1: %\documentstyle[pre,aps,twocolumn,epsf]{revtex} % obsolete revtex style
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files %use with REVTex4
4: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point %use with REVTex4
5: \usepackage{bm}% bold math %use with REVTex4
6:
7: %\documentclass{article} % plain TeX command
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{\bf{Coarsening Dynamics of Granular Heaplets in Tapped Granular Layers}}
12:
13: \author{Y.~K.~GOH}
14: \author{R.~L.~JACOBS}
15: %\address{Department of Mathematics, Imperial College\\
16: %180 Queen's Gate, LONDON SW7 2AZ, U.K.}
17: % Command \address is used for revtex style format
18: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics, Imperial College\\
19: 180 Queen's Gate, LONDON SW7 2AZ, U.K.}
20: %Command \affiliation is used only for REVTex4 style format
21: \date{\today}
22:
23: %\maketitle %abstract comes after \maketitle in revtex style
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: A semi-continuum model is introduced to study
27: the dynamics of the formation of granular heaplets
28: in tapped granular layers.
29: By taking into account the energy dissipation of collisions and
30: screening effects due to avalanches,
31: this model is able to reproduce qualitatively the pattern of
32: these heaplets.
33: Our simulations show that the granular heaplets are characterised
34: by an effective surface tension which depends on the
35: magnitude of the tapping intensity.
36: Also, we observe that there is a coarsening effect in that the
37: average size of the heaplets, $V$ grows as the number of taps $k$ increases.
38: The growth law at intermediate times can be fitted by a scaling function
39: $V \sim k^z$ but the range of validity of the power law
40: is limited by size effects.
41: The growth
42: exponent $z$ appears to diverge as the tapping intensity is increased.
43: \end{abstract}
44: %47.54.+r,45.05.+x,47.35.+i \\
45: \pacs{61.43.Gt,45.70.Qj,83.80.Fg} %use in REVTex4
46:
47: \maketitle %abstract comes before maketitle in REVTex4
48:
49: %\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
50: % Why you do this research.
51: % back ground review.
52: In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the collective
53: dynamics of granular materials.
54: The dissipative nature of granular materials gives rise to properties
55: distinct from those of solids and liquids.
56: Many experimental and theoretical
57: attempts have been made to seek a fundamental understanding of this
58: granular state and especially pattern formation
59: in driven granular layers.
60: The experiments include vertically vibrated
61: systems\,\cite{Umbanhowar96,bizon98},
62: tapped or blown thin films of powders\,\cite{Duran00,Duran01},
63: and electrostatically driven granular layers\,\cite{Aranson02,Aranson00}.
64: Although many papers have been published to explain the experiments on
65: tapped granular layers,
66: most of them deal with either compactification of
67: thick granular layers\,\cite{Ben-Naim98,Knight95},
68: or static properties of granular heaplets on a thin granular
69: layer\,\cite{Duran01}.
70: The dynamical aspect of the heaping process in a tapped thin granular layer
71: is still not well understood.
72: This paper is concerned with the coarsening dynamics of
73: granular heaplets in tapped granular layers from
74: a theoretical point of view.
75:
76: %introduce what are you going to do.
77: This paper is organised as follows.
78: First we introduce a simple model to study this fascinating system
79: by considering the energy dissipation and screening effects during
80: the tapping process.
81: Despite the simplicity, this model is capable
82: of capturing the essential phenomenology,
83: reproducing various morphologies of the coarsening pattern,
84: and showing the way in which heaplets merge
85: as observed in experiments\,\cite{Duran01}.
86: The model is then studied numerically and the results indicate some of
87: the relationships between tapping intensity and
88: the effective surface tension of granular layers.
89: Finally analysis of
90: the results shows that the average size of the the heaplets $V$ grows
91: as a power law with the number of taps $k$, $V\sim k^z$
92: for limited range of $k$ values.
93: The exponent $z$ appears to diverge as the tapping intensity is increased.
94:
95: %\section{Model}\label{model}
96: % 2 phases in tapping process
97: {\em Model} --
98: Consider a {\em thin} layer of $N \gg 1$ granular particles
99: spread out over a flat plate.
100: The plate is then tapped repeatedly at a low pace
101: with constant shock intensity.
102: In one complete tapping cycle, there are two different processes
103: each of which requires a different description.
104: In the tapping phase,
105: the granular layer is perturbed by an external shock and
106: granular particles acquire kinetic energy to allow
107: them explore the phase space and hop on to neighbouring sites.
108: The hopping range of the granular particles depends on
109: the amount of kinetic energy received by each of
110: the individual particles.
111: The amount of energy supplied to the system is controlled by
112: the dimensionless acceleration $\Gamma=U/g \, \Delta t$,
113: where $U$ is the velocity of the plate when it is in motion and
114: $\Delta t$ is the time interval over which it is in motion.
115: Note that $U$ is also the vertical velocity gained by
116: an {\em elastic} particle sitting on the plate when it is tapped.
117: Our particles are not however elastic.
118: Therefore, the vertical velocity gain is $\alpha U$,
119: where $0 \le \alpha \le 1$ is the departure coefficient
120: analogous to the coefficient of restitution and
121: it characterises the degree of dissipation of the system.
122: After the tap, the particles undergo a ballistic flight and fall back
123: again onto the static plate where
124: they relax subject to avalanche dynamics before the next tap.
125: In this relaxation phase, the granular particles may stay immobile
126: or move about depending on the local slope.
127: If the local slope is less than a critical slope then the profile
128: remains stationary.
129: Conversely,
130: if the local slope is greater than the critical slope,
131: matter moves down the slope collectively as an avalanche,
132: until the slope is less than the critical slope.
133:
134: %Tapping phase
135: %definition of variables, assumptions made in the model
136: Let the area density $n(\mathbf{x},k)$ be the number of
137: granular particles above a unit area of the plate after $k$ taps.
138: Here $\mathbf{x} = (x,y)$, where $x$ and $y$ are
139: orthogonal coordinates parallel to the plate.
140: The average diameter, $D$ of the granular particles is chosen
141: to be $1$, so that $n( \mathbf{x},k)$ now is equal to the
142: local thickness of the granular layer, so long as there is no
143: compactification throughout the tapping process.
144: Of course this is just an idealisation,
145: the packing fraction of the granular material will be
146: changed\,\cite{Nowak98} if the granular layer is thick
147: or it is intentionally prepared in a low-density state, but
148: such cases will not be considered here.
149:
150: % single particle description
151: We can approximate the acceleration $A_p$ of the plate's movement
152: due to tapping as a sum of $M$ delta functions
153: \begin{equation}\label{eq:A_p}
154: A_p(t) = \sum_{k=1}^{M}U\, \delta(t-(k-1)\tau),
155: \end{equation}
156: where the velocity $U$
157: gives the intensity of the shocks which are assumed uniform
158: over the whole plate. $\tau$ specifies the time interval between
159: taps.
160: Here $\tau$ must be greater than any time scale in the relaxation
161: process, this is to ensure that next tap only occurs
162: after the system is fully relaxed.
163: In the dilute limit, a single inelastic grain sitting on the plate
164: experiences a net force
165: \begin{equation}\label{eq:F_z}
166: F_z(t) = \alpha \left( \sum_{k=1}^{M}mU\, \delta(t-(k-1)\tau)\right) - mg,
167: \end{equation}
168: where $\alpha$ is the departure coefficient mentioned earlier.
169: During a small interval
170: $[t_k - \Delta t/2, t_k + \Delta t/2]$,
171: where $t_k$ is the short hand for $t_k = (k-1)\tau$, the time
172: of $k$-th tap, and the maximum velocity transferred to the particle is
173: \begin{equation}\label{eq:v_z}
174: \Delta v_z = \int_{t_k - \frac{\Delta t}{2}}^{t_k + \frac{\Delta t}{2}}
175: \frac{F_z(t)}{m} \, \mathrm{d}t =
176: \alpha U - g \, \Delta t.
177: \end{equation}
178: In order for the particle to hop, $\Delta v_z$ must be positive,
179: or $\alpha U > v_0 \equiv g\, \Delta t$
180: so that external acceleration overcomes the gravitational force.
181: In what follows this is always the case.
182:
183: % Continuum limit modification
184: In the continuum limit one has to make two crucial modifications.
185: $\alpha$ must be replaced by an {\em effective} departure coefficient
186: of the granular bulk.
187: $\alpha$ is expected to be a monotonic decreasing function of
188: $n(\mathbf{x},k)$.
189: This is because when the number density is high,
190: inter-grain collisions occur more often and more energy is dissipated,
191: so that grains depart with a smaller departure velocity.
192: While the precise form of $\alpha(n)$ is unknown, in this
193: paper it is taken to be
194: \begin{equation}\label{eq:alpha}
195: \alpha(n) = \left\{
196: \begin{array}{ll}
197: \frac{\alpha_0 \,\bar{n}}{n(\mathbf{x},k)},
198: & n > 1
199: \\
200: \alpha_0 \bar{n},
201: & n \le 1,
202: \\
203: \end{array}
204: \right.
205: \end{equation}
206: for reasons of simplicity and to make comparison with Duran's
207: model\,\cite{Duran01}.
208: Here, $\bar{n}$ is the average density of the system and
209: $\alpha_0$ is the effective departure coefficient for
210: average density $\bar{n}$.
211: Also, the second term in Eq.(\ref{eq:F_z}) needs to be changed.
212: In the continuum limit, according to Duran\,\cite{Duran00}
213: there is an effect dependent on the position of a grain in the heap.
214: If the grain is not at the top of the heap it supports a fraction of the weight
215: of the grains above it,
216: hence its effective mass is increased.
217: As a result, in order for a granular particle sitting on the inclined
218: side of the granular layer to hop,
219: it requires a larger velocity kick than a particle sitting
220: on the flat region of the layer.
221: This screening effect can be incorporated into Eq.(\ref{eq:F_z}) by
222: replacing $m$ in the second term with an effective mass
223: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mass}
224: m^* = \left((n_T - n) p \,\sin \theta_c /D \right) m.
225: \end{equation}
226: Here $D$ is the average grain diameter and it is set to 1 henceforth.
227: $n_T$ is the altitude of the nearest peak in the corrugated granular layer.
228: $p$ is a parameter of unknown value which is set equal to 5 in
229: reference~\cite{Duran00}
230: and this value appears to give a match to experimental results.
231: $\theta_c$ is the angle of repose
232: and is close to the value of $\pi/6$ \,\cite{Duran00}.
233: After these modifications, Eq.(\ref{eq:v_z}) now can be written as
234: \begin{equation}\label{eq:dv}
235: \frac{\Delta v_z}{v_0} = \left\{
236: \begin{array}{ll}
237: \frac{\mathcal{A}}{n} - (n_T - n)p\,\sin\theta_c
238: & n > 1
239: \\
240: \mathcal{A}- (n_T - n)p\,\sin\theta_c
241: & n \le 1,
242: \\
243: \end{array}
244: \right.
245: \end{equation}
246: where $\mathcal{A} = \frac{\alpha_0 \bar{n} U}{v_0}$ is
247: the tapping intensity.
248:
249: % Comparison with Duran's Model
250: There are close similarities between our model and Duran's~\cite{Duran01}.
251: In both models, the resulting pattern formation is due to the competition
252: between the upward hopping motion of particles and the downward screening
253: effect of avalanches.
254: However, the mechanism causing upward motion is different in the two models.
255: Duran~\cite{Duran01} and Shinbrot~\cite{Shinbrot98}
256: conjectured that the hopping of granular particles is due to the
257: upcoming air-flux through the porous bed of the granular layer.
258: The velocity of the air-flux at height $n$ can be approximated by
259: Darcy's law $v_{air}=Kp/n$,
260: where $K$ is the permeability of the granular bed,
261: $p$ is the pressure different across the granular bed.
262: The velocity of the air-flux $v_{air}$
263: must be greater than the free fall velocity
264: of a granular particle $v_{f}$ in order to eject this particle.
265: However, in our model we adopt a simpler picture where
266: kinetic energy is transferred to the granular particles
267: via direct collisions between plate and particle and
268: between particle and particle.
269: Energy is dissipated via the effective departure coefficient.
270: The form of the effective departure coefficient is chosen as
271: in Eq.(\ref{eq:alpha}) so that the velocity transfer from plate to
272: the particle
273: has the same $1/n$ dependency ($n \ge 1$) as $v_{air}$ in Darcy's law.
274: Obviously, we have the freedom to choose other functional forms of $\alpha(n)$,
275: the simple choice here is just to achieve comparison with Duran's model.
276: As observed from simulation, however, it turned out that the exact form of
277: $\alpha(n)$ is unimportant so long as it is a monotonic decreasing function.
278:
279: % Hopping process
280: Now it remains to specify the hopping process in the tapping phase.
281: When the granular layer is tapped, at an unstable site where $\Delta v_z > 0$,
282: particles can hop to
283: any neighbouring site within a circle defined by a maximum
284: horizontal hopping range, $R_{max}({\mathbf \Delta v})$.
285: Here we assume on the unstable site,
286: all the granular particles are re-distributed.
287: Each grain hops with equal probabilities in any direction and
288: with a random hopping range, $R<R_{max}$.
289: We can estimate the maximum hopping range
290: $R_{max}({\mathbf \Delta v})$ by the following
291: simple arguments.
292: The maximum velocity received by a particle during one tap is
293: $\Delta v_z$ vertical to the plate.
294: In this case $R_{max}({\mathbf \Delta v})$ is zero
295: for the motion is strictly vertical.
296: It is unlikely that particles will always hop in the
297: vertical direction, an inter-particle collision can change the
298: hopping direction to any angle.
299: Assume that particle is ejected with a
300: speed $\Delta v_z \cos\phi$ with $\phi$ denoting
301: the angle from the vertical axis of the plate.
302: Then, the horizontal hopping range is
303: \begin{equation}\label{eq:R}
304: R = \Delta v_z \cos\phi \sin\phi \,t'
305: = \frac{2 \cos^3\!\phi \sin\phi}{g} (\Delta v_z)^2,
306: \end{equation}
307: where $t'$ is the flight time of the particle in vacuum.
308: $R$ is maximum when $\phi = \pi/6$, so that the estimated value for $R_{max}$
309: is given by
310: \begin{equation}\label{eq:R_max}
311: R_{max}(\Delta v_z) = \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{8g}(\Delta v_z)^2
312: = \xi (\frac{\Delta v_z}{v_0})^2
313: \end{equation}
314: where
315: \begin{equation}\label{eq:xi}
316: \xi = \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{8}v_0\,\Delta t.
317: \end{equation}
318: The estimated $R_{max}$ is very crude and does not take into
319: account the details of the air-particle and particle-particle interactions
320: except phenomenologically.
321: However, one can consider $\xi$ in $R_{max}$ as an adjustable
322: parameter, which varies from one experiment to another experiment
323: depending on the roughness of the material used in experiment
324: and humidity of the surrounding environment.
325:
326: %Relaxation phase
327: There are several ways to describe the avalanche process
328: during the relaxation phase.
329: Here we use a slope dependent diffusion equation.
330: We start from the equation of continuity
331: $\partial_t{n} = - \mathbf{ \nabla \cdot J}$ with the constitutive
332: current $\mathbf{J}$ given by
333: \begin{equation}\label{eq:J}
334: \mathbf{J} = \left\{
335: \begin{array}{ll}
336: -\eta(\beta |\nabla n|^2 - 1)\nabla n,
337: &
338: |\nabla n| > \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta}}
339: \\
340: 0, &
341: |\nabla n| \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta}} ,
342: \end{array}
343: \right.
344: \end{equation}
345: where $1/\sqrt{\beta} = \tan\theta_c$ is the critical slope
346: and $\eta$ sets the diffusion rate.
347: The current is chosen in such a way that when the gradient is
348: greater than the critical slope, mass current flows down-hill
349: to smooth out density fluctuations,
350: but no mass is transferred if the gradient is less than the critical slope.
351:
352: %\section{Simulation}
353: % Method, setup
354: {\em Simulation} --
355: The model is studied on a $N \times N$ square lattice with a periodic
356: boundary condition.
357: Initially, the granular layer is prepared by assigning a random height
358: between $[0,5]$ to each site and letting the granular layer relax.
359: At the beginning, the fluctuation in $n(\mathbf{x},0)$ is considerably
360: smaller then the height of the heaplets formed later.
361: On each tapping cycle, the velocity of particles at each site is calculated
362: and the density number is updated according to
363: rules defined by Eq.(\ref{eq:dv}) and Eq.(\ref{eq:R_max}).
364: After which the equation of continuity and
365: the corresponding constitutive current
366: equation Eq.(\ref{eq:J}) are solved and iterated numerically until
367: there is no more mass is transferred at each site.
368:
369: % Results: Pattern description
370: The following density plots show typical results from the simulation.
371: Fig.\ref{fig:densityPlot} shows the density plots
372: of $n(\mathbf{x},k)$ at different values of $k$, the number of taps,
373: for two set of parameters.
374: The top panel shows extended patterns of ridges and
375: corresponds to a smaller tapping intensity ($\mathcal{A}=6.0$),
376: while the lower panel shows localised heaplets and corresponds to
377: a greater tapping intensity ($\mathcal{A}=16.8$).
378: Both simulations coarsen when $k$ increases, eventually
379: reaching their final stage where the entire system is a single
380: granular heap.
381:
382: One can see from Fig.\ref{fig:densityPlot}
383: that as the tapping intensity is increased,
384: the patterns favour isolated circular heaplets
385: which suggests that an effective surface tension can be defined
386: which increases with the tapping intensity.
387: Since there are no attractive forces between granular particles,
388: the granular layer cannot have a true surface tension.
389: This ``surface tension'' effect is entirely due to the system trying to
390: maximise the local energy dissipation by decreasing
391: the value of the effective departure coefficient
392: so that particles are less mobile.
393: In order to maximise the local energy losses,
394: particles have to be as close to each other as possible,
395: for this will increase the
396: number of inelastic collisions between particles.
397: Therefore, with the constraint that the local slope should
398: not exceeds the critical slope,
399: the global attractor of the pattern is a single large heap,
400: where local energy loss is the largest.
401: Akiyama {\em et al.}\,\cite{Akiyama98},
402: Cl\'ement\,\cite{clement92} and Duran\,\cite{Duran01}
403: have discussed the effects of convection on heaping process of
404: granular layers.
405: Duran\,\cite{Duran01} in particular suggests that
406: the ``surface tension'' is brought about by the convective forces
407: dragging particles from the surroundings into the granular heaplets.
408: However, in our simulation it is due to the maximisation of energy losses,
409: since in our model the granular layer does not contain any information
410: about the internal interactions of the sand heap,
411: therefore convective forces are not taken into account.
412:
413: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
414: \vspace{0.3cm}
415: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig_1.eps}
416: \caption{\label{fig:densityPlot}
417: Two simulations of coarsening dynamics of tapped granular layers
418: corresponding to different tapping intensities.
419: The simulation images (a)--(d) and (e)--(h) start with
420: the same initial configuration.
421: Figures (a)--(d) use a smaller tapping intensity
422: ($\mathcal{A}=6.0, \xi=0.2207$),
423: and Figures (e)--(h) correspond to a stronger tapping intensity
424: ($\mathcal{A}=16.8, \xi=0.2207$).
425: (a) and (e) are taken at $k=5$,
426: (b) and (f) at $k=10$,
427: (c) and (g) at $k=20$,
428: (d) and (h) at $k=30$.
429: }
430: \end{figure}
431:
432: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
433: \vspace{0.3cm}
434: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig_2.eps}
435: \caption{\label{fig:merge}
436: Merging of two granular heaplets. $\mathcal{A}=16.0, \xi=0.2207$.
437: When two heaplets touch each other, smaller heaplet is sucked into
438: the larger one.
439: (a) $k=15$ two granular heaplets meet.
440: (b) $k=30$ smaller heaplet is sucked into the larger one.
441: (c) $k=50$ small heaplet disappears.
442: }
443: \end{figure}
444:
445: % Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities & Laplace-Young Pressure
446: Nevertheless, the simulation result does
447: show the Laplace-Young pressure effect suggested by reference\,\cite{Duran01}.
448: A typical example is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:merge}.
449: (The parameters here are $\mathcal{A}=16.0$ and $\xi=0.2207$,
450: but similar results are found over a wide range of
451: values of these parameters.)
452: In the center of the figure there are two connected granular heaplets.
453: After several taps the smaller heaplet merges with
454: the larger heaplet due to matter moving along the connecting neck.
455:
456: % Dynamics of coarsening
457: We are also interested in the dynamics of the size of the heaplets.
458: The relevant length scale measure $l$ is the average
459: thickness of the site $h_i$ weighted by the local volume, $V_i$,
460: and the average volume of the heaplet is $V=l^3$.
461: Since we know that $h_i=n_i$ and the local volume of the site is just
462: $V_i = n_i \sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the area element of the lattice site,
463: it follows that
464: \begin{equation}\label{eq:length}
465: l = \frac{\sum_i \,h_i\, V_i}{\sum_i V_i}
466: = \frac{\sum_i n_i^2}{\sum_i n_i}.
467: \end{equation}
468:
469: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
470: \vspace{0.6cm}
471: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig_3.eps}
472: \caption{\label{fig:LogLog}
473: Log-log plot for characteristic heaplet size $V$ against number of taps $k$
474: for varying tapping intensities $\mathcal{A}$.
475: The solid line corresponds to $\mathcal{A} = 18.0$,
476: the two dashed lines to $\mathcal{A} = 17.6$
477: the dash-dotted line to $\mathcal{A} = 16.0$,
478: and the dotted line to $\mathcal{A} = 14.4$.
479: The parameter used in the simulation is $\xi = 0.2207$.
480: All curves correspond to a lattice size $L_1 \times L_1 = 80 \times 80$
481: and are averaged over ten different runs except for
482: the marked dashed curve which corresponds to
483: $L_2 \times L_2 = 120 \times 120$ and is averaged over five runs.
484: Each curve saturated after a long time,
485: this can be clearly seen from the $\mathcal{A}=18.0$ solid line.
486: The marked curve corresponds to the larger lattice size
487: shows a wider range of the
488: linear region and a larger saturation value of $V$.
489: }
490: \end{figure}
491:
492: There is some limited evidence for power law behaviour $V \sim k^z$
493: in the intermediate region of the log-log plots of $V$ versus $k$ in
494: Fig.\ref{fig:LogLog}.
495: There are three regions in each plot.
496: The early region is where the granular layer is randomly distributed,
497: the number density fluctuation is not large enough to trigger coalescence.
498: The late-time region is where all the heaplets have joined into one big heap,
499: leaving some remaining individual particles
500: hopping randomly about and occasionally encountering the large
501: single heap.
502: The intermediate region is also the fast-growing region where heaplets
503: grow and merge into each other.
504: The range of the intermediate region grows and remains linear as the system
505: size increases as can be seen from the two curves with
506: $\mathcal{A}=17.6$.
507: This shows that system size limits the range of the intermediate
508: power law region.
509: For very large system sizes we would expect on this basis that
510: the intermediate power law region would have a greater
511: range and remain linear in the log-log plot.
512: %In this limited region we can parametrise the growth law of the average
513: % size of the heaplets $V$ as $V \sim k^z$ and $z$ varies for different
514: % tapping intensities.
515: %Note that the system size limits the range of this power law region.
516: %For larger systems, the intermediate linear portion of the curve has
517: % greater range as shown in the marked dashed line in Fig.\ref{fig:LogLog}.
518: One can easily estimate the increase in
519: the average volume of the heaplets $V$ by the
520: following simple argument.
521: As the saturated value of $V$ corresponds to a state where a single heap
522: contains approximately all the grains in the system,
523: it should be proportional to $\bar{n} L^2$,
524: here the average number of grains per site $\bar{n}$ is a conserved quantity.
525: Then, increment in $V$ is given by $\Delta\log_{10}V =2\,\Delta\log_{10} L$.
526: In Fig.\ref{fig:LogLog}
527: the dashed line corresponds to
528: a lattice size $L_1 \times L_1=80 \times 80$ and
529: the marked-dashed line to $L_2 \times L_2 = 120 \times 120$,
530: and the vertical shift in the graphs is expected to be
531: $\Delta \log_{10}V = 0.352$
532: which may be compared to $0.360$ from the simulation.
533:
534: % Responds of z to parameter
535: \begin{figure}[!hbp]
536: \vspace{0.5cm}
537: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig_4.eps}
538: \caption{\label{fig:slope_A}
539: Exponent $z$ for varying tapping intensity $\mathcal{A}$.
540: For small $\mathcal{A}$ ($\mathcal{A}< 14$), $z$ is roughly constant
541: ($z \sim 1.0$),
542: but appears to diverge for $\mathcal{A} > 14$.
543: Each value of $z$ is averaged over ten different runs.
544: }
545: \end{figure}
546: The exponent $z$ in the power law depends on the tapping
547: intensity $\mathcal{A}$ as is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:slope_A}
548: %Fig.\ref{fig:slope_A} shows the variation of $z$ for different $\mathcal{A}$.
549: As we can see $z$ is roughly constant, $z\sim 1.0$,
550: for low tapping intensity.
551: When the tapping intensity is increased $\mathcal{A}>14$,
552: $z$ suddenly increases, and appears to diverge
553: near $\mathcal{A}=18$.
554: For these large values of the tapping intensity, we observed that the system
555: appears to be in a flat configuration for some time
556: and suddenly a single heap formed within a few taps.
557: For still greater tapping intensities,
558: the heaplet patterns disappear and the layer remains flat
559: with a small random variation superimposed.
560: This pattern-disorder transition occurs at a not very precisely defined
561: critical tapping intensity of $\mathcal{A} \sim 18$.
562: (This critical intensity appears to depend slightly on the
563: initial conditions which is the reason for our statement that
564: it is not precisely defined.)
565: Above this critical tapping intensity, no patterns are observed.
566: This is due to the fact that the perturbation is so strong that
567: no site is stable,
568: and each site constantly undergoes re-distribution on each tapping cycle.
569: Although the power law parametrisation is based on limited
570: evidence, it does provide a useful parameter $z$ to distinguish the
571: pattern-forming region ($\mathcal{A} < 18$) from the non-pattern-forming
572: region ($\mathcal{A}>18$).
573:
574: %Conclusion
575: We have introduced a simple model of the heaping process
576: in a tapped granular layer.
577: The model is capable of reproducing the essential morphologies of tapped
578: granular systems.
579: Qualitatively the effective surface tension of the granular heaps
580: is closely related to the tapping intensity,
581: and it is shown that there is no need for convective forces
582: for this effective surface tension to exist.
583: The length scale of the system coarsens according to
584: the power law $l\sim k^z$ in a limited range.
585: The exponent $z$ appears to diverge as tapping intensity is increased
586: and provides a useful parameter for distinguishing the pattern-forming
587: and the non-pattern-forming regions.
588:
589: %Acknowledgment
590: We thank Philip Cheung for helpful discussions.
591:
592: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
593:
594: \bibitem{Umbanhowar96}
595: P.~B.~Umbanhowar, F.~Melo, and H.~L.~Swinney,
596: Nature(London) {\bf 382},793 (1996);
597:
598: \bibitem{bizon98}
599: C.~Bizon {\em et al.},
600: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 57 (1998).
601:
602: \bibitem{Duran01}
603: J.~Duran,
604: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 254301 (2001).
605:
606: \bibitem{Duran00}
607: J.~Duran,
608: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 5126 (2000).
609:
610: \bibitem{Aranson02}
611: I.~S.~Aranson, B.~Meerson, P.~V.~Sasorov and V.~M.~Vinokur,
612: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 204301 (2002);
613:
614: \bibitem{Aranson00}
615: I.~S.~Aranson {\em et al.},
616: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 3306 (2000).
617:
618: \bibitem{Ben-Naim98}
619: E.~Ben-Naim, J.~B.~Knight, E.~R.~Nowak, H.~M.~Jaegar and S.~R.~Nagel,
620: Physica D {\bf 123}, 380 (1998).
621:
622: \bibitem{Knight95}
623: J.~B.~Knight, C.~G.~Fandrich, C.~N.~Lau, H.~M.~Jaegar and S.~R.~Nagel,
624: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 51}, 3957 (1995).
625:
626: \bibitem{Nowak98}
627: E.~R.~Nowak, J.~B.~Knight, E.~Ben-Naim, H.~J.~Jaeger and S.~R.~Nagel,
628: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57}, 1971 (1998).
629:
630: \bibitem{Shinbrot98}
631: T.~Shinbrot,
632: Granular Matter {\bf 1}, 145 (1998).
633:
634: \bibitem{clement92}
635: E.~Cl\'ement, J.~Duran and J.~Rajchenbach.
636: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 1189 (1992).
637:
638: \bibitem{Akiyama98}
639: T.~Akiyama, K.~M.~Aoki, K.~Yamamoto and T.~Yoshikawa,
640: Granular Matter {\bf 1}, 15 (1998)
641:
642: \end{thebibliography}
643:
644: \end{document}
645: