1: %\usepackage{graphicx}
2: %\usepackage{amsmath}
3: %\usepackage{amsfonts}
4: %\usepackage{amssymb}
5:
6:
7: \documentclass[a4paper,oneside,final,onecolumn,12pt]{article}
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}
12: %TCIDATA{Created=Wed Mar 17 12:24:10 1999}
13: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Thu Feb 17 17:39:59 2000}
14: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
15: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="DocumentShell" CONTENT="General\Blank Document">}
16: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}
17: %TCIDATA{CSTFile=LaTeX article.cst}
18:
19: \pretolerance=10000
20: \newcounter{subequation}
21: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
22: \newtheorem{acknowledgement}[theorem]{Acknowledgement}
23: \newtheorem{algorithm}[theorem]{Algorithm}
24: \newtheorem{axiom}[theorem]{Axiom}
25: \newtheorem{case}[theorem]{Case}
26: \newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
27: \newtheorem{conclusion}[theorem]{Conclusion}
28: \newtheorem{condition}[theorem]{Condition}
29: \newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}
30: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
31: \newtheorem{criterion}[theorem]{Criterion}
32: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
33: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
34: \newtheorem{exercise}[theorem]{Exercise}
35: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
36: \newtheorem{notation}[theorem]{Notation}
37: \newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}
38: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
39: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
40: \newtheorem{solution}[theorem]{Solution}
41: \newtheorem{summary}[theorem]{Summary}
42: \newenvironment{proof}[1][Proof]{\textbf{#1.} }{\ \rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}
43: \input{tcilatex}
44:
45: \begin{document}
46:
47: \title{Mean Field critical behaviour for a Fully Frustrated Blume-Emery-Griffiths
48: Model}
49: \author{Francesco di Liberto\thanks{%
50: Corresponding author.Tel+39-81-7253424; e-mail: diliberto@na.infn.it} \ and
51: Fulvio Peruggi \\
52: %EndAName
53: \\
54: %EndAName
55: {\small \textit{INFM and INFN Sezione di Napoli}}\\
56: {\small \textit{Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Universit\`{a} di Napoli
57: ``Federico II''}} \\
58: {\small \textit{Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo}}\\
59: {\small \textit{\ Via Cintia Lotto G. I-80125 Napoli, Italy}}}
60: \maketitle
61:
62: \begin{abstract}
63: We present a mean field analysis of a fully frustrated Ising spin model on
64: an Ising lattice gas. This is equivalent to a degenerate
65: Blume-Emery-Griffiths model with frustration, which we analyze for different
66: values of the quadrupolar interaction.This model might be useful in the
67: study of structural glasses and related systems with disorder.
68: \end{abstract}
69:
70: \date{PACS: 05.50 }
71:
72: \section{Introduction}
73:
74: In the last two decades\ the physics of complex systems, ranging from\
75: dilute magnets to structural glasses has been captured by models which
76: couple Ising variables with lattice gas or Potts variables\ \cite{1}-\cite{6}%
77: , i.e. models with this type of Hamiltonian:
78:
79: \begin{equation}
80: -\beta \mathcal{H}=\sum_{\langle ij\rangle }J\varepsilon
81: _{ij}S_{i}S_{j}n_{i}n_{j}+\sum_{\langle ij\rangle }Kn_{i}n_{j}+\mu
82: \sum_{i}n_{i}, \label{1}
83: \end{equation}
84: where $\varepsilon _{ij}=\pm 1$ are quenched variables associated to pairs
85: of nearest neighbour sites, $J>0$ is the interaction between the Ising spin
86: variables$\;(S=\pm 1),$ $K$ is the interaction between the particles,\ $%
87: n_{i}=0,1$\ are the lattice gas variables, $\mu $ is the chemical potential.
88: The spins can interact\ each other ferromagnetically ($\varepsilon _{ij}=1$)
89: or antiferromagnetically ($\varepsilon _{ij}=-1$).
90:
91: For $\varepsilon _{ij}=1$ everywhere, this model concides with the original
92: Blume-Emery-Griffiths model (BEG) \cite{7}-\cite{17} with an extra
93: degeneracy\ 2 at each empty site. $J\varepsilon _{ij}$ is the bilinear
94: interaction, $K$ the quadrupolar interaction, and $\mu $ the crystal field.
95: In the last few years the disordered BEG model has been studied for random
96: values of the $\varepsilon _{ij}=\pm 1$ \cite{18,19}.\ Recently the
97: Degenerate BEG (DBEG) \cite{20,21} has been found suitable to describe the
98: martensitic trasformation.
99:
100: It may be useful to write the Hamiltonian of Eq.\ (\ref{1}) in the following
101: way:
102:
103: \begin{equation}
104: -\beta \mathcal{H}=\sum_{\langle ij\rangle }[J(\varepsilon
105: _{ij}S_{i}S_{j}-1)n_{i}n_{j}+\eta Jn_{i}n_{j}]+\mu \sum_{i}n_{i},
106: \label{2bis}
107: \end{equation}
108: where $\eta =K/J+1.$ For $\eta =0$\ and $J=\infty ,$ this model has been
109: extensively studied in the last few years to study glassy systems and
110: granular materials in\ the disordered case (i.e. when the $\varepsilon _{ij}$
111: variables are randomly distributed on the lattice ) \cite{6}, \cite{22}-\cite
112: {29}. This model can be considered as a model of particles with an internal
113: degree of freedom ($S=\pm 1)$ that interact with an effective coupling $%
114: J(\varepsilon _{ij}S_{i}S_{j}-1)$ which is zero for spin configurations that
115: satisfy the interactions (i.e. $\varepsilon _{ij}S_{i}S_{j}=1)$ and gives an
116: infinite repulsion, for those that do not satisfy the interaction (i.e. $%
117: \varepsilon _{ij}S_{i}S_{j}\neq 1)$. So these last configurations are
118: forbidden for $J=\infty $.
119:
120: Here we analyze the model for $J$ finite and $\eta \geqslant 0.$ For $\eta
121: \neq 0$\ there is an extra interaction between a pair of n.n.
122: particles,while finite values of $J$\ correspond to softening the hard core
123: potential between the spin variables.
124:
125: In particular we present a mean field analysis of the Hamiltonian of Eq.\ (%
126: \ref{1}) in the fully frustrated (FF) case on the square lattice. In this
127: case the $\varepsilon _{ij}$ variables are choosen in such a way that every
128: plaquette (i.e.\ elementary cell of the lattice) is frustrated. In other
129: terms every plaquette has an odd number of $\varepsilon _{ij}=-1$, so that
130: the four spins of the plaquette cannot completely satisfy the interactions.
131: In Fig.\ 1 we show the Villain \cite{30} scheme for the 2D FF model,
132: highlighting the differences between the A and B sublattices. For this FF
133: lattice we have recently \cite{31} made a mean field analysis of the
134: Frustrated Percolation problem \cite{32}-\cite{43}.
135:
136: In Sec. 3\ and Sec. 4 we write down the equations for site magnetizations $%
137: (m_{A}$ and $m_{B})$ and site densities ($D_{A}$ and $D_{B})$ and these
138: enable us to find the critical lines for the order-disorder transitions in
139: our model for the FF case.
140:
141: For $K/J$ $>-1$ (i.e. $\eta >0)$ there is a tricritical point which
142: separates the critical line in two branches, respectively characterized by
143: first-order and second-order transitions. On the other hand for $K/J=-1\;($%
144: i.e. $\eta =0)$ the transitions are second-order for any $\mu .$
145:
146: Finally we compare the FF behaviour with that of the original Ferromagnetic
147: BEG with and without degeneracy.
148:
149: \section{Mean field analysis}
150:
151: We will study the model defined by the Hamiltonian (\ref{1}) by evaluating
152: its free energy in a mean field approximation. For convenience we will set $%
153: \kappa =K/J$
154:
155: At each site $i$ of the lattice we have to consider the variables $S_{i} =
156: \pm 1$ and $n_{i} = 0,1$. For notation purposes it is useful to introduce a
157: new 4-state variable $\nu_{i}$ such that $\left\{ \nu_{i} \right\} = \left\{
158: n_{i} \right\} \otimes \left\{ S_{i} \right\} = \left\{ 1\uparrow,
159: 1\downarrow, 0\uparrow, 0\downarrow \right\} \equiv \left\{ 1, 2, 3, 4
160: \right\}$. We can express the old variables in terms of this new variable by
161: means of the relations: $n_{i} S_{i} = \delta_{\nu_{i},1} -
162: \delta_{\nu_{i},2}$ and $n_{i} = \delta_{\nu_{i},1} + \delta_{\nu_{i},2}$.
163:
164: Moreover, using the index $r$ to denote one of the four states of $\nu_{i}$,
165: we can define $p_{r}^{i} = \left\langle \delta_{\nu_{i},r} \right\rangle$,
166: i.e.\ the probability that the site $i$ will be found in the state $%
167: \nu_{i}=r $. Here the angular brackets represent, as usual, the average done
168: with the Hamiltonian of Eq.\ (\ref{1}).
169:
170: To obtain the free energy we evaluate first the internal energy of the
171: system, which is the expectation value of our Hamiltonian:
172: \begin{eqnarray}
173: -\beta \mathcal{U}\; &\equiv &\left\langle -\beta \mathcal{H}\right\rangle
174: =-\beta \sum_{\langle ij\rangle }\left\langle \mathcal{H}_{ij}\right\rangle
175: -\beta \sum_{i}\left\langle \mathcal{H}_{i}\right\rangle = \nonumber \\
176: &=&J\sum_{\left\langle ij\right\rangle }\varepsilon _{ij}\left\langle
177: (\delta _{\nu _{i},1}-\delta _{\nu _{i},2})(\delta _{\nu _{j},1}-\delta
178: _{\nu _{j},2})\right\rangle + \\
179: &&+\kappa \sum_{\left\langle ij\right\rangle }\left\langle (\delta _{\nu
180: _{i},1}+\delta _{\nu _{i},2})(\delta _{\nu _{j},1}+\delta _{\nu
181: _{j},2})\right\rangle +\mu \sum_{i}\left\langle \delta _{\nu _{i},1}+\delta
182: _{\nu _{i},2}\right\rangle . \nonumber
183: \end{eqnarray}
184: In the MF context we neglect the fluctuations and can simply put
185: \begin{equation}
186: \left\langle \delta _{\nu _{i},r}\delta _{\nu _{i},s}\right\rangle
187: =\left\langle \delta _{\nu _{i},r}\right\rangle \left\langle \delta _{\nu
188: _{i},s}\right\rangle , \label{3}
189: \end{equation}
190: so relation (\ref{3}) implies \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}%
191: \alph{subequation}}
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: \setcounter{subequation}{0}\setcounter{subequation}{1}\left\langle -\beta
194: \mathcal{H}_{ij}\right\rangle &=&J\left[ \varepsilon _{ij}\left(
195: p_{1}^{i}-p_{2}^{i}\right) \left( p_{1}^{j}-p_{2}^{j}\right) +\kappa \left(
196: p_{1}^{i}+p_{2}^{i}\right) \left( p_{1}^{j}+p_{2}^{j}\right) \right] ,
197: \label{3'a} \\
198: \addtocounter{equation}{-1}\setcounter{subequation}{2}\left\langle -\beta
199: \mathcal{H}_{i}\right\rangle &=&\mu \left( p_{1}^{i}+p_{2}^{i}\right) .
200: \label{3'b}
201: \end{eqnarray}
202: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}}
203:
204: The order parameters we will use in the following are the site magnetization
205: $m_{i}$ and the lattice gas particle density $D_{i}$ expressed by %
206: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}\alph{subequation}}
207: \begin{eqnarray}
208: \setcounter{subequation}{0}\setcounter{subequation}{1}m_{i} &=&\left\langle
209: S_{i}n_{i}\right\rangle =\left\langle \delta _{\nu _{i},1}-\delta _{\nu
210: _{i},2}\right\rangle =p_{1}^{i}-p_{2}^{i}, \label{4a} \\
211: \addtocounter{equation}{-1}\setcounter{subequation}{2}D_{i} &=&\left\langle
212: n_{i}\right\rangle =\left\langle \delta _{\nu _{i},1}+\delta _{\nu
213: _{i},2}\right\rangle =p_{1}^{i}+p_{2}^{i}, \label{4b}
214: \end{eqnarray}
215: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}} from which we have: %
216: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}\alph{subequation}}
217: \begin{equation}
218: \setcounter{subequation}{1}p_{1}^{i}=\frac{1}{2}(D_{i}+m_{i})\qquad
219: p_{2}^{i}=\frac{1}{2}(D_{i}-m_{i}). \label{5a}
220: \end{equation}
221: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}}
222:
223: These relations and the equivalence condition $p_{3}^{i}=p_{4}^{i}$,
224: together with the normalization $\sum_{r=1}^{4}p_{r}^{i}=1$, imply:%
225: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}\alph{subequation}}
226: \begin{equation}
227: \addtocounter{equation}{-1}\setcounter{subequation}{2}p_{3}^{i}=p_{4}^{i}=%
228: \frac{1}{2}(1-D_{i}). \label{5b}
229: \end{equation}
230: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}}
231:
232: Moreover we invoke the typical translation invariance requirement of the MF
233: approximation, taken separately on the two sublattices. Then we look for a
234: solution in which all the sites of sublattice A (B) have the same
235: probabilities, i.e.\ $p_{r}^{i} = p_{r}^{A} \ \forall\ i \in A$ and $%
236: p_{r}^{i} = p_{r}^{B} \ \forall\ i \in B$. This solution is one of the many
237: occurring in the degenerate ground state.
238:
239: Using the translation invariance we can write
240: \[
241: -\beta \mathcal{H}_{AB}=J\left[ m_{A}m_{B}+\kappa D_{A}D_{B}\right]
242: \]
243: for the expectation value $\left\langle -\beta \mathcal{H}_{ij}\right\rangle
244: $ of the partial Hamiltonian relative to any AB ferromagnetic bond, i.e.\
245: any ferromagnetic bond $\langle ij\rangle $ such that $i\in A$ and $j\in B$.
246: A similar relation holds for all the partial Hamiltonians relative to any AA
247: ferromagnetic bond. On the other hand, the expectation value of the partial
248: Hamiltonian relative to any BB antiferromagnetic bond ($\varepsilon
249: _{ij}=-1) $ is given by
250: \[
251: -\beta \mathcal{H}_{BB}=J\left[ -m_{B}^{2}+\kappa D_{B}^{2}\right] .
252: \]
253: Therefore, for $N$ sites, since the number of A sites and the number of B
254: sites are both $N/2$, the internal energy is
255: \begin{eqnarray}
256: \frac{-\beta \mathcal{U}}{N} &=&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left[ \frac{1}{2}%
257: \sum_{j:\exists \left\langle ij\right\rangle }\left\langle -\beta \mathcal{H}%
258: _{ij}\right\rangle +\mu D_{i}\right] \nonumber \label{6} \\
259: &=&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i\in A}\frac{1}{2}\left\{ \frac{z}{2}\left\langle -\beta
260: \mathcal{H}_{AA}\right\rangle +\frac{z}{2}\left\langle -\beta \mathcal{H}%
261: _{AB}\right\rangle +\mu D_{A}\right\} \nonumber \\
262: &&+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i\in B}\frac{1}{2}\left\{ \frac{z}{2}\left\langle -\beta
263: \mathcal{H}_{BA}\right\rangle +\frac{z}{2}\left\langle -\beta \mathcal{H}%
264: _{BB}\right\rangle +\mu D_{B}\right\} \nonumber \\
265: \ && \nonumber \\
266: &=&\frac{Jz}{8}\left[ m_{A}^{2}+2m_{A}m_{B}-m_{B}^{2}+\kappa \left(
267: D_{A}+D_{B}\right) ^{2}\right] +\frac{1}{2}\mu \left( D_{A}+D_{B}\right) .
268: \nonumber \\
269: \ &&
270: \end{eqnarray}
271:
272: For the evaluation of the MF entropic term we use the factorization property
273: of the probability distribution $\mathcal{P}(\nu_{1}, \ldots, \nu_{N})$ and
274: therefore get $\mathcal{S} \equiv -k \sum_{\left\{ \nu \right\} } \mathcal{P}
275: \ln \mathcal{P} = -k \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{r=1}^{4} p_{r}^{i} \ln p_{r}^{i}$.
276:
277: Using the translation invariance, this can be written in the form
278: \begin{equation} \label{7}
279: \frac{\mathcal{S}}{kN} = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{r=1}^{4} (p_{r}^{A} \ln
280: p_{r}^{A} + p_{r}^{B} \ln p_{r}^{B}).
281: \end{equation}
282:
283: Using Eqs.\ (\ref{6}) and (\ref{7}) we can finally write the MF free energy
284: per site of the lattice:
285: \begin{equation}
286: \beta f\equiv \frac{\beta \mathcal{F}}{N}\equiv \frac{\beta \mathcal{U}}{N}-%
287: \frac{\mathcal{S}}{kN}, \label{8}
288: \end{equation}
289: where the probabilities $p_{r}^{A}$ and $p_{r}^{B}$ have to be expressed in
290: terms of the local order parameters $m_{A},m_{B},D_{A}$ and $D_{B}$ through
291: Eq (7).
292:
293: \section{ Equations for the site Magnetizations and Densities}
294:
295: The knowledge of the free energy allows us to write down easily the MF
296: equations that must be satisfied by the order parameters $m_{A}$, $m_{B}$, $%
297: D_{A}$ and $D_{B}$.
298:
299: From the stationary relations $\partial f/\partial m_{A}=0$ and $\partial
300: f/\partial m_{B}=0$ it follows that
301: \begin{equation}
302: m_{A}=D_{A}\tanh \left( \frac{\lambda }{2}(m_{A}+m_{B})\right) ,\qquad
303: m_{B}=D_{B}\tanh \left( \frac{\lambda }{2}(m_{A}-m_{B})\right) . \label{9}
304: \end{equation}
305: Here $\lambda =4J=4J_{o}/kT=T_{c}/T$ where $T_{c}$ $\equiv 4J_{0}/k$ is the
306: mean field critical temperature of the isotropic Ising model recovered by
307: the isotropic version of the Hamiltonian (\ref{1}) in the $\mu \rightarrow
308: \infty $ limit.
309:
310: Morover from the stationary relations $\partial f/\partial D_{A}=0$ and $%
311: \partial f/\partial D_{B}=0$ we deduce that
312: \begin{eqnarray} \label{10}
313: e^{\kappa \lambda (D_{A}+D_{B}) + 2\mu} & = & \frac{ D_{A}^{2}-m_{A}^{2} }{
314: (1-D_{A})^{2} }, \nonumber \\
315: & & \\
316: e^{\kappa \lambda (D_{A}+D_{B}) + 2\mu} & = & \frac{ D_{B}^{2}-m_{B}^{2} }{
317: (1-D_{B})^{2} }. \nonumber
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}} These relations give in
320: implicit form $D_{A}$ and $D_{B}$ for every $m_{A}$ and $m_{B}.$
321:
322: Now, replacing Eqs.\ (\ref{9}) into Eqs.\ (\ref{10}) we get stationarity in
323: the four order parameters $m_{A}$, $m_{B}$, $D_{A}$ and $D_{B}$. After
324: straightforward calculations we find:\renewcommand{\theequation}{%
325: \arabic{equation}\alph{subequation}}
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: \setcounter{subequation}{0}\setcounter{subequation}{1}D_{A} &=&\frac{\cosh %
328: \left[ (\lambda /2)(m_{A}+m_{B})\right] }{e^{(-\kappa \lambda
329: /2)(D_{A}+D_{B})-\mu }+\cosh \left[ (\lambda /2)(m_{A}+m_{B})\right] },
330: \label{11a} \\
331: \addtocounter{equation}{-1}\setcounter{subequation}{2}m_{A} &=&\frac{\sinh %
332: \left[ (\lambda /2)(m_{A}+m_{B})\right] }{e^{(-\kappa \lambda
333: /2)(D_{A}+D_{B})-\mu }+\cosh \left[ (\lambda /2)(m_{A}+m_{B})\right] },
334: \label{11b} \\
335: \setcounter{subequation}{0}\setcounter{subequation}{1}D_{B} &=&\frac{\cosh %
336: \left[ (\lambda /2)(m_{A}-m_{B})\right] }{e^{(-\kappa \lambda
337: /2)(D_{A}+D_{B})-\mu }+\cosh \left[ (\lambda /2)(m_{A}-m_{B})\right] },
338: \label{11c} \\
339: \addtocounter{equation}{-1}\setcounter{subequation}{2}m_{B} &=&\frac{\sinh %
340: \left[ (\lambda /2)(m_{A}-m_{B})\right] }{e^{(-\kappa \lambda
341: /2)(D_{A}+D_{B})-\mu }+\cosh \left[ (\lambda /2)(m_{A}-m_{B})\right] }.
342: \label{11d}
343: \end{eqnarray}
344: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{equation}}
345:
346: These equations can be studied numerically for different values of $\kappa $
347: in order to find the fixed points for every $\lambda $ and $\mu $. This
348: analysis, together with the values of the free energy (\ref{8}) for each
349: fixed point, has enabled us to find for every $\mu $ the critical value $%
350: \lambda _{c}$ where the order parameters $m_{A}$ , $m_{B}$ , $D_{A}$ and $%
351: D_{B}$ undergo a first-order or second-order transition.
352:
353: \section{Critical lines and Results}
354:
355: We have done our analysis for a number of values of the $\kappa $ parameter,
356: but report here, for convenience, only the most interesting cases in the
357: range$\ \kappa \geqslant -1$ (i.e. $\eta \geqslant 0)$. Note that the
358: antiquadrupolar phase that generally appears in the BEG model for $\kappa <0$
359: does not appear here because our sublattice partition is intrinsically
360: different from the usual BEG sublattice partition.\textit{\ }The critical
361: behaviours are reported in Fig. 2--6 respectively for $\eta =1.16,$ $1,$ $%
362: .84,$ $.5,$ $0.$ To appreciate the differences between the FF model and the
363: Ferromagnetic model (i.e.\ $\varepsilon _{ij}=1$ for all bonds), each figure
364: contains the (a)-section in which we report the behaviour of the Degenerate
365: FF BEG model and the (b)-section relative to behaviour of Degenerate
366: Ferromagnetic BEG model. In the (a)-section for each $T/T_{c}$ we give the
367: field $-\mu /\lambda $ were the transition from the high-field disordered
368: phase ($m_{A}=m_{B}=0$ and $D_{A}=D_{B}$) to the low-field ordered phase ($%
369: m_{A}>m_{B}\neq 0$ and $D_{A}>D_{B}$) takes place. Bold (dotted) lines
370: represents second-order (first-order) transitions. Dashed lines represent
371: the spinodals, i.e.\ the boundaries of areas of metastability that surround
372: any first-order transition line. Below the first-order transition line. the
373: metastable phase is the disordered phase, above this line the metastable
374: phase is the ordered phase \cite{44}. In the (b)-section for each $T/T_{c}$
375: we give the field $-\mu /\lambda $ were the transition from the high-field
376: disordered phase ($m=0$ and $D\leq 1/2$) to the low-field ordered phase ($%
377: m>0 $ and $D\geq 1/2)$ takes place. As for the (a)-section, bold (dotted)
378: lines represents second-order (first-order) transitions; dashed lines
379: represent the spinodals. Fig. 2-6 is relative to decreasing values\ of the
380: extra-interaction $\eta =\kappa +1.$ The overall feature is that decreasing $%
381: \eta $ we obtain a smaller ordered region. This\ is expected if we look at
382: the Hamiltonian (\ref{2bis}) since $\eta $ is the extra interaction among
383: the particles. In the insert of Fig. 3b and Fig. 4b we report also the
384: behaviour of the original BEG.
385:
386: For the Ferromagnetic Degenerate BEG\ we find that the degeneracy reduces
387: the area of the ordered region and increases the area of the region of
388: first-order transitions, in agreement with recent results \cite{20,21}.
389:
390: On the other hand it is known that the frustration has the conflicting
391: effect of reducing this region both for the original BEG with random bonds
392: \cite{12} and for the DBEG with random field \cite{21}. Here we find that
393: the frustration reduces the ordered region and moves the tricritical point
394: toward low temperatures, i.e. the frustration in the Fully-Frustrated model
395: (in spite of the small degeneracy present) reduces the first order region.
396:
397: These results may be useful to study the effects of the softening of the
398: hard core potential and the effect of the attraction between particles for
399: systems described by Hamiltonian (\ref{2bis}) such as for example glasses
400: and granular material.\bigskip
401:
402: \bigskip \bigskip \noindent \textbf{\Large Acknowledgements} \bigskip
403:
404: We gratefully aknowledge A.\ Coniglio and A.\ De Candia for useful
405: discussions.
406:
407: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
408: \bibitem{1} A. N. Berker, S. Ostlund and F.A. Putnam , Phys. Rev. \textbf{B}
409: \textbf{17, }3650 (1978)
410:
411: \bibitem{2} K.K.Murata, J. Phys. \textbf{A} \textbf{12,} 81 (1979)
412:
413: \bibitem{3} A. Coniglio and W. Klein, J. Phys. \textbf{A} \textbf{13, }2775
414: (1980)
415:
416: \bibitem{4} A. Coniglio, F. di Liberto and G. Monroy, J. Phys. \textbf{A}
417: \textbf{14, }3017 (1981)
418:
419: \bibitem{5} V. Cataudella, A. Coniglio, L. de Arcangelis and F. di Liberto,
420: Physica \textbf{A} \textbf{192}, 167 (1993)
421:
422: \bibitem{6} A. Coniglio and H.J. Herrmann, Physica \textbf{A} \textbf{225},
423: 1 (1996).
424:
425: \bibitem{7} M. Blume, V.J. Emery and R.B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. \textbf{A}
426: \textbf{4}, 1071 (1971).
427:
428: \bibitem{8} A.N. Berker and M. Wortis, Phys. Rev. \textbf{B} \textbf{14},
429: 4946 (1976).
430:
431: \bibitem{9} M. Tanaka and T. Kawabe, J. Phys. Soc. Japan \textbf{54}, 2194
432: (1985).
433:
434: \bibitem{10} O.F. de Alcantara Bonfim and F.C. S\`{a} Barreto, Phys. Lett.
435: \textbf{109A}, 341 (1985).
436:
437: \bibitem{11} F.Y. Wu, Phys. Lett. \textbf{116A}, 245 (1986).
438:
439: \bibitem{12} K. Hui and A.N. Berker, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{62}, 2507
440: (1989).
441:
442: \bibitem{13} A.Z. Kaneyoshi, Physica \textbf{A} \textbf{164}, 730 (1990).
443:
444: \bibitem{14} W. Hoston and A.N. Berker, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{67}, 1027
445: (1991).
446:
447: \bibitem{15} W. Hoston and A.N. Berker, J. Appl. Phys. \textbf{70}, 6101
448: (1991).
449:
450: \bibitem{16} A.Z. Akhenyan and N.S. Ananikian, J. Phys. \textbf{A} \textbf{%
451: 29}, 721 (1996).
452:
453: \bibitem{17} N.S. Branco, Physica \textbf{A} \textbf{232}, 477 (1996).
454:
455: \bibitem{18} G.R. Schreiber, to appear on European J. of Phys. \textbf{I}
456: (1999).
457:
458: \bibitem{19} J.J. Arenzon, M. Nicodemi and M. Sellitto, J. de Phys. \textbf{%
459: I} \textbf{7}, 945 (1997).
460:
461: \bibitem{20} E. Vives, T. Castan and P.A. Lindgard, Phys. Rev. \textbf{B}
462: \textbf{53}, 8915 (1996).
463:
464: \bibitem{21} N.S. Branco and L. Bachmann, Physica \textbf{A} \textbf{257},
465: 319 (1998).
466:
467: \bibitem{22} M. Nicodemi, A. Coniglio and H.J. Herrmann, Phys. Rev. \textbf{%
468: E} \textbf{55}, 3962 (1997).
469:
470: \bibitem{23} M. Nicodemi, A. Coniglio and H.J. Herrmann, J. Phys. \textbf{A}
471: \textbf{30}, L379 (1997).
472:
473: \bibitem{24} M. Nicodemi, A. Coniglio, J.Phys. \textbf{A} \textbf{30}, L187
474: (1997).
475:
476: \bibitem{25} A. Coniglio, Philosophical Magazine \textbf{B} \textbf{77},
477: 213 (1998).
478:
479: \bibitem{26} A. Coniglio, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. \textbf{126}, 281
480: (1997).
481:
482: \bibitem{27} M. Nicodemi and A. Coniglio, Phys. Rev. \textbf{E} \textbf{57}%
483: , R39 (1998).
484:
485: \bibitem{28} A. Coniglio, A. De Candia and M. Nicodemi, Nuovo Cimento
486: \textbf{20}D, 2349 (1998).
487:
488: \bibitem{29} A. Coniglio, A. De Candia, A. Fierro and M. Nicodemi, J.
489: Phys.: Condens. Matter \textbf{11}, A167 (1999)
490:
491: \bibitem{30} J. Villain, J. Phys. \textbf{C} \textbf{10}, 1717 (1977).
492:
493: \bibitem{31} F. di Liberto and F. Peruggi, Physica \textbf{A} \textbf{248},
494: 273 (1998).
495:
496: \bibitem{32} A. Coniglio, F. di Liberto, G. Monroy and F. Peruggi, Phys.
497: Rev. \textbf{B} \textbf{44}, 12605 (1991).
498:
499: \bibitem{33} L. de Arcangelis, A. Coniglio and F. Peruggi, Europhys. Lett.
500: \textbf{14}, 515 (1991).
501:
502: \bibitem{34} V. Cataudella, Physica \textbf{A} \textbf{183}, 249 (1992).
503:
504: \bibitem{35} A. Coniglio, Il Nuovo Cimento \textbf{D} \textbf{16}, 1027
505: (1994).
506:
507: \bibitem{36} S. Scarpetta, A. de Candia and A. Coniglio, Phys. Rev. \textbf{%
508: E} \textbf{55}, 4943 (1997).
509:
510: \bibitem{37} U. Pezzella and A. Coniglio, Physica \textbf{A} \textbf{237},
511: 353 (1997).
512:
513: \bibitem{38} A. Fierro, A. De Candia, and A. Coniglio, Phys. Rev. \textbf{E}
514: \textbf{56}, 4990 (1997).
515:
516: \bibitem{39} G. Franzese, A. Fierro, A. De Candia and A. Coniglio, Physica
517: \textbf{A} \textbf{257}, 376 (1998).
518:
519: \bibitem{40} G. Franzese and A. Coniglio, Phys. Rev. \textbf{E} \textbf{58}%
520: , 2758 (1998).
521:
522: \bibitem{41} A. Fierro, G. Franzese, A. De Candia and A. Coniglio Phys.
523: Rev. \textbf{E} \textbf{59}, 60 (1999).
524:
525: \bibitem{42} A. Coniglio, Proceedings of the \textit{International School
526: on the Physics of Complex Systems, }Varenna,(1996).
527:
528: \bibitem{43} L. Cannavacciuolo, A. De Candia and A. Coniglio, Int. J.
529: Modern Phys. \textbf{C} \textbf{10}, 555, (1998).
530:
531: \bibitem{44} M. Keskin,C. Ekiz \ and O. Yacin , Physica \textbf{A} \textbf{%
532: 267}, 392 (1999).
533: \end{thebibliography}
534:
535: \pagebreak \noindent\textbf{\Large Figure captions}
536:
537: \begin{description}
538: \item[\textbf{Figure 1}] $2d$ FF model on the square lattice. Straight
539: (wavy) lines represent ferromagnetic (antiferromagnetic) interactions. $z=4$
540: ferromagnetic interactions start from each site of the sublattice $A$ (open
541: circles); $z/2$ ferromagnetic interactions and $z/2$ antiferromagnetic
542: interactions start from each site of the sublattice $B$ (closed circles).
543:
544: \item[\textbf{Figure 2}] (a) Critical lines for the FF lattice for $\kappa
545: =+.16\;($i.e. $\eta =1.16)$. Bold (dotted) lines represents second-order
546: (first-order) transitions. Dashed lines represent the spinodals. (b)
547: Corresponding critical lines for the ferromagnetic model (i.e.\ $\varepsilon
548: _{ij}=1$ for all bonds).
549:
550: \item[\textbf{Figure 3}] (a) Critical lines for the FF lattice for $\kappa
551: =0$ \ ($\eta =1)$. The tricritical point is located at $T/T_{c}\approx 0,233$
552: and $-\mu /\lambda =(1/\lambda )\ln \left( -1+\lambda /\sqrt{2}\right)
553: \approx .166$. (b) Corresponding critical lines for the ferromagnetic model.
554: The insert reports the critical lines for the original BEG \cite{7}.
555:
556: \item[\textbf{Figure 4}] (a) Critical lines for the FF lattice for $\kappa
557: =-.16\;(\eta =.84)$., (b) Corresponding critical lines for the ferromagnetic
558: model Ferromagnetic. In the insert we report the corresponding critical
559: lines for the original BEG \cite{7}.
560:
561: \item[\textbf{Figure 5}] (a) Critical lines for the FF lattice for $\kappa
562: =-.5\;(\eta =+.5)$, (b) Corresponding critical lines for the ferromagnetic
563: model. Observe that both in the ferromagnetic and fully-frustrated case the
564: first-order transition line continues in the ordered phase, below the
565: tricrical point,similarly to the corresponding behaviour of the original BEG
566: \cite{14,15}.
567:
568: \item[\textbf{Figure 6}] (a) Critical lines for the FF lattice for $\kappa
569: =-1\;(\eta =0)$, (b) Corresponding critical lines for the ferromagnetic
570: model. Observe that the first-order transition line now disappears,
571: differently from what happens in the spin glass case \cite{18,19}.
572: \end{description}
573:
574: \end{document}
575: