Improving the Density of Jammed Disordered Packings Using Ellipsoids

Science

Volumn 303, Issue 5660, 2004, Pages 990-993

  Donev, Aleksandar ^a,b   Cisse, Ibrahim ^a,c   Sachs, David ^a   Variano, Evan A ^a,d   Stillinger, Frank H ^a   Connelly, Robert ^e   Torquato, Salvatore ^a,b   Chaikin, P M ^a,b  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Princeton University   (United States)

^c NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Cornell University   (United States)

^e Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; ASPECT RATIO; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEGREES OF FREEDOM (MECHANICS);

ELLIPSOIDS; PACKING FRACTION;

LATTICE CONSTANTS;

GLASS;

PHYSICS;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CERAMICS; DENSITY; ELLIPSOMETRY; GEOMETRY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MEASUREMENT; PACKAGING; PHASE TRANSITION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION;

EID: 1142274207     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1093010     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. P. M. Chaikin, in Soft and Fragile Matter, Nonequilibrium Dynamics, Metastability and Flow, N. E. Cates, M. R. Evans, Eds, (Institute of Physics, London, 2000), pp. 315-348.
2. T. Aste, D. Weaire, The Pursuit of Perfect Packing (IOP, London, 2000).
3. J. H. Conway, N. J. A. Sloane, Sphere Packings, Lattices, and Groups (Springer-Verlag New York, ed. 3, 1999).
4. A. J. Liu, S. R. Nagel, Nature 396, 21 (1998).
5. H. A. Makse, J. Kurchan, Nature 415, 614 (2002).
6. S. F. Edwards, in Granular Matter, A. Mehta, Ed. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994), pp. 121-140.
7. R. Zallen, The Physics of Amorphous Solids (Wiley, New York, 1983).
8. G. D. Scott, D. M. Kilgour, J. Phys. D 2, 863 (1969).
9. S. Torquato, T. M. Truskett, P. G. Debenedetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2064 (2000).
10. A. R. Kansal, S. Torquato, F. H. Stillinger, Phys. Rev. E 66, 041109 (2002).
11. The highest density is realized only by stacking variants of the fcc and hcp lattices (34). This is also a trivial lower bound for the maximal density of ellipsoid packings for any aspect ratio; however, it is known that higher densities are possible for sufficiently aspherical ellipsoids (35).
12. M&M's Candies are a registered trademark of Mars Inc.
13. We estimate the correction due to the lower density at the surface of the flasks to be about 0.005.
14. M. P. Allen, G. T. Evans, D. Frenkel, B. M. Mulder, Adv. Chem. Phys. 86, 1 (1993).
15. B. D. Lubachevsky, F. H. Stillinger, J. Stat. Phys. 60, 561 (1990).
16. B. D. Lubachevsky, F. H. Stillinger, E. N. Pinson, J. Stat. Phys. 64, 501 (1991).
17. A. Donev, S. Torquato, F. H. Stillinger, in preparation.
18. D. Frenkel, J. F. Maguire, Mol. Phys. 49, 503 (1983).
19. A. Donev, S. Torquato, F. H. Stillinger, R. Connelly, J. Comp. Phys., in press.
20. S. Torquato, F. H. Stillinger, J. Phys. Chem. B 105, 11849 (2001).
21. J. D. Sherwood, J. Phys. A 30, L839 (1997).
22. B. J. Buchalter, R. M. Bradley, Phys. Rev. A 46, 3046 (1992).
23. S. R. Williams, A. P. Philipse, Phys. Rev. E 67, 0513011 (2003).
24. C. R. A. Abreu, F. W. Tavares, M. Castier, Powder Technol. 134, 167 (2003).
25. S. Alexander, Phys. Rep. 296, 65 (1998).
26. S. F. Edwards, D. V. Grinev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5397 (1999).
27. The total number of degrees of freedom would be equal to the number of impenetrability constraints (to within a constant of order 1), each of which is determined by a contact between two touching particles.
28. It is also often claimed that this is the minimal number of contacts needed to ensure jamming (25). However, this claim is based on a counting argument that is directly applicable only to spheres, whereas handling the impenetrability constraints for ellipsoids requires including higher order corrections because of curvature effects.
29. G. C. Barker, A. Mehta, Phys. Rev. A 45, 3435 (1992).
30. J. D. Bernal, J. Mason, Nature 385, 910 (1990).
31. More recent simulations and experiments give Z ≤ 6.
32. Near neighbors (even when very close) leave a spot; touching neighbors leave a spot with a hole in the middle at the contact point.
33. Note that computer-generated packings can have a small percentage of "rattlers" (particles without any contacts that are not observable in our experiments), which we do not exclude when calculating Z.
34. T. C. Hales, xxx.lanl.gov/math.MG/9811071 (1998).
35. A. Bezdek, W. Kuperberg, in Applied Geometry and Discrete Mathematics, P. Gritzmann, B. Sturmfels, Eds., vol. 4 of DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1991), pp. 71-80.
36. J. B. Knight, C. G. Fandrich, C. N. Lau, H. M. Jaeger, S. R. Nagel, Phys. Rev. E 51, 3957 (1995).
37. D. Coelho, J.-F. Thovert, P. M. Adler, Phys. Rev. E 55, 1959 (1997).
38. Wall effects yield lower measured densities. Continued "tapping" of the candies may further density the system, as happens for granular material (36). Furthermore, the somewhat higher density of the computer-generated packings can be explained by taking into account the influence of gravity and friction, which are not included in the simulation. Gravitation-dominated packings always have much lower packing fractions, as low as ψ ≈ 0.4, and have significant orientational ordering (22, 37).
39. Supported by American Chemical Society PRF grant 36967-AC9 (S.T., A. D., F.H.S.), NASA grant NAG3-1762 (P.H.C.), and NSF grants DMR-0213706 (S.T., P.M.C., A.D., F.H.S.), DMS-0312067 (S.T., A.D., F.H.S.), and DHS-0209595 (R.C.).