clogging. When the
cavity collapse is observed, the cell thickness is relatively large. In this
case, the cohesion force between small sand particles helps stabilize a
suspended layer, to create a cavity at the outlet, which is not soon closed
because clogging is harder to occur when the cell thickness is large. These
stabilization conditions have not been well satisfied in most of the previous
physical studies.

However, a phenomenon similar to the one in our bubbling regime are reported
\cite{HourglassTick1993PRL,HourglassPRE1996} as already mentioned, in which
the importance of the pressure gradient is highlighted. In this respect, the
present study provides the following perspective. The pressure gradient is
especially important in intermittent regimes, which includes the bubbling
regime of the present study. In intermittent regimes, we can recognize two
phases: the active phase in which the flow through the orifice is maintained
and the inactive phase in which the flow is stopped. At least conceptually
(although the details are dependent on experimental parameters such as the
geometry of hoppers and the size of grains), the characteristic time scale for
the inactive phase is described by Darcy law for the permeation of viscous
fluid in a porous medium as discussed previously
\cite{HourglassTick1993PRL,HourglassPRE1996}, whereas the characteristic time
for the active phase is characterized by the condition of clogging as
discussed in the present paper. Note that in the cavity regime of the present
study, which is not an intermittent phase, the pressure gradient may be
important for the stabilization of the suspended sand layer but it does not
govern the condition of the collapse of the cavity.

The spontaneous bubbling and cavity collapse we discussed in this study may be
useful for mixing a fluid and powder in industrial applications. This is
expected because forced fluidization processes are essential for applications,
such as petroleum refining and biomass gasification, in which bubbles created
in fluidized bed reactors affect the efficiency
\cite{BubbleEffectsFluidizedBed1981,FluidizeExpRev1994}. A merit of the
bubbling and cavity collapse discussed in the present study is that these
phenomena occur spontaneously due to gravity and there is no need to pump a
fluid inside a granular medium: efficient or violent mixing (by virtue of the
bubbling or cavity collapse, respectively) is repeatedly achieved just by
rotating a container. In other words, the fluidized bed reactor is driven by
an externally imposed air flow, whereas the present bubbling and cavity
regimes are driven spontaneously by gravity.

To conclude, the present results reveal novel aspects of granular dynamics
when a suspended granular layer becomes stabilized to a certain extent and the
interplay of the stabilized granular bed and clogging of the granular flow is
important, which could open new avenues of research within granular physics.
We have shown (1) that bubbling and cavity emerge as a result of the interplay
of the clogging and the stability, (2) that the rising speed of a bubble
(comparable to the growing speed of a cavity), the initial bubble size and the
constant formation of bubbles are understood by introducing a life time for a
sand particle exposed to the interface of a suspended granular layer and a
clogging condition resulting from the competition between two characteristic
flow rates, and (3) that the sudden collapse of the suspended layer is
explained by considering a force balance between gravity and solid-like
friction with walls. The present results would be relevant to applications for
mixing a fluid with grains.

\section*{Methods}

\subsection*{Experimental}

The experiment is performed with a cell composed of acrylic plates of
thickness 3 mm. The height $2H$ is fixed to 162 mm, whereas the thickness $L$
and the slope $\alpha$ (that defines the angle $\theta$) range from 3 to 56
mm, and from 60 to 85 deg., respectively. The outlet width $2w$ of the hopper
is varied from 1.5 to 3 mm. The average diameter $d$ of beads is changed from
30 to 100 $\mu$m (GLB-30, GLB-40, GLB-60, GLB-100, Assoc. Powder Process Ind.
and Eng., Japan). We observe the transport of beads through the outlet by
taking movies using a video camera (Canon, iVHS HF S21) either from the front
or lateral side of the cell.

\subsection*{Theory}

The force $F_{\text{fric}}$ can be estimated by noting that the pressure
inside the granular medium is in the hydrostatic regime (the sand layer is not
thick enough for Janssen's model to be valid \cite{Jansen,Duran1997}): the
pressure inside the granular medium at position $z$ measured from the outlet
is simply given by $p=p_{0}+\rho g(h_{t}^{c}-z)\simeq\rho g(h_{t}^{c}-z)$. The
friction force is acting from the two vertical walls and the other two walls
with slope $\alpha$. We consider a simple case $L\gg H$, in which the latter
contribution becomes dominant. For a wall element $Ldl$ ($dl\sin\theta=dz$) at
the the height $z$, the normal force is given by $\rho g(h_{t}^{c}-z)$: this
element is subject to the friction force $\mu\rho g(h_{t}^{c}-z)Ldl$ with
$\mu$ the coefficient of the maximal static friction along the slope
$\alpha=\tan\theta$ and thus the vertical component is given by $\mu\rho
g(h_{t}^{c}-z)Ldz$. For the layer located between the position $h_{b}^{c}$ to
$h_{t}^{c}$ the total friction $F_{\text{fric}}$ applied by the two walls of
slope $\alpha$ is given by $F_{\text{fric}}$ $=2\mu\rho gL\int_{h_{b}^{c}%
}^{h_{t}^{c}}(h_{t}^{c}-z)dz$, which gives the expression used in deriving Eq.
(\ref{eq3}).

Soft Condensed Matter (cond-mat.soft); Materials Science (cond-mat.mtrl-sci); Statistical Mechanics (cond-mat.stat-mech); Geophysics (physics.geo-ph); Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph)