\section{Introduction}

It has been suggested that warm rain accounts for about $30\%$ of the total amount of rain and for $70\%$
of the total rain area in the tropics, which plays an important
role in regulating the vertical water and energy transport of the tropical
atmosphere \citep{lau2003warm}. Its rapid formation has puzzled
the cloud microphysics community for about 70 years.
The observed time scale of warm rain formation is known to be about 20 minutes
\citep{stephens2007near}, which is much shorter than the theoretically predicted
time scale of 8 hours \citep{1955_Saffman}. Condensational and collisional growth
determine the formation of warm rain. In the absence of turbulence,
condensational growth is effective for cloud condensation nuclei and cloud
droplets smaller than 15 $\mu$m in radius. Since the growth rate is
inversely proportional to the radius, condensational growth leads
to a narrow width of the droplet-size distribution.
The gravity-generated collisional growth in isolation becomes important only when
the mean radius of droplets is larger than $\sim40\,\mu$m. Thus, there is a size gap
of $15\,\mu$m--$40\,\mu$m where neither condensation nor collision
drives the growth \citep{pruppacher2012microphysics, 2011_lamb, Grabowski_2013}.
Therefore, the effect of turbulence on condensational and collisional growth
has been proposed to overcome this size gap \citep{1955_Saffman, shaw_2003,
DBB12, Grabowski_2013}.
In the meteorology community, the process of collision-coalescence
is also referred to as collection, while in the astrophysical community,
this process is referred to as coagulation \citep{li2017effect}. Since
we assume unit collision and coalescence efficiency, we use the terminology
collision in the present study.

\cite{1955_Saffman} formulated the effect of turbulence on the collision
rate in their pioneering work, referred to as the Saffman-Turner model.
This model suggested that the collision rate is dominated
by small scales of turbulence, because the typical size of cloud droplets
(about $10\,\mu$m by radius) is about two orders of magnitude smaller than
the Kolmogorov length (the smallest scale of turbulence, which is
about $1\,$mm). Using dimensional analysis, \cite{1955_Saffman} predicted
that the mean collision rate is proportional to the mean energy dissipation
rate $\bar{\epsilon}$ if there is no intermittency and if particle inertia
is small. Following \cite{1955_Saffman}, several stochastic models
\citep{reuter1988collection, grover1985effect, pinsky2004collisions,
pinsky2007collisions, pinsky2008collisions} suggested that turbulence causes
a substantial enhancement of the collision rate. However, \citet{koziol1996effect}
found that turbulence only has a moderate effect on the collision rate.
\cite{wang2005theoretical} and \cite{Grabowski_2013} argued that this discrepancy
is either due to the simplified descriptions of the droplet motion
or an inaccurate modelling
of fluctuations in turbulence.

The rapid development of computers has made it feasible to study the
condensational and collisional growth using direct numerical simulation (DNS).
Most of the DNS studies of the collisional growth ignored the coalescence
\citep{franklin2005collision, ayala_2008, rosa2013kinematic, chen2016cloud, woittiez2009combined},
i.e., the size of the droplet does not change.
This has helped to establish an understanding of the physical mechanisms
that contribute to the collisional growth \citep{li2017effect}, such as
turbulence enhancement
on the relative velocity of droplets and droplet clustering, which were shown
to be important to the collision rate
\citep{SRC98,CK04,CC05,SA08, bec2010intermittency, gustavsson2011distribution,
gustavsson2014relative, ireland16_1, ireland16, meibohm2017relative}.
The turbulence effect on the geometric collision rate was investigated
by \cite{franklin2005collision}, \cite{ayala_2008}, \cite{rosa2013kinematic}, and \cite{chen2016cloud}.
They concluded that turbulence enhances the collision rate
with increasing mean energy dissipation rate and
that its dependency on the Reynolds number is secondary.

\citet{franklin2008warm}, \citet{xue2008growth}, and \citet{Wang_2009} investigated the collision-coalescence
processes by solving the Smoluchowski equation together with the Navier-Stokes
equation using DNS. They found that the size distribution of cloud droplets
is significantly enhanced by turbulence.
\citet{2016Onishi}
extended the collision-rate model of \citet{Wang_2009} and
performed DNS at higher Reynolds number, where a Reynolds
number dependency was obtained.
Using a Lagrangian collision-detection method, \cite{chen2018turbulence}
found that turbulence strongly affects the broadening of the size distribution.
However, \cite{li2017effect} found that turbulence has a moderate effect on
the collision-coalescence process and that the enhancement effect
is sensitive to the initial width of droplet-size distributions.
This finding turns out to be important for the present paper.

The effect of turbulence on
condensational growth has also been explored
intensively. Since turbulence affects the temperature field and
spatial distribution of the water-vapor mixing ratio,
the supersaturation field determined
by temperature and water mixing ratio is inevitably affected by
turbulence.
\cite{srivastava1989growth}
criticized the use of volume-averaged supersaturation
and proposed adopting the local supersaturation field
to calculate the condensational growth of cloud droplets.
This is a prototype of supersaturation fluctuations.
To investigate how supersaturation fluctuations affect
the condensational growth, \cite{vaillancourt2002microscopic} solved
the thermodynamical equations that govern the supersaturation using
DNS.
They concluded that turbulence
has a negligible effect on condensational growth.
\cite{paoli2009turbulent} investigated
turbulence as well as the temperature and vapor
fields and found that supersaturation fluctuations are responsible for
the broadening of the droplet-size distribution,
which is contrary to the findings by \cite{vaillancourt2002microscopic}.
\cite{2009_Lanotte}, \cite{2015_Sardina}, and \cite{siewert2017statistical} conducted DNS
for condensational growth by solving a passive scalar
equation for the supersaturation and concluded that the size
distribution broadens with increasing Reynolds number.
\cite{li2018cloud} investigated the effect of turbulence on condensational
growth by solving the complete set of thermodynamic equations
governing the supersaturation field and found that condensational
growth strongly depends on the Reynolds number.
\cite{li2018cloud} suggested that the contradiction between the work of
\cite{vaillancourt2002microscopic} and the ones of others could be due to the fact
that \cite{vaillancourt2002microscopic} varied the Reynolds number and the
mean energy dissipation rate at the same time. Also, the Reynolds number
in \cite{vaillancourt2002microscopic} is about three times smaller than
in any of the other papers.
\cite{grabowski2017broadening} also found that
the droplet-size distribution broadens due to supersaturation fluctuations by
using a turbulent adiabatic parcel model.

Most of the previous DNS studies only considered either condensational
growth or collisional growth. The combined condensational and collisional
growth has rarely been investigated.
Only recently, \cite{saito2017turbulence} studied the combined processes
and found that the width of the droplet-size distribution increases with
increasing turbulence intensity. However, they did not discuss which
scales of turbulence matter for the broadening.
\cite{chen2018bridging} employed the same model as \cite{saito2017turbulence}
and concluded that turbulence enhances the growth with increasing
mean energy dissipation rate. However, they did not study the dependency
of droplet-size distributions on Reynolds number.
Indeed, several works \citep{2009_Lanotte,2015_Sardina,li2018cloud}
suggested that condensational growth is sensitive to the Reynolds number.
The collisional growth, however, is affected by the mean energy dissipation rate \citep{li2017effect}.
To study the turbulence effect on the combined processes is challenging
because both large and small scales of turbulence need to be well resolved.
\cite{saito2017turbulence} and \cite{chen2018bridging} also prescribed
a mean updraft cooling in their work. They
found that the mean updraft velocity of fluid parcels, mean supersaturation, and
liquid-water content are all insensitive to the turbulence intensity.

In this paper, we investigate the effect of turbulence on the combined condensational
and collisional growth of cloud droplets at different scales of turbulence using DNS.
The temperature field and the water-vapor mixing ratio field
governing the supersaturation are advected by turbulence.
Droplets, whose motion is subjected to turbulence and gravity are tracked
in a Lagrangian manner. Their trajectories differs
from those of gas flow tracers due to inertia.
Droplets grow or shrink depending on the spatial and temporal variability of
the local supersaturation. 
More importantly, the process of collision-coalescence is included, which
is driven by both gravity and turbulence.
Since we focus on the impact of turbulence on droplets growth,
the mean updraft cooling is omitted.
We first investigate how condensational and collisional processes affect each other
through thermodynamics and droplet dynamics.
Then, we explore how the combined condensational and collisional growth
depends on the mean energy dissipation rate and the Reynolds number. We focus on the time evolution
of the droplet-size distribution $f(r,t)$,
which is one of the most important
quantities in cloud microphysics since it is the key to
the cloud-climate feedback and precipitation \citep{shaw_2003}.
The importance of our work lies in the fact that we
are able to explain how condensation affects the collision.
In earlier work of \cite{chen2018bridging}, condensational growth was thought to
enhance the rate of collisions by producing a
large number of similar-sized droplets as a consequence of a
narrowing size distribution.
Here, instead, we show that collisional growth is enhanced by the production of a broadening
tail of the droplet-size distribution through supersaturation fluctuations.

\section{Numerical model}

In this section, the
equations governing the Eulerian fields, droplet dynamics, condensation, and
collisions are presented. They are solved using the {\sc Pencil Code}; see
\cite{li2017eulerian} for an earlier application to droplet growth.

\subsection{Equations of motion for Eulerian fields}
\label{sec:model}

The background air flow is almost incompressible
and is assumed to obey the Boussinesq approximation.
This approximation assumes that density gradients
are negligible except when multiplied by the gravitational acceleration, requiring
temperature gradients to be small (see for example \cite{mehaddi2018inertial}).
The density $\rho(\bm{x}, t)$ is governed by the continuity equation
while the velocity $\bm{u}(\bm{x}, t)$ is obtained from the Navier-Stokes equation.
The temperature $T(\bm{x}, t)$ of the background air flow is determined by the
energy equation with a source term
due to the latent heat release.
The water-vapor mixing ratio $q_v(\bm{x}, t)$ is transported by the background air flow.
Here, $q_v(\bm{x}, t)$ is defined as the ratio between the mass density of water vapor and dry air.
The Eulerian equations are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:continuity}
  {\partial\rho\over\partial t}+{\bm{\nabla}}\cdot(\rho\bm{u})=S_\rho ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{D\bm{u}\over D t}=\bm{f}
-\rho^{-1}{\bm{\nabla}} p
  +\rho^{-1} {\bm \nabla} \cdot (2 \nu \rho {\sf S})+B\bm{e}_z+{\bm S}_u ,
\label{turb}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tt}
{D T\over Dt}
=\kappa\nabla^2 T+\frac{L}{c_{\rm p}}C_d ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{D q_v\over Dt}=D\nabla^2 q_v-C_d,
\label{mixingRatio}
\end{equation}
where $D/Dt=\partial/\partial t+\bm{u}\cdot{\bm{\nabla}}$ is the material derivative,
${\bm f}$ is a random forcing function that is chosen to be the same as
the one used in \citet{Haugen_etal_2004PhRvE},
$\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity of air,
${\sf S}_{ij}={\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}(\partial_j u_i+\partial_i u_j)
-{\textstyle{1\over3}}\delta_{ij}{\bm{\nabla}}\cdot\bm{u}$ is
the traceless rate-of-strain tensor, $p$ is the gas pressure, $\rho$ is the gas density,
$L$ is the latent heat, $\kappa$ is the thermal diffusivity of air, and $D$
is the water vapor diffusivity.
In calculating the pressure, we ignore the heating and cooling processes
and assume an adiabatic equation of state given by
\begin{equation}
p=\rho c_{\rm s}^2/\gamma,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma=c_{\rm p}/c_{\rm v}=7/5$
(appropriate for diatomic gases such as air)
is the ratio between specific heats at constant
pressure and constant volume, $c_{\rm p}$ and $c_{\rm v}$, respectively.
We set the sound speed as $5\,\rm{m} \, \rm{s}^{-1}$
to simulate the nearly incompressible atmospheric air flow,
resulting in a Mach number
of $0.06$ when $u_{\rm rms}=0.27\,\rm{m} \, \rm{s}^{-1}$. Here $u_{\rm rms}$
is the rms velocity.
Such a configuration, with so small Mach number, is equivalent to an
incompressible flow.
The source terms in equations~\ref{eq:continuity} and \ref{turb} ($S_\rho$
and $\bm{S}_u$) come from the mass transfer between the droplets and
the humid air due to condensation and evaporation, in addition to the one from the drag
between the droplets and the air. However,
since the mass transfer is small relative to the total mass of the
air, and since the fraction of liquid to gaseous mass is also low,
these terms are neglected in the remainder of this work.
When solving the strict incompressible flow as in
\citet{vaillancourt2002microscopic} and \citet{paoli2009turbulent}, 
the source terms $S_\rho$ and $\bm{S}_u$ do not exist.
The buoyancy $B(\bm{x},t)$ depends on the temperature $T(\bm{x},t)$,
upon the water-vapor mixing ratio $q_v(\bm{x},t)$,
and on the liquid-water mixing ratio $q_l(\bm{x},t)$ \citep{2011_lamb,Kumar14},
\begin{equation}
B(\bm{x},t)=g(T^{\prime}/T+\alpha q_v^{\prime}-q_l),
\end{equation}
where $\alpha=M_a/M_v-1\approx0.608$ when $M_a$
and $M_v$ are the molar masses of air and water vapor, respectively.
The amplitude of the gravitational acceleration is given by $g$.
The liquid-water mixing ratio is the ratio between the mass density
of liquid water and the dry air and is defined as \citep{2011_lamb,li2018cloud},
\begin{equation}
q_l\left(\bm{x},t\right)=
\frac{4\pi\rho_l}{3\rho_a (\Delta x)^3}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\triangle}}
r^3\left(t\right)
=\frac{4\pi\rho_l}{3\rho_a }\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\triangle}}
f(r,\bm{x},t)r^3\left(t\right)\delta r,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_l=10^3\,kg\rm{m}^{-3}$ and $\rho_a=1\,kg\rm{m}^{-3}$ are the liquid-water density
and the reference mass density of dry air.
$N_{\triangle}$ is the total
number of droplets in a cubic grid cell with volume $(\Delta x)^3$,
where $\Delta x$ is the one-dimensional size of the grid box \citep{li2018cloud}.
The temperature fluctuations are defined as
\begin{equation}
T^{\prime}\left(\bm{x},t\right)=T\left(\bm{x},t\right)-T_{\rm env},
\end{equation}
and the water-vapor mixing ratio fluctuations by
\begin{equation}
q_v^{\prime}\left(\bm{x},t\right)=q_v\left(\bm{x},t\right)-q_{v,\rm{env}},
\end{equation}
where the mean environmental temperature $T_{\rm env}$ and water-vapor mixing ratio $q_{v,\rm{env}}$
are constant.
The condensation rate $C_d$ is given by \citep{vaillancourt2001microscopic}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
C_d\left(\bm{x},t\right)
& =\frac{4\pi\rho_l G}{\rho_a (\Delta x)^3}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\triangle}}
s\left(\bm{x},t\right)r\left(t\right) \\
& =\frac{4\pi\rho_l G}{\rho_a }\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\triangle}}
s\left(\bm{x},t\right)f(r,\bm{x},t)r\left(t\right)\delta r,
\label{condensationRate}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $G$ is the condensation parameter that varies slowly with temperature and pressure \citep{2011_lamb}
and is thus assumed to be constant (having units of $\,{\rm m}^2\,{\rm s}^{-1}$).
The supersaturation $s$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
s\left(\bm{x},t\right)=\frac{q_v\left(\bm{x},t\right)}{q_{vs}\left(T\right)}-1,
\label{supersaturation}
\end{equation}
and $q_{vs}\left(T\right)$ is the
saturation water vapor mixing ratio at temperature $T$ and
can be determined via the ideal gas law,
\begin{equation}
q_{vs}\left(T\right)=\frac{e_s\left(T\right)}{R_v \rho_0 T}.
\label{eq: qvs}
\end{equation}
The saturation pressure $e_s$ is determined via the
Clausius-Clapeyron equation \citep{yau1996short,Gotzfried17},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:e_s}
e_s(T)=c_1 \exp(-c_2/T),
\end{equation}
where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are constants.
We refer to \Tab{constants} for all the thermodynamics constants
and \citet{li2018cloud} for details of the numerical setup.

\subsection{Lagrangian model for dynamics of cloud droplets}

We approximate the droplet dynamics using a stochastic Monte Carlo algorithm
\citep{bird1978monte,bird1981monte,jorgensen1983comparison}
that represents a number of spherical droplets by a superparticle
\citep{Dullemond_2008, Shima09, Johansen_2012, li2017eulerian, li2017effect}.
All droplets in superparticle $i$ are assumed to have the same
material density $\rho_l$, radius $r_i$, and velocity $v_i$.
Further, each superparticle is assigned a volume of the grid cell and thus
a droplet number density, $n_i$.
Each superdroplet is treated as a
Lagrangian point-particle, where one solves for the particle position
$\bm{x}_i$,
\begin{equation}
  \frac{d\bm{x}_i}{dt}=\bm{V}_i,
\end{equation}
and its velocity $\bm{V}_i$ via
\begin{equation}
  \frac{d\bm{V}_i}{dt}=\frac{1}{\tau_i}(\bm{u}-\bm{V}_i)+\bm{g}
\end{equation}
in the usual way; see \cite{li2017eulerian} for details.
Here, $\bm{u}$ is the fluid velocity at the position of the droplet,
$\bm g$ is the gravitational acceleration,
$\tau_i$ is the inertial response (or stopping) time
of a droplet $i$ and is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{response_time}
\tau_i=2\rho_{\rm l} r_i^2/[9\rho\nu \, D({\rm Re}_i)].
\end{equation}
The correction factor \citep{Schiller33, Marchioli08}
\begin{equation}
D({\rm Re}_i)=1+0.15\,{\rm Re}_i^{2/3}
\label{eq:correction}
\end{equation}
is used to approximate the effect of non-zero particle Reynolds number
${\rm Re}_i=2r_i|\bm{u}-\bm{V}_i|/\nu$.

\subsection{Condensation and collisions of Lagrangian droplets}

The condensational growth of droplets
is governed by \citep{pruppacher2012microphysics,2011_lamb},
\begin{equation}
	{{\rm d} r_i\over{\rm d} t}={Gs\left(\bm{x}_i,t\right)\over r_i}.
\label{cond_eq}
\end{equation}

Collisional growth of cloud droplets is modeled by using a superparticle approach
\citep{Shima09,Johansen_2012,li2017eulerian,li2017effect}.
When two superparticles reside in the same grid cell, the probability of collision
between one droplet in a superparticle colliding with droplets in another
superparticle is
$p_{c}=\tau_{c}^{-1}\Delta t$,
where $\Delta t$ is the integration time step.
A collision event only occurs when $p_{c}>\eta_c$, where $\eta_c$ is a
random number between zero and one \citep{li2017effect}.
The collision time $\tau_{c}$ is determined by
\begin{equation}
	\tau_{c}^{-1}=\sigma_{c} n_j\left|\bm{V}_{i}
	-\bm{V}_{j}\right| E_{c}.
\label{tauij1}
\end{equation}
Here $\sigma_{c}=\pi(r_i+r_j)^2$
is the geometric collision cross-section between two droplets with radii $r_i$ and $r_j$.
The parameter $E_{c}$ is the collision efficiency, which is set to unity for simplicity.
We refer to \citet{li2017eulerian} and \citet{li2017effect} for details of the algorithm.

\subsection{Initial conditions}

We use the same initial configuration as in \citet{li2018cloud}
where the initial values (see \Tab{constants}) of the water-vapor mixing ratio are
$q_v(\bm{x}, t=0)=0.0157 \,{\rm kg} \cdot {\rm kg}^{-1}$ and temperature $T(\bm{x}, t=0)=292\,{\rm K}$
respectively. This provides an initially saturated environment.
The time step of the simulations presented here is governed by the smallest time scale
in the current configuration, which is the collision time scale of the colliding droplet pairs.
The thermodynamic and Kolmogorov time scales are larger
than the collision time scale.

Initially, 10 $\mu$m-sized (by radius) droplets with zero velocity
are randomly distributed in the simulation domain.
The initial mean number density of droplets
is $n_0=2.5\times10^8\rm{m}^{-3}$.
This gives an initial liquid-water content,
$(4\pi\rho_l/3)\int_{0}^\infty f(r,t=0)\,r^3 \,{\rm d}r$,
which is $0.001\,{\rm kg\, m}^{-3}$.
The simulation domain is a cube of size $L_x=L_y=L_z$, the values of which
are given in \Tab{Swarm_Rey}.
The number of superdroplets $N_{\rm s}$ satisfies
$N_{\rm s}/N_{\rm grid}\approx0.1$, where $N_{\rm grid}$
is the number of lattices depending on the spatial resolution of the simulations.
Setting $N_{\rm s}/N_{\rm grid}\approx0.1$, on the one hand, is still within the convergence
range $N_{\rm s}/N_{\rm grid}\approx0.05$ \citep{li2018cloud}.
On the other hand, it can mimic the diluteness of the atmospheric cloud system,
which has about 0.1 droplets per cubic Kolmogorov length scale.

\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{List of constants for the thermodynamics: see text for explanations of symbols.}
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\begin{tabular}{lr}
Quantity & Value \\
\hline
$\nu$ ($\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-1}$) & $1.5\times10^{-5}$ \\
$\kappa$ ($\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-1}$) & $1.5\times10^{-5}$ \\
$D$ ($\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-1}$) & $2.55\times10^{-5}$ \\
$G$ ($\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-1}$) & $1.17\times10^{-10}$ \\
$c_1$ (Pa) & $2.53\times10^{11}$ \\
$c_2$ (${\rm K}$) & 5420 \\
  $L$ (${\rm J} \cdot {\rm kg}^{-1}$) & $2.5\times10^6$ \\
$c_{\rm p}$ (${\rm J} \cdot {\rm kg}^{-1} {\rm K}^{-1}$) & 1005.0 \\
$R_v$ (${\rm J} \cdot {\rm kg}^{-1} {\rm K}^{-1}$) & 461.5 \\
$M_a$ (${\rm g}\cdot {\rm mol}^{-1}$) & 28.97 \\
$M_v$ (${\rm g}\cdot {\rm mol}^{-1}$) & 18.02 \\
$\alpha$ & 0.608 \\
$\rho_a$ (${\rm kg}\cdot{\rm m}^{-3}$) & 1 \\
$\rho_l$ (${\rm kg}\cdot{\rm m}^{-3}$) & 1000 \\
$Pr=\nu/\kappa$ & 1 \\
$Sc=\nu/D$ & 0.6 \\
$q_v(\bm{x}, t=0)$ ($\,{\rm kg} \cdot {\rm kg}^{-1}$) & 0.0157 \\
$q_{v,\rm{env}}\,({\rm kg} \cdot {\rm kg}^{-1})$ & 0.01\\
$T(\bm{x}, t=0)\,({\rm K})$ & 292 \\
$T_{\rm{env}}\,({\rm K})$ & 293 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{constants}
\end{table}

\subsection{DNS}

Three types of simulations are performed: condensational growth, collisional growth,
combined condensational and collisional growth. We investigated the effect of turbulence
on condensational growth in \cite{li2018cloud} and collisional growth in \cite{li2017effect}.
Here, we take one simulation for condensational growth and one for collisional growth as references.
We conduct high resolution simulations for different
Taylor micro-scale Reynolds number ${\rm Re}_{\lambda}$
and mean energy dissipation rate $\bar{\epsilon}$
(see \Tab{Swarm_Rey} for details of the simulations) for combined condensational and
collisional growth.
The Taylor micro-scale Reynolds
number is defined as ${\rm Re}_\lambda \equiv u_{\rm rms}^2 \sqrt{5/(3\nu\bar{\epsilon})}$.
For simulations with different values of $\bar{\epsilon}$ at fixed ${\rm Re}_{\lambda}$,
we vary both the domain size $L_x$ ($L_y=L_z=L_x$) and the amplitude of the forcing $f_0$.
As for fixed $\bar{\epsilon}$, ${\rm Re}_{\lambda}$ is varied by solely changing
the domain size, which in turn changes $u_{\rm rms}$.
In all simulations, we use for the Prandtl number ${\rm Pr}=\nu/\kappa=1$
and for the Schmidt number ${\rm Sc}=\nu/D=0.6$, which are the same values
as those used in \cite{li2018cloud}.

\section{Results}

\begin{table*}[t!]
\caption{Summary of the simulations.}
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccccr}
  Run &  $f_0$ & $L_x\,(\rm{m})$ & $N_{\rm grid}$ & $N_{\rm s}$& Processes & $u_{\rm rms}$ ($\rm{m} \, \rm{s}^{-1}$) & $\mbox{\rm Re}_{\lambda}$ & $\bar{\epsilon}$ ($\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-3}$)& $\eta\cdot 10^{-4}$ ($\rm{m}$) & $\tau_{\eta}$ ($\rm{s}$) & $\tau_L$ ($\rm{s}$) \\
\hline
A & $0.007$ & 0.200 & $128^3$ & $N_{\rm s,128}$& Both &0.10 &44 & 0.005 & 9.2  & 0.056 & 0.67 \\
B & $0.014$ & 0.150 & $128^3$ & $N_{\rm s,128}$& Both &0.14 &45  & 0.019 & 6.5  & 0.028 & 0.35 \\
C & $0.020$ & 0.125 & $128^3$ & $N_{\rm s,128}$& Both &0.16 &45  & 0.039 &5.4  & 0.020 & 0.25 \\
C1 & $0.020$ & 0.125 & $128^3$ & $N_{\rm s,128}$& Con    &0.16 &45  & 0.039 &5.4  & 0.020 & 0.25 \\
C2 & $0.020$ & 0.125 & $128^3$ & $N_{\rm s,128}$& Col   &0.16 &45  & 0.039 &5.4  & 0.020 & 0.25 \\
D & $0.020$ & 0.250 & $256^3$ & $2^3N_{\rm s,128}$& Both&0.22 &78  & 0.039  & 5.4  & 0.020 & 0.37 \\
E & $0.020$ & 0.500 & $512^3$ & $2^6N_{\rm s,128}$& Both&0.28 &130  & 0.039  & 5.4  & 0.020 & 0.58 \\
E1 & $0.020$ & 0.500 & $512^3$ & $2^6N_{\rm s,128}$& Con &0.28 &130  & 0.039  & 5.4  & 0.020 & 0.58 \\
E2 & $0.020$ & 0.500 & $512^3$ & $2^6N_{\rm s,128}$& Col &0.28 &130  & 0.039  & 5.4  & 0.020 & 0.58 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{12}{p{0.9\textwidth}}{
``Con'' refers to condensation; ``Col'' refers to collision;
``Both'' refers to condensation and collision.
}
\end{tabular}
\label{Swarm_Rey}
\end{table*}

\subsection{Comparison between the three different cases: condensational growth, collisional growth, and the combined case}
\label{ComparisonDifferentCases}

Condensational growth of cloud droplets is subjected to supersaturation fluctuations
\citep{2009_Lanotte, 2015_Sardina, grabowski2017broadening, li2018cloud}, which are determined
by $T(\bm{x},t)$ and $q_v(\bm{x},t)$.
We first investigate how collision impacts these field quantities and therefore, the
condensational growth.
\Fig{timeSeries_gravRe50_cond_coa} shows the time series of $T_{\rm rms}(t)$,
$q_{v,\rm rms}(t)$, $B_{\rm rms}(t)$, $s_{\rm rms}(t)$, $q_{l,\rm rms}(t)$,
and $C_{d,\rm rms}(t)$ with or without collisions.
We see that the collisional process does not affect fluctuations of most of these quantities except for
$B_{\rm rms}(t)$ and $q_{l,\rm rms}(t)$.
The buoyancy force $B$ is determined by temperature fluctuations $T^{\prime}$, water-vapor
mixing ratio fluctuations $q^{\prime}_v$, and liquid-water mixing ratio $q_l$. The collision process
leads to more intense local variations of $q_l$, which results in larger $q_{l,\rm{rms}}$.
Therefore, $B_{\rm rms}(t)$ is enhanced by the collision process through $q_l$. The
enhanced $B$, however, does not
affect the flow field since the random forcing dramatically overwhelms the buoyancy
force in our simulations.
Thus, collisional growth does not impact the condensational growth in the present
DNS.

\begin{figure*}[h!]\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{timeSeries_gravRe50_cond_coa}
\end{center}\caption{Time series of
(a) $T_{\rm rms}$; (b) $q_{v},\rm{rms}$; (c) $B_{\rm rms}$; (d) $s_{\rm rms}$;
(e) $q_{l,\rm rms}$; and (f) $C_{d,\rm rms}$.
Black dotted line: condensation only; black solid line: condensation and collision
(see Runs C and C1 in \Tab{Swarm_Rey} for details of the numerical setup).
}
\label{timeSeries_gravRe50_cond_coa}
\end{figure*}

Next, we investigate how condensational growth affects the collisional growth
by comparing the time evolution of the droplet-size distribution for three
different cases: condensation only, collision only, and the combined process.
\Fig{f_gravRe50_cond_coa_comp}(a) shows the comparison
of droplet-size distributions when ${\rm Re}_\lambda=45$
and $\bar{\epsilon}=0.039\,\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-3}$.
For the case with only condensation, the growth leads
to a broadening of the size distribution.
When comparing the tail of the size distribution
between the cases of collision only and that of the combined process,
we see that the broadening from the condensational
growth facilitates the collisional growth. 
The combined condensational and collisional growth leads
to the largest tail of the size distribution.
At $t=80\,$s, the largest radius resulting from the case of combined
condensation and collision is about $27.4\,\mu$m and the one
resulting from the case of collision only is about $26.7\,\mu$m.
This leads to an increased rate of $27.4/26.7-1\approx3\%$.
When $\rm{Re}_\lambda=130$ and $\bar{\epsilon}=0.039\,\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-3}$,
the rate increases to $32.3/29.3-1\approx10\%$, as shown in
\Fig{f_gravRe50_cond_coa_comp}(b).
It is worth noting that for the combined process,
the droplet-size distribution exhibits an obvious transition from
condensational growth to collisional growth, as shown by
the dip in the droplet-size distribution.
We recall that the radii of all droplets are initially $10\,\mu\rm{m}$.
After the first collision, the droplet grows to twice the mass, giving
a radius of $12.6\,\mu{\rm m}$.
Condensational growth leads
to a few large droplets (close to $12.6\,\mu{\rm m}$ by radius) from the initially monodispersed
$10\,\mu\rm{m}$ droplet distribution, which triggers the collision process.
For the case of ${\rm Re}_\lambda=130$ (cyan curves), the dips are less abrupt.
This is due to the fact that lager ${\rm Re}_\lambda$ leads to stronger supersaturation
fluctuations, thus, generate more large droplets.

The collisional growth of cloud droplets is very sensitive to the
tails of droplet-size distributions.
A few large droplets can undergo a runaway collision-coalescence
process by collecting small droplets. The cumulative collision
time of these few large droplets is much shorter than the mean
collision time \citep{Kos05}. Thus, fluctuations play an important
role in collisional growth. Condensational growth due to supersaturation
fluctuations facilitates
this runaway collision process by generating the few large droplets.

\begin{figure*}[h!]\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f_gravRe50_cond_coa_comp}
\end{center}\caption{Comparison of droplet-size distributions
for three cases: condensational growth (dotted lines), collisional growth (dashed lines), and
the combined processes (solid lines);
see Runs C, C1, C2, E, E1, and E2 in \Tab{Swarm_Rey} for details of the numerical setup.
(a) $\rm{Re}_\lambda=45$; (b) $\rm{Re}_\lambda=130$.
}
\label{f_gravRe50_cond_coa_comp}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Effect of turbulence on combined condensational and collisional growth}

To study the effect of turbulence on the combined condensational and
collisional growth, we explore how the time evolution of droplet-size distributions depend
on $\bar{\epsilon}$ and ${\rm Re}_\lambda$
when the growth of droplet is driven by both condensation and collision.
Our previous work \citep{li2018cloud} showed that condensational growth
is enhanced with increasing ${\rm Re}_\lambda$ but
is insensitive to $\bar{\epsilon}$. Collisional growth, however,
weakly depends on $\bar{\epsilon}$ and is insensitive to ${\rm Re}_\lambda$
\citep{li2017effect}.
Therefore, we expect that the combined condensational and collisional growth
depends on both ${\rm Re}_\lambda$ and $\bar{\epsilon}$.
\Fig{f_cond_coa_comp}(a) shows the time evolution of
droplet-size distributions for different $\bar{\epsilon}$
with fixed ${\rm Re}_\lambda$.
The first peak and its width are almost the same for different
$\bar{\epsilon}$ at different times, which exhibits the same
characters as the simulations without collisions in
\cite{li2018cloud}. We attribute this feature to
condensational growth and its weak dependency on $\bar{\epsilon}$.
The tail of the droplet-size distribution becomes wider with increasing
$\bar{\epsilon}$, which is attributed to the dependency of collisional growth
on $\bar{\epsilon}$. Comparing the largest radius for the case of
$\bar{\epsilon}$ = $0.005\,\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-3}$ and the case of
$\bar{\epsilon}$ = $0.039\,\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-3}$ at $t=80\,$s,
we find that the largest radius increases by $27/22-1\approx23\%$.
\Fig{f_cond_coa_comp}(b), on the other hand, shows time evolution of
droplet-size distributions for different ${\rm Re}_\lambda$
with fixed $\bar{\epsilon}$. The first peaks exhibit the same
shape and dependency on ${\rm Re}_\lambda$ as the ones when collision
was not included \citep{li2018cloud}.
The distributions of small droplets becomes wider with increasing
${\rm Re}_\lambda$, which is due to the fact that condensational
growth is enhanced with increasing ${\rm Re}_\lambda$.
The tail of the droplet-size distribution broadens with increasing
${\rm Re}_\lambda$. This is attributed to the condensational growth
and its induced collision since collisional growth only depends
on $\bar{\epsilon}$.
We again check the largest radius for the case of
${\rm Re}_\lambda=45$ and ${\rm Re}_\lambda=130$. The increased
rate of the largest radius is $32.3/27.4-1\approx20\%$.

\begin{figure*}[h!]\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{f_cond_coa_comp}
\end{center}\caption{Droplet size distributions for
(a) different $\bar{\epsilon}$ = $0.005\,\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-3}$ (blue solid lines),
0.019 (magenta solid lines) and 0.039
(black solid line) at fixed $\mbox{\rm Re}_{\lambda}=45$
(see Runs A, B, and C in Table~\ref{Swarm_Rey} for details)
and for (b) different $\mbox{\rm Re}_{\lambda}$ = 45 (black solid lines),
78 (red solid lines), and 130 (cyan solid line) at fixed
$\bar{\epsilon}$ = $0.039\,\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-3}$
(see Runs C, D, and E in Table~\ref{Swarm_Rey} for details).}
\label{f_cond_coa_comp}
\end{figure*}

\section{Conclusions}

We first investigated how the condensation process and collision process
affect each other by comparing droplet-size distributions for three
cases: pure condensation, pure collision, and the combined processes.
We found that condensational growth broadens the droplet-size distributions
in the initial phase of droplet growth, after which collisional growth
is triggered. The condensation-triggered collision is pronounced with larger
$\rm{Re}_\lambda=130$. The collision process only enhances the buoyancy force
and does not affect the temperature, water-vapor mixing ratio, and supersaturation.
Therefore, it does not influence the condensation process.

Next, we studied
the combined condensational and collisional growth
at different $\bar{\epsilon}$ and $\rm{Re}_\lambda$. We observed that
the droplet-size distribution broadens with either increasing
$\bar{\epsilon}$ or $\rm{Re}_\lambda$.
The dependency on $\rm{Re}_\lambda$ can be explained as follows.
Our previous studies \citep{li2017effect} showed that collisional growth weakly
depends on $\bar{\epsilon}$ and is insensitive to $\rm{Re}_\lambda$.
The condensational growth, instead, strongly depends on $\rm{Re}_\lambda$ and is
insensitive to $\bar{\epsilon}$ \citep{li2018cloud}.
Also, in the present study, the comparison among cases
of pure condensation, pure collision, and the combined process demonstrates that
condensational growth triggers the collisional growth. Therefore, we
conclude that the $\rm{Re}_\lambda$ dependency
is caused by the condensation process,
which indirectly enhances the collisional growth.
The combined processes are also observed to depend on
$\bar{\epsilon}$, which is attributed to the dependency
of the collisional growth on $\bar{\epsilon}$. However,
the largest $\bar{\epsilon}$ in warm clouds is only about
$\bar{\epsilon} = 10^{-3}\,\rm{m}^2\rm{s}^{-3}$ \citep{siebert2006observations},
so its effect on collisional growth is small \citep{li2017effect}.
In reality, we have $\rm{Re}_\lambda\approx10^4$ in a cloud system.
It is expected that a higher $\rm{Re}_\lambda$ would lead to larger supersaturation fluctuations,
and therefore fast broadening of the size distribution,
which facilitates the collisional growth.
Our findings also support results of the laboratory experiment
of \cite{Chandrakar16} that supersaturation fluctuations
are likely of leading importance for precipitation
formation. Furthermore, we demonstrated numerically that
supersaturation fluctuations enhance the collisional
growth.

In conclusion, we have found that
the large scales of turbulence
have a substantial effect on the growth of cloud droplets in warm clouds.
Here the large scales represent the turbulent scales that are larger than the Kolmogorov
scale and smaller than the turbulence integral scale.
The condensational growth is driven by supersaturation fluctuations. Supersaturation
fluctuations are governed by fluctuations of temperature and the water-vapor
mixing ratio, which were found to be affected by the large scales of turbulence \citep{li2018cloud}.
After the droplet-size distribution has reached a certain width, collisional growth
starts to dominate the growth, which is then weakly affected by the small scales of turbulence.
Thus, large scales of turbulence influence the collisional growth indirectly through
condensation. Small scales of turbulence affect both condensational and collisional growth
weakly.
Therefore, the combined condensational and collisional growth is
influenced by turbulence from large to small scales.

\cite{chen2018bridging} compared droplet size distributions for different
$\bar{\epsilon}$ when both condensation and collision were considered.
They attributed the condensation-induced collision to the fact that
``\textit{condensational growth narrows the droplet size distribution (DSD) and provides
a great number of similar-sized droplets}'' \citep{chen2018bridging},
which is inconsistent with our finding that condensational growth
produces wider distributions with increasing $\rm{Re}_\lambda$ and therefore
facilitates the collisional growth. We scrutinized the turbulence
effect on condensational growth and found
that the droplet size distribution shrinks slightly
with increasing $\bar{\epsilon}$ and increases strongly
with increasing $\rm{Re}_\lambda$ \citep{li2018cloud}.
Therefore, the discrepancy between the present results and
those of \cite{chen2018bridging} could be due to the
fact that, in their simulations, $\rm{Re}_\lambda$ and $\bar{\epsilon}$
were changed at the same time.

As discussed at the end of Section~\ref{ComparisonDifferentCases},
our study lends some support to the notion of ``lucky'' droplets \citep{Kos05},
first proposed by \citet{Telford1955}.
The lucky-droplet model assumes that there is a larger
droplet amongst many small ones to initiate the runaway
growth \citep{Kos05, wilkinson16}. 
The question is where the first few lucky droplets come from.
\citet{Kos05} proposed that the first few lucky droplets
could be the result of giant condensation nuclei.
The present study indicates that
the first few lucky droplets
could result from condensational growth driven by supersaturation fluctuations
caused by turbulence.

In the present study, the collision efficiency
was assumed to be unity, which may substantially
overestimate the collisional growth. Since turbulence-induced collision efficiency
is a very challenging problem \citep{Grabowski_2013}, we seek to incorporate a
parameterization-free scheme of collision efficiency in the current
superparticle approach. Entrainment is also omitted, which
is supposed to cause strong supersaturation fluctuations.
Aerosol activation is not included in the present study.
Invoking all the cloud microphysical processes is computationally extremely
demanding even on modern supercomputers. We strive to achieve this in future studies.
Therefore, due to these limitations, we have not attempted to compare
droplet-size distributions obtained from the current work
with observational data.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

This work was supported through the FRINATEK grant 231444 under the
Research Council of Norway, SeRC, the Swedish Research Council grants 2012-5797 and 2013-03992,
the University of Colorado through its support of the
George Ellery Hale visiting faculty appointment,
the grant ``Bottlenecks for particle growth in turbulent aerosols''
from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Dnr.\ KAW 2014.0048,
and Vetenskapsrådet with grant number 017-03865 and 2014-585.
The simulations were performed using resources provided by
the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC)
at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and
Chalmers Centre for Computational Science and Engineering (C3SE).
This work also benefited from computer resources made available through the
Norwegian NOTUR program, under award NN9405K.
The source code used for the simulations of this study, the {\sc Pencil Code},
is freely available on \url{https://github.com/pencil-code/}.

\bibliographystyle{ametsoc2014.bst}
