1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
4: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
5: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9:
10: \title{Onset of mechanical stability in random packings of frictional spheres}
11:
12: \author{Melissa Jerkins} \author{Matthias Schr\"oter}
13: \email{matthias.schroeter@ds.mpg.de} \author{Harry L. Swinney}
14: \email{swinney@chaos.utexas.edu}
15: \affiliation{Center for Nonlinear Dynamics and Department of Physics\\
16: University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712}
17:
18:
19: \author{Tim J. Senden} \author{Mohammad Saadatfar} \author{Tomaso
20: Aste} \affiliation {Department of Applied Mathematics, Research School
21: of Physical Sciences and Engineering, The Australian National
22: University, 0200 Canberra, ACT, Australia}
23:
24: \date{\today}
25:
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28:
29: Using sedimentation to obtain precisely controlled packings of
30: noncohesive spheres, we find that the volume fraction $\phi_{\rm RLP}$
31: of the loosest mechanically stable packing is in an
32: operational sense well defined by a limit process. This random
33: loose packing volume fraction decreases with decreasing pressure $p$
34: and increasing interparticle friction coefficient $\mu$. Using X-ray
35: tomography to correct for a container boundary effect that depends on
36: particle size, we find for rough particles in the limit $p \rightarrow
37: 0$ a new lower bound, $\phi_{\rm RLP} = 0.550 \pm 0.001$.
38:
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \pacs{83.80.Fg, 46.65.+g, 45.70.Cc, 47.57.ef}
42:
43: \maketitle
44:
45: {\it Introduction. --} If granular materials such as sand, sugar, or
46: snow are excited strongly (e.g. by shaking or shearing), they exhibit
47: fluid-like behavior. However, after the excitation stops, dissipation
48: quickly produces a static packing that is mechanically stable under
49: its own weight. Experiments
50: \cite{scott:60,rutgers:62,onoda:90,ojha:00,valverde:04,valverde:06,dong:06,umbanhowar:06}
51: and simulations
52: \cite{makse:00,ohern:02,zhang:05,shundyak:07,silbert:08} have shown
53: that the volume fraction has a well defined lower limit, $\phi_{\rm RLP}$,
54: called Random Loose Packing (RLP).
55:
56: The value of $\phi_{\rm RLP}$ depends on the particle-particle
57: interactions. Packings of cohesive particles like fine powders are
58: stable under their own weight for values of $\phi_{\rm RLP}$ as low as
59: 0.15 \cite{valverde:04,valverde:06,dong:06,umbanhowar:06}. However,
60: many granular materials do not exhibit cohesive forces. Simulations
61: of frictionless elastic noncohesive spheres have found the onset of a
62: finite bulk modulus at the jamming point, $\phi_{\rm J} \approx 0.64$
63: \cite{makse:00,ohern:02,zhang:05}. %ohern:03
64: Real spheres have friction and then it has been suggested that $\phi_{\rm RLP}$
65: depends on the density difference
66: between the particles and the surrounding fluid
67: \cite{scott:60,rutgers:62,onoda:90,ojha:00}. The lowest volume
68: fraction reported thus far, $\phi_{\rm RLP} = 0.555$, was observed for
69: slowly sedimenting spheres in a liquid of nearly the same density
70: \cite{onoda:90}.
71:
72: Here we demonstrate a limit process that yields well defined values of
73: $\phi_{\rm RLP}$ that depend on pressure and
74: coefficient of friction. The results are discussed in the context of a
75: statistical mechanics approach based on the ensemble of all
76: mechanically stable configurations \cite{edwards:07}.
77:
78:
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80:
81:
82: \begin{figure}
83: \begin{center}
84: \includegraphics[height=88 mm,angle=-90]{./diameter_c.ps}
85: \caption{(Color online) The approach to Random Loose Packing in a
86: limit process is achieved using flow pulses in a liquid fluidized bed. Data
87: for different particle diameters were fit to (\ref{eq:rlp_fit}) to obtain $\phi_{RLP}$.
88: Letters in parentheses refer to the particle samples in Table
89: \ref{tab:particles}. Inset: Diameter dependence of
90: $\phi_{\rm RLP}$ without container size correction (see text). Sample height was 97 mm at RLP;
91: five flow pulses were averaged for each flow rate.
92: }
93: \label{fig:diameter}
94: \end{center}
95: \end{figure}
96:
97: {\it Experiment. --} Mechanically stable packings of glass spheres
98: were prepared by allowing the particles to sediment following flow
99: pulses in a water fluidized bed. The fluidized bed was contained in a
100: vertical polycarbonate tube with an inner diameter $D$ of 12.8 mm and
101: a length of 230 mm. The tube's bottom end was closed by a distributor
102: consisting of a porous bronze disc (height, 8 mm; nominal pore size,
103: 25 $\mu$m). A programmable syringe pump (Harvard Apparatus) created
104: pulses of constant flow rate $Q$. During a flow pulse of 2 minutes
105: length the granular medium fluidized and expanded until it reached a
106: steady state height. After each flow pulse, the particles sedimented
107: onto the distributor and formed a mechanically stable packing whose
108: volume fraction depended on $Q$, as shown in
109: Fig.~\ref{fig:diameter}. A higher value of $Q$ resulted in a more
110: expanded fluidized bed, longer sedimentation time, and lower $\phi$ of
111: the sediment. Packings created in this way are independent of the
112: state of the sample prior to the last flow pulse \cite{schroeter:05}.
113: This property is important for any statistical mechanics approach
114: \cite{aste:07b}. The volume fractions in Fig.~\ref{fig:diameter} are
115: averaged over the whole sample: $\phi = m / \rho A h_{\rm sed}$, where
116: $\rho$ is the particle density, $m$ is the total mass of all the
117: spheres, $A$ is the cross sectional area of the tube, and $h_{\rm
118: sed}$ is the height of the sedimented sample determined from images.
119:
120: The properties of the different samples of particles are given in
121: Table \ref{tab:particles}. The density $\rho$ of the particles in each
122: sample was measured with an accuracy of 0.06 \% %$\pm$ 2 mg/cm$^3$
123: using a Gay-Lussac specific gravity bottle
124: %and additionally for the 250 and 265 $\mu$m with
125: and a Micromeritics AccuPyc 1330 gas pycnometer; the average $\rho$
126: was 2.48 g/cm$^3$. To characterize the frictional properties of the
127: samples we measured the angle of repose under water: a beaker
128: containing a layer of particles about 5 mm high was tilted until the
129: particles started to move. To obtain an especially rough sample (F) we
130: soaked part of sample C for 3 hours in hydrofluoric acid. Sample E
131: consists of spheres that were smoothed by exposure to more than 45,000
132: flow pulses in a fluidized bed \cite{schroeter:05}.
133:
134: \begin{table}
135: \caption{Properties of the different samples of glass
136: spheres. Particle diameters $d$ and standard deviations $\sigma$ were
137: measured with a Camsizer (Retsch Technology). Angles of repose under water were
138: averaged over 10 measurements.}
139: \label{tab:particles}
140: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
141: sample & $d$ ($\mu$m) & $\sigma$(\%) & supplier & angle of repose \\ % MW3 and Sigma3
142: \hline
143: A & 96 & 15.6 & Cataphote & 24.8 $\pm$ 1.0 \\
144: B & 167 & 16.1 & Cataphote & 26.1 $\pm$ 0.7 \\
145: C & 277 & 7.6 & Cataphote & 25.3 $\pm$ 0.8 \\
146: D & 322 & 9.3 & Cataphote & 25.5 $\pm$ 0.7 \\
147: E & 261 & 5.0 & MoSci & 24.0 $\pm$ 0.8 \\
148: F & 257 & 7.8 & Cataphote & 27.7 $\pm$ 1.3 \\
149: G & 255 & 2.7 & MoSci & 26.6 $\pm$ 0.7 \\
150: \end{tabular}
151: \end{table}
152:
153:
154: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
155:
156: {\it RLP is defined by a limit process. --} The main improvement over
157: earlier studies using sedimenting particles \cite{onoda:90,dong:06} is
158: that our control of $Q$ allows us to change the sedimentation time
159: independent of the liquid density. This procedure reveals the
160: convergence of $\phi$ to $\phi_{\rm RLP}$. The observation that the
161: slowest relaxing preparation yields the loosest packings agrees with
162: simulations of frictional discs and spheres
163: \cite{zhang:05,shundyak:07}. Figure~\ref{fig:diameter} shows that
164: $\phi (Q)$ is well described by the fit function used in
165: \cite{schroeter:05},
166: \begin{equation}
167: \label{eq:rlp_fit}
168: \phi (Q) = \phi_{\rm RLP} + \frac{a}{Q-b},
169: \end{equation}
170: which we use to determine $\phi_{\rm RLP}$.
171:
172:
173: {\it Dependence on particle diameter. --} The inset of
174: Fig.~\ref{fig:diameter} indicates that $\phi_{\rm RLP}$ decreases with
175: particle diameter; however, this decrease is due to lower volume
176: fraction near a container wall, an effect known since the earliest
177: studies \cite{scott:60}. This effect is explained in
178: Fig.~\ref{fig:finite_size}(a): since particles cannot penetrate the
179: container wall, voids are larger there and the volume fraction of the
180: layer adjacent to the boundary is lower than $\phi_{\rm bulk}$
181: measured in the core of the sample. The difference between $\phi_{\rm
182: apparent}$ averaged over the whole container and $\phi_{\rm bulk}$
183: increases with the ratio $d$/$D$ and produces the trend displayed in
184: the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:diameter}.
185:
186: \begin{figure*}
187: \begin{center}
188: \includegraphics[width=17cm]{./finite_size_h_bw.eps}
189: \caption{(a) Illustration of the necessity of a finite size
190: correction of the volume fraction determined from the total sample
191: volume. Particles near the boundary have a lower volume fraction
192: than those in the bulk.
193: (b) Cross section of a 3-dimensional x-ray tomogram of the
194: fluidized bed; the particles have a diameter of 255 $\mu$m (sample G).
195: The inner diameter of the polycarbonate tube (black circle) is
196: 12.8 mm. (c) Bulk volume fraction
197: for particles that are at least $4d$ away from
198: boundary, and the apparent volume fraction $\phi_{\rm apparent}$ for
199: all particles. The dotted line
200: corresponds to the fit to the 277 $\mu$m particles in
201: Fig.~\ref{fig:diameter}.
202: The inset shows a linear fit (\ref{eq:finite_size_corr}) to the
203: difference between bulk and apparent volume fractions.
204: Sample height was 39 mm at RLP.
205: %7.055 g, 2.5 g/cm^3, 1.2799 cm^2
206: }
207: \label{fig:finite_size}
208: \end{center}
209: \end{figure*}
210:
211:
212: We examined the finite size effect using X-ray tomography
213: \cite{sakellariou:04}, %aste:04,aste:05 as illustrated in
214: Fig.~\ref{fig:finite_size}. In each run positions of $1.5 \times 10^5$
215: spheres were measured with a resolution of better than 0.1\% of a sphere diameter
216: \cite{aste:07}. Figure \ref{fig:finite_size}(c) shows the difference
217: between the apparent volume fraction % $\phi_{\rm app}$ calculated
218: using all particles and the bulk volume fraction (measured using the
219: Voronoi volumes \cite{aste:07} of all particles that are at least $4d$
220: away from the container walls). For $Q<10$ ml/min, $\phi_{\rm apparent}$
221: values from the tomographic measurements agree with the results
222: (dotted curve) for the 277 $\mu$m particles in
223: Fig.~\ref{fig:diameter}, but for $Q > 10$ ml/min the tomographic
224: values are larger due to unavoidable vibrations during the recording
225: of the tomogram.
226:
227: The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:finite_size}(c) shows the difference
228: between the bulk and apparent $\phi$ as a function of
229: $\phi_{\rm apparent}$. A linear fit yields
230: \begin{equation}
231: \label{eq:finite_size_corr} \phi_{\rm bulk} = \phi_{\rm apparent} + 0.122
232: (\phi_{\rm apparent} - 0.505).
233: \end{equation}
234: For all further experiments we used only spheres with diameter 261 or
235: 257 $\mu$m (sample E or F), and we corrected for the effect of
236: finite container size using (\ref{eq:finite_size_corr}).
237:
238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
239: {\it Influence of pressure. --} The stress inside a column of grains
240: differs from the hydrostatic case in two ways: (i) anisotropy -- the
241: horizontal stress $\sigma_{\rm xx}$ in the column differs from the
242: vertical stress $\sigma_{\rm zz}$. (ii) wall friction --
243: the part of the load carried by the frictional sidewalls increases with
244: depth $z$ below the surface. Consequently, $\sigma_{\rm xx}$ and
245: $\sigma_{\rm zz}$ saturate with $z$. In our analysis we use a
246: pressure dependence on height given by the Janssen model
247: \cite{sperl:06}, which assumes a constant stress ratio $K =
248: \sigma_{\rm xx} / \sigma_{\rm zz}$ everywhere in a sample.
249: Experiments show that this model is a fair approximation in the
250: absence of external loads \cite{vanel:99,vanel:00}. The model gives
251: a saturation of pressure ($p = \sigma_{\rm zz}$) with
252: depth,
253: \begin{equation}
254: \label{eq:janssen}
255: p(z) = p_{\rm sat} \left( 1 - e^{-z/l} \right),
256: \end{equation}
257: to a constant value $p_{\rm sat} = \Delta \rho g D / 4 K \mu_{\rm W}$,
258: where $\mu_{\rm W}$ is the coefficient of particle-wall friction, $g$
259: is the gravitational acceleration, $\Delta \rho$ is the density
260: difference between spheres and surrounding liquid, and $l = D/4 K\mu_{\rm W}$.
261: Equation (\ref{eq:janssen}) indicates two ways of
262: controlling the pressure distribution inside the column:
263:
264: I) Increasing the sample height, which increases the fraction of the
265: sample at $p_{\rm sat}$. If $\phi_{\rm RLP}$ increases with $p$, then
266: the average $\phi_{\rm RLP}$ measured by our method should increase with
267: sample height. This behavior is confirmed in Fig.~\ref{fig:column_height}.
268:
269: \begin{figure}[t]
270: \begin{center}
271: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{./inset_column_bw.eps}
272: \caption{Dependence of $\phi$ on $Q$ for different sample heights
273: (261 $\mu$m spheres, sample E). Values of $\phi$ were corrected for
274: finite size effect using (2). Solid lines are fits to
275: (\ref{eq:rlp_fit}). Inset: the resultant $\phi_{\rm RLP}$ values as a
276: function of sample height. }
277: \label{fig:column_height}
278: \end{center}
279: \end{figure}
280:
281: II) Decreasing the density difference $\Delta \rho$, which decreases
282: $p_{\rm sat}$ but keeps the pressure profile unchanged. We increased
283: the fluid density to as high as 2.39 g/cm$^3$, close to the 2.48
284: g/cm$^3$ particle density, by adding sodium polytungstate to the
285: water. Results for different $\Delta \rho$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:friction})
286: again confirm that $\phi_{\rm RLP}$ decreases with decreasing $p$.
287:
288: \begin{figure}[t]
289: \begin{center}
290: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=8.4cm]{./rlp_density_corr_bw.ps}
291: \caption{$\phi_{\rm RLP}$ as a function of the density difference
292: between particles and fluid, for smooth (261 $\mu$m) and rough
293: (257 $\mu$m) particles. Solid lines are fits to
294: (~\ref{eq:pressure_dep}). Data have been corrected for the finite
295: size effect using (\ref{eq:finite_size_corr}). Sample height was 64 mm, and the points are
296: averages obtained at the highest possible flow rate, since for
297: small density differences the flow rate range was too small for a
298: meaningful fit with (\ref{eq:rlp_fit}).
299: % 11.2 g, 2.48 g/cm^3, 1.2799 cm^2, 0.55
300: }
301: \label{fig:friction}
302: \end{center}
303: \end{figure}
304:
305:
306: A limit $\phi_{\rm RLP}^0$ would be given by matching the fluid and
307: particle densities, but in this limit there would be no sedimentation
308: and no connected granular packings would form. Therefore, we
309: extrapolate to determine $\phi_{\rm RLP}^0$: In the absence of theory
310: we follow \cite{valverde:04} and use the
311: pressure dependence close to the jamming point known for
312: frictionless static soft spheres
313: \cite{makse:00,ohern:02,zhang:05,majmudar:07} and frictionless
314: thermal hard spheres \cite{brito:06}:
315: \begin{equation}
316: \label{eq:pressure_dep} \phi_{\rm RLP} = \phi_{\rm RLP}^0 + \left(
317: \frac{\Delta \rho}{a}\right)^\alpha ,
318: \end{equation}
319: where we identify $\Delta \rho \sim p_{\rm sat}$. A fit of $\phi_{\rm
320: RLP}$ for smooth particles (sample E) in Fig.~\ref{fig:friction}
321: yields $\phi_{\rm RLP}^0 = 0.555 \pm 0.006$. The value of $\alpha=
322: 0.51 \pm 0.25$ is approximate because our derivation of
323: (\ref{eq:pressure_dep}) did not take into account the $\phi$
324: dependence of $K$~\cite{vanel:99}.
325:
326:
327: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
328:
329: {\it Influence of frictional properties. --} Figure \ref{fig:friction}
330: shows that $\phi_{\rm RLP}$ for the rough spheres was lower than for
331: the smooth spheres. For the rough spheres a fit to
332: (\ref{eq:pressure_dep}) yields $\phi_{\rm RLP}^0 = 0.550 \pm 0.001$
333: and $\alpha = 0.89 \pm0.16$. The decrease of $\phi_{\rm RLP}$ and
334: $\phi_{\rm RLP}^0$ with increasing friction agrees with another
335: experiment \cite{menon:07}, model \cite{srebro:03}, and simulations
336: \cite{zhang:05,shundyak:07,silbert:08,pica_ciamarra:08}.
337:
338:
339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
340:
341: {\it Discussion. --}
342: Our experimental results and numerical simulations \cite{zhang:05,shundyak:07} both show that RLP is well
343: defined in an operational sense: in the limit of infinitesimally slow preparation, the volume fraction of
344: a sample converges to $\phi_{RLP}$, independent of the details of preparation. Care should be taken in
345: comparing theory for frictionless hard spheres with the experimental results, in part because of the
346: different possible ways of defining mechanical stability \cite{torquato:01,torquato:07}.
347:
348: The observation of a well-defined $\phi_{RLP}$ can be considered within the framework of a statistical
349: mechanics of static granular material \cite{edwards:07},
350: where a configurational entropy $S$ is defined as the logarithm
351: of the number of mechanically stable configurations for a given $\phi$, $p$, and friction coefficient. Two
352: different approaches can explain RLP using two different assumptions of how $S$ depends on $\phi$.
353: The first approach assumes that RLP is the smallest $\phi$ where $S$ becomes larger than zero.
354: This is compatible with the existence of looser, highly ordered configurations \cite{torquato:07},
355: as their number seems not to grow exponentially with system size, so $S = 0$.
356:
357:
358: The second approach is supported by numerical results on the number of stable configurations of
359: frictional discs \cite{pica_ciamarra:08}, where $S$ has a maximum at RLP.
360: This idea agrees with slow sedimentation
361: leading to RLP: it is simply the most probable configuration. If the sedimentation speed is increased,
362: the additional kinetic energy allows the system to explore the local energy landscape and find
363: rarer but lower potential energy (denser) configurations. Further,
364: the maximum of $S$ and therefore RLP moves to higher values of $\phi$
365: for decreasing friction \cite{pica_ciamarra:08}.
366: This agrees with our results and with simulations of frictionless disks that have a
367: maximum of $S$ at Random Close Packing \cite{gao:06}. Our results indicate
368: also that increasing $p$ shifts the maximum of $S$ in a similar way.
369:
370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
371:
372: {\it Conclusions. --} Mechanically stable packings of spheres prepared with
373: increasing sedimentation time display a lower bound of their volume fraction,
374: $\phi_{\rm RLP}$, which depends on the pressure and the coefficient of friction
375: but not on the diameter of the spheres. In the limit of zero pressure we have found a new
376: lowest value of $\phi_{\rm RLP}$, $0.550 \pm 0.001$.
377:
378:
379: {\it Acknowledgments. --} We thank Massimo Pica Ciamarra and Antonio
380: Coniglio for sharing their unpublished results, and Brandon McElroy
381: for his assistance with the Camsizer. Further we thank
382: W.D.~McCormick, Narayanan Menon, Charles Radin, Leo Silbert, Jack
383: Swift, and participants of the 2007 Aspen Jamming workshop for
384: helpful discussions. This work was supported by Robert A. Welch
385: Foundation Grant F-0805.
386:
387: %\bibliography{rlp}
388:
389:
390: \begin{thebibliography}{29}
391: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
392: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
393: \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
394: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
395: \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
396: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax
397: \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi
398: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
399: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
400: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
401: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
402: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
403:
404:
405: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Scott}(1960)}]{scott:60}
406: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Scott}},
407: \bibinfo{journal}{Nature} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{188}},
408: \bibinfo{pages}{908} (\bibinfo{year}{1960}).
409:
410: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Rutgers}(1962)}]{rutgers:62}
411: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Rutgers}},
412: \bibinfo{journal}{Nature} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{193}}, \bibinfo{pages}{465
413: } (\bibinfo{year}{1962}).
414:
415: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Onoda and Liniger}(1990)}]{onoda:90}
416: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~Y.} \bibnamefont{Onoda}} \bibnamefont{and}
417: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~G.} \bibnamefont{Liniger}},
418: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}},
419: \bibinfo{pages}{2727} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).
420:
421: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ojha et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Ojha, Menon, and
422: Durian}}]{ojha:00}
423: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Ojha}},
424: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Menon}}, \bibnamefont{and}
425: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{Durian}},
426: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}},
427: \bibinfo{pages}{4442} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
428:
429:
430: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Valverde et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Valverde,
431: Quintanilla, and Castellanos}}]{valverde:04}
432: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Valverde}},
433: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~A.~S.} \bibnamefont{Quintanilla}},
434: \bibnamefont{and}
435: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Castellanos}},
436: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{92}},
437: \bibinfo{pages}{258303} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
438:
439: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Valverde and Castellanos}(2006)}]{valverde:06}
440: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Valverde}} \bibnamefont{and}
441: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Castellanos}},
442: \bibinfo{journal}{Europhys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}},
443: \bibinfo{pages}{985} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
444:
445: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dong et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Dong, Yang, Zou, and
446: Yu}}]{dong:06}
447: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~J.} \bibnamefont{Dong}},
448: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~Y.} \bibnamefont{Yang}},
449: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~P.} \bibnamefont{Zou}}, \bibnamefont{and}
450: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~B.} \bibnamefont{Yu}},
451: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{96}},
452: \bibinfo{pages}{145505} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
453:
454: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Umbanhowar and Goldman}(2006)}]{umbanhowar:06}
455: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~B.} \bibnamefont{Umbanhowar}}
456: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~I.}
457: \bibnamefont{Goldman}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Am. J. Phys.}
458: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{74}}, \bibinfo{pages}{720} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
459:
460: \bibitem[{men()}]{menon:07}
461: \bibinfo{note}{Private communication: Narayanan Menon (2007)}.
462:
463:
464: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Makse et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Makse, Johnson, and
465: Schwartz}}]{makse:00}
466: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~A.} \bibnamefont{Makse}},
467: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~L.} \bibnamefont{Johnson}},
468: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~M.}
469: \bibnamefont{Schwartz}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
470: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{84}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4160 } (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
471:
472: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{O'Hern et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{O'Hern, Langer, Liu,
473: and Nagel}}]{ohern:02}
474: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~S.} \bibnamefont{O'Hern}},
475: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.} \bibnamefont{Langer}},
476: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~J.} \bibnamefont{Liu}}, \bibnamefont{and}
477: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~R.} \bibnamefont{Nagel}},
478: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{88}},
479: \bibinfo{pages}{075507} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
480: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~S.} \bibnamefont{O'Hern}},
481: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~E.} \bibnamefont{Silbert}},
482: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~J.} \bibnamefont{Liu}}, \bibnamefont{and}
483: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~R.} \bibnamefont{Nagel}},
484: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}},
485: \bibinfo{pages}{011306} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
486:
487: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Zhang and Makse}(2005)}]{zhang:05}
488: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~P.} \bibnamefont{Zhang}} \bibnamefont{and}
489: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~A.} \bibnamefont{Makse}},
490: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{72}},
491: \bibinfo{pages}{011301} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).
492:
493: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Shundyak et~al.}(2007)\citenamefont{Shundyak, van
494: Hecke, and van Saarloos}}]{shundyak:07}
495: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Shundyak}},
496: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{van Hecke}},
497: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{van
498: Saarloos}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}},
499: \bibinfo{pages}{010301(R)} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}).
500:
501: \bibitem{silbert:08}
502: \bibinfo{note}{Private communication: Leonardo Silbert (2008)}.
503:
504: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Edwards and Blumenfeld}(2007)}]{edwards:07}
505: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Edwards}} \bibnamefont{and}
506: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Blumenfeld}}, in
507: \emph{\bibinfo{booktitle}{Granular Physics}}, edited by
508: \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Mehta}}
509: (\bibinfo{publisher}{Cambridge University Press}, \bibinfo{year}{2007}).
510:
511: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Schr\"oter et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont{Schr\"oter,
512: Goldman, and Swinney}}]{schroeter:05}
513: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Schr\"oter}},
514: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~I.} \bibnamefont{Goldman}},
515: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~L.}
516: \bibnamefont{Swinney}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E}
517: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}}, \bibinfo{pages}{030301(R)}
518: (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).
519:
520: \bibitem{aste:07b}
521: \bibinfo{note}{T. Aste and T. Di Matteo, arXiv:0711.3239 (2007)}.
522:
523:
524: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sakellariou et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Sakellariou,
525: Sawkins, Senden, and Limaye}}]{sakellariou:04}
526: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Sakellariou}},
527: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~J.} \bibnamefont{Sawkins}},
528: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~J.} \bibnamefont{Senden}},
529: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Limaye}},
530: \bibinfo{journal}{Physica A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{339}},
531: \bibinfo{pages}{152} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
532: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Aste}},
533: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Saadatfar}},
534: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Sakellariou}},
535: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~J.}
536: \bibnamefont{Senden}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physica A}
537: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{339}}, \bibinfo{pages}{16} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
538: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Aste}},
539: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Saadatfar}},
540: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~J.}
541: \bibnamefont{Senden}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E}
542: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}}, \bibinfo{pages}{061302}
543: (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).
544:
545: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Aste et~al.}(2007)\citenamefont{Aste, Matteo,
546: Saadatfar, Senden, Schr\"oter, and Swinney}}]{aste:07}
547: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Aste}},
548: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~D.} \bibnamefont{Matteo}},
549: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Saadatfar}},
550: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~J.} \bibnamefont{Senden}},
551: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Schr\"oter}},
552: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~L.}
553: \bibnamefont{Swinney}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Europhys. Lett.}
554: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{79}}, \bibinfo{pages}{24003} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}).
555:
556: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sperl}(2006)}]{sperl:06}
557: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Sperl}},
558: \bibinfo{journal}{Granular Matter} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{8}},
559: \bibinfo{pages}{59} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
560:
561: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Vanel and Cl\'ement}(1999)}]{vanel:99}
562: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Vanel}} \bibnamefont{and}
563: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Cl\'ement}},
564: \bibinfo{journal}{Eur. Phys. J. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{11}},
565: \bibinfo{pages}{525} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).
566:
567: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Vanel et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Vanel, Claudin,
568: Bouchaud, Cates, Cl\'ement, and Wittmer}}]{vanel:00}
569: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Vanel}},
570: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Claudin}},
571: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-P.} \bibnamefont{Bouchaud}},
572: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~E.} \bibnamefont{Cates}},
573: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Cl\'ement}},
574: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~P.}
575: \bibnamefont{Wittmer}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
576: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{84}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1439 } (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
577:
578: \bibitem{pica_ciamarra:08}
579: \bibinfo{note}{Massimo Pica Ciamarra and Antonio Coniglio, arXiv:0805.0220 (2008)}.
580:
581: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Majmudar et~al.}(2007)\citenamefont{Majmudar, Sperl,
582: Luding, and Behringer}}]{majmudar:07}
583: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~S.} \bibnamefont{Majmudar}},
584: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Sperl}},
585: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Luding}}, \bibnamefont{and}
586: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~P.} \bibnamefont{Behringer}},
587: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{98}},
588: \bibinfo{pages}{058001} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}).
589:
590: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brito and Wyart}(2006)}]{brito:06}
591: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Brito}} \bibnamefont{and}
592: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Wyart}},
593: \bibinfo{journal}{Europhys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{76}},
594: \bibinfo{pages}{149} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
595:
596: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Srebro and Levine}(2003)}]{srebro:03}
597: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Srebro}} \bibnamefont{and}
598: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Levine}},
599: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}},
600: \bibinfo{pages}{061301} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
601:
602:
603: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Torquato and Stillinger}(2007)}]{torquato:07}
604: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Torquato}} \bibnamefont{and}
605: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~H.} \bibnamefont{Stillinger}},
606: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Appl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{102}},
607: \bibinfo{pages}{093511} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}).
608:
609:
610:
611:
612: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Torquato et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Torquato
613: and Stillinger}}]{torquato:01}
614: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Torquato}} \bibnamefont{and}
615: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~H.} \bibnamefont{Stillinger}},
616: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{105}},
617: \bibinfo{pages}{11849} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).
618:
619:
620: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gao et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Gao, B\l{}awzdziewicz,
621: and O'Hern}}]{gao:06}
622: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.-J.} \bibnamefont{Gao}},
623: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{B\l{}awzdziewicz}},
624: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~S.}
625: \bibnamefont{O'Hern}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E}
626: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{74}}, \bibinfo{pages}{061304}
627: (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
628:
629:
630: \end{thebibliography}
631:
632:
633:
634:
635: \end{document}
636: