Comparison of rigidity and connectivity percolation in two dimensions

Physical Review E - Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 2614-2622

  Moukarzel, C ^a   Duxbury, P M ^b  

^a FLUMINENSE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY   (Brazil)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001410446     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.59.2614     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. D. Stauffer and A. Aharony, Introduction to Percolation Theory, 2nd ed. (Taylor and Francis, London, 1994).
2. J. W. Essam, Rep. Prog. Phys. 43, 53 (1980).
3. A. Bunde and S. Havlin, Fractals and Disordered Systems (Springer, Berlin, 1991).
4. M. Sahimi, Annual Reviews of Computational Physics II, edited by D. Stauffer (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).
5. P. G. de Gennes, J. Phys. (France) Lett. 37, L1 (1976).
6. M. Born and K. Huang, Dynamical Theory of Crystal Lattices (Oxford University Press, New York, 1954).
7. S. Feng and P. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 216 (1984).
8. M. F. Thorpe, Physics of Disordered Materials, edited by D. Adler, H. Fritzsche, and S. Ovishinsky (Plenum, New York, 1985).
9. Y. Kantor and I. Webman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1891 (1984).
10. S. Feng, P. Sen, B. Halperin, and C. Lobb, Phys. Rev. B 30, 5386 (1984).
11. S. Feng, Phys. Rev. B 32, 510 (1985).
12. M. Sahimi, J. Phys. C 19, L79 (1986).
13. J. Zabolitsky, D. Bergmann, and D. Stauffer, J. Stat. Phys. 44, 211 (1986).
14. S. Roux, J. Phys. A 19, L351 (1986).
15. A. Day, R. Tremblay, and A.-M. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2501 (1986).
16. S. Roux and A. Hansen, Europhys. Lett. 6, 301 (1988).
17. A. Hansen and S. Roux, Phys. Rev. B 40, 749 (1989).
18. M. Knackstedt and M. Sahimi, J. Stat. Phys. 67, 887 (1992).
19. S. Arbabi and M. Sahimi, Phys. Rev. B 47, 695 (1993).
20. C. Moukarzel and P. M. Duxbury, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4055 (1995).
21. C. Moukarzel, P. M. Duxbury, and P. Leath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1480 (1997).
22. D. J. Jacobs and M. F. Thorpe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4051 (1995)
23. D. J. JacobsM. F. ThorpePhys. Rev. E 53, 3683 (1996).
24. E. Guyon, S. Roux, A. Hansen, D. Bideau, J.-P. Troadec and H. Crapo, Rep. Prog. Phys. 53, 373 (1990).
25. S. P. Obukov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4472 (1995).
26. W. Tang and M. F. Thorpe, Phys. Rev. B 36, 3798 (1987)
27. Phys. Rev. BW. TangM. F. Thorpe37, 5539 (1988).
28. M. Plischke and B. Joós, Phys. Rev. B 80, 4907 (1998)
29. B. Joós, M. Plischke, D. C. Vernon, and Z. Zhou, in Rigidity Theory and Applications, edited by M. F. Thorpe and P. M. Duxbury (Plenum, New York, 1998).
30. We refer in this paper to “infinitesimal rigidity” as rigidity for short. Infinitesimal rigidity is a stronger condition than rigidity, and implies that no transformation, even an infinitesimal one, leaves all bar lengths invariant. See, e.g., Refs. 272830.
31. H. Crapo, Structural Topology 1, 26 (1979).
32. Bruce Hendrickson, SIAM J. Comput. 21, 65 (1992).
33. C. Moukarzel, J. Phys. A 29, 8097 (1996).
34. A. Hansen and S. Roux, J. Stat. Phys. 55, 759 (1988).
35. D. Jacobs and B. Hendrickson, J. Comput. Phys. 137, 346 (1997).
36. D. J. Jacobs and M. F. Thorpe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5451 (1998)
37. Phys. Rev. Lett.P. M. Duxbury, C. Moukarzel, and P. L. Leath, 80, 5452 (1998).
38. C. Moukarzel, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 9, 887 (1998)
39. C. Moukarzel(e-print cond-mat/9801102).
40. A. Coniglio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 250 (1981)
41. A. ConiglioJ. Phys. A 15, 3829 (1982).
42. H. E. Stanley, J. Phys. A 10, L211 (1977)
43. J. Phys. AR. Pike and H. E. Stanley, 14, L169 (1981).
44. E. Bolker and H. Crapo, Environ. Planning B4, 125 (1977)
45. A. Recski, Disc. Mathematics 108, 183 (1992)
46. N. Chakravarty, Structural Topology 12, 11 (1986).
47. A. K. Dewney, Sci. Am. 264 (5), 126 (1991).
48. The Maxwell approximation consists of ignoring the existence of redundant bonds, i.e., assuming that each present bond eliminates one degree of freedom from a total of (Formula presented) The critical concentration is then obtained by equating (Formula presented) to zero.
49. M. Rintoul and H. Nakanishi, J. Phys. A 25, L945 (1992).
50. P. Grassberger, J. Phys. A 25, 5475 (1992).
51. C. Moukarzel, P. M. Duxbury, and P. L. Leath, Phys. Rev. E 55, 5800 (1997)
52. P. M. Duxbury, D. Jacobs, M. F. Thorpe, and C. Moukarzel, Phys. Rev. E 59, 2084 (1999).
53. C. Moukarzel (unpublished).
54. We define the mass of the backbone as the number of bonds belonging to it. It is not correct to count sites in rigidity percolation, since they can simultaneously belong to several rigid clusters.
55. G. Laman, J. Eng. Math. 4, 331 (1970).
56. The randomly braced square lattice model has an extensive number of cutting bonds, but (Formula presented) Therefore it apparently violates Coniglio’s relation. The explanation is that (Formula presented) only holds for the number of diagonals that are cutting bonds. There are, in addition to those, the cutting bonds which belong to the square lattice substrate, and these are (Formula presented) The reason for a completely first-order transition in this model is therefore the existence of a homogeneous, almost rigid, substrate; the square lattice, which provides an extensive number of cutting bonds.