1: %\documentstyle[aps,multicol,epsf]{revtex}
2: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
3:
4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
5: \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{eps,.eps,.ps}
6: \graphicspath{{./}}
7: \DeclareGraphicsRule{ps}{eps}{ps}{}
8: \DeclareGraphicsRule{eps}{eps}{eps}{}
9:
10: \setlength{\oddsidemargin} {-.1in}
11: %\setlength{\evensidemargin} {-0.25in}
12: \setlength{\topmargin} {-0.5in}
13: \setlength{\textheight}{9.0in}
14: \setlength{\textwidth} {6.5in}
15: \setlength{\parskip}{.35cm plus0.07cm minus0.07cm}
16:
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \baselineskip=14.20pt
21:
22:
23: \begin{center}
24: {\bf Characterization of the Micromechanics in a Compressed Emulsion
25: System: Force Distributions.}
26:
27: { Jasna Bruji\'c$^1$, Sam F. Edwards$^1$, Ian
28: Hopkinson$^2$, and Hern\'an A. Makse$^3$}
29:
30: {
31: $^1$ Polymers and Colloids Group, Cavendish Laboratory, University of
32: Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK\\
33: $^2$ Department of Physics, UMIST, Sackville Street, Manchester
34: M60 1QD, UK\\
35: $^3$ Levich Institute and Physics Department, City College of New York,
36: New York, NY 10031, US
37: }
38:
39:
40: \end{center}
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: The micromechanics of a variety of systems experiencing a structural
44: arrest due to their high density could be unified by a thermodynamic
45: framework governing their approach to 'jammed' configurations. The
46: mechanism of supporting an applied stress through the microstructure
47: of these highly packed materials is important in inferring the
48: features responsible for the inhomogeneous stress transmission and
49: testing the universality for all jammed matter. In this paper we
50: present a novel method for measuring the force distribution within the
51: bulk of a compressed emulsion system using confocal microscopy and
52: explain our results with a simple theoretical model and computer
53: simulations. We obtain an exponential distribution at large forces
54: and a small peak at small forces, in agreement with previous
55: experimental and simulation data for other particulate systems.
56:
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \begin{center}
60: (submitted to Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.)
61: \end{center}
62: \newpage
63:
64: \section{Introduction}
65: \label{intro}
66:
67: The concept of jamming is emerging as a fundamental feature of many
68: systems with slow relaxation dynamics such as granular matter, complex
69: fluids and structural glasses \cite{Jamming,sam-zero,Cipelletti2001}.
70: Whereas one can think of liquids or suspensions as consisting of
71: particles which move very slowly compared to gases, there comes a
72: point where all particles are in close contact with one another and
73: therefore experience structural arrest.
74: In granular systems and
75: compressed emulsions there is no kinetic energy of consequence;
76: the typical energy required to change the positions of the
77: jammed particles is very large compared to the thermal energy at room
78: temperature. As a result, the material remains arrested in a
79: metastable state and is able to withstand an applied
80: stress \cite{Cates1999}.
81:
82: There is a growing literature studying the ''jammed'' state in
83: particulate assemblies, aiming to characterise its
84: micromechanics \cite{Jamming}. It has been shown experimentally that
85: the stresses are distributed inhomogeneously through granular
86: materials and the features of the distribution are useful in inferring
87: the structural elements associated with mechanisms of supporting the
88: applied stress.
89: In order to develop a theory to describe such closely packed
90: particles one needs to know the geometry of the packing
91: in the bulk, and the distribution and propagation of stress
92: in these systems.
93:
94: Several approaches have so far been employed,
95: including 2D and 3D experimentation \cite{dantu,Liu1995}, numerical
96: simulations \cite{Radjai1996,Thornton,Makse2000,Antony2001,Ohern00}
97: and statistical
98: modelling \cite{Coppersmith95}. Previous experiments in 3D
99: assemblies have been confined to measurements of the probability
100: distribution of forces exerted at the boundaries with the container,
101: thus reducing the dimensionality of the problem \cite{Liu1995,
102: Mueth1998,Lovoll1999,Blair2001,Makse2000}.
103: These measurements provide a
104: quantitative understanding of the inhomogeneity of stress transmission
105: within the bulk. However, the method does not have access to the
106: spatial arrangement of the contact force network and other
107: structural features,
108: such as force chains and arching, which have been postulated as the
109: signature of jamming \cite{Jamming,Ohern00}.
110:
111: The salient feature of the probability distribution $P(f)$
112: of interparticle contact force $f$ in jammed systems,
113: obtained from the above methods,
114: is
115: an exponential decay above the mean value of
116: the force. This feature of $P(f)$ seems very robust,
117: with growing evidence that it is independent
118: of particle rigidity \cite{Radjai1996,Antony2001},
119: crystallinity \cite{Blair2001}, tangential forces, construction history and
120: friction
121: \cite{Makse2000}. Nevertheless, there is no clear consensus on the general
122: functional form
123: of $P(f)$ as there are significant discrepancies in the literature
124: particularly regarding the behaviour at small forces, both between
125: experimental data and the theoretical model predictions. Moreover,
126: the
127: possibility of a crossover to a Gaussian-like
128: distribution has been observed at large confining pressures
129: \cite{Thornton,Makse2000,Sexton1999}.
130:
131: In this paper we present a novel method to measure the force
132: distribution within a concentrated emulsion system in its jammed state,
133: which provides the complete three-dimensional information of the contact
134: force network and the spatial arrangement of droplets. We address this
135: problem using confocal microscopy, which provides direct measurement of the
136: dispersed phase morphology within the bulk of the sample. The emulsion
137: droplets are compressed by an external pressure through centrifugation
138: because of the density difference between the phases, and a force network
139: develops within the system in response to the applied stress. At high
140: volume fractions, above the random close packing regime, emulsions
141: exhibit an elasticity which is rationalised by the storage of energy
142: through the deformation of droplets, given in terms of their Laplace
143: pressure \cite{Princen1983}. The degree of deformation is used to
144: derive an interdroplet force. The 3D imaging of a whole ensemble allows
145: the calculation of the forces between the droplets, thus enabling the
146: determination of $P(f)$. We find that the distribution is
147: characterised by a small peak at low forces and an exponential decay at forces above the mean value, a result that can be described by the functional form of $P(f)$ derived from the simple theoretical model we propose in this paper.
148:
149: The form of the probability distribution is
150: independent of the material of the particle provided it has well
151: defined elastic properties. Therefore we can expect the
152: micromechanics of an emulsion, comprised of very ``soft'' particles, to bear
153: many similarities with a packing of granular materials, such
154: as ball bearings or glass beads.
155: Even though there have been no studies
156: of $P(f)$ specifically devised for compressed emulsion systems, we
157: compare our results with the existing data for other jammed systems
158: such as grains and foams, thus testing the hypothesis of a common
159: behaviour for all such matter.
160:
161: We use numerical simulations to examine the effect of polydispersity, osmotic pressure, and
162: other microstructural features, such as the coordination number,
163: on the distribution of forces. They are designed to mimic the experimental procedure on
164: monodisperse and polydisperse distributions of soft particles. The
165: numerical simulation result at the appropriate confining pressure is in good agreement with that
166: obtained from the experiment, showing that the form of the force distribution is indeed independent of particle polydispersity.
167:
168: Moreover, we offer in this paper
169: what we believe is the simplest realistic theory of the force
170: distribution, a theory which does not attempt the ambitious study of
171: the percolation of forces \cite{Bouchaud}, but has the advantage of a
172: simple analytic solution. The theory is sufficiently crude that the
173: reader will be able to see all sorts of ways in which it can be
174: improved, however the simple prediction of the theory can easily be
175: compared to experimental results and is found to describe the data well.
176:
177: \section{Experiment}
178: \label{exper}
179:
180: We use a Zeiss LSM510 confocal laser scanning microscope equipped with
181: a high numerical aperture oil-immersion objective lens with a 40$\times$
182: magnification. The fluorescent dye is excited with a
183: 488nm Argon laser and the emitted light is detected using a photomultiplier behind a long-pass 505nm filter. These settings are appropriate for the excitation of Nile Red dye, used to label the emulsion described below [see
184: Ref. \cite{faraday} for more details].
185: The sample volume (76.3$\times$76.3$\times$23.6$\mu$m) is
186: typically acquired from regions 30$\mu$m below the upper surface of
187: the sample. In this work a 3D image is acquired in approximately 2
188: minutes.
189:
190:
191: The emulsion system constitutes of silicone oil droplets in a
192: refractive index matching solution of water ($w_t=50\%$) and glycerol
193: ($w_t=50\%$), stabilised by 0.01$mM$ sodium dodecylsulphate
194: (SDS). This system is a modification of the emulsion reported by Mason
195: {\it et al.} \cite{Mason1995} to produce a transparent sample
196: suitable for confocal microscopy.
197:
198: The droplet size distribution, measured by image analysis,
199: gives a mean radius of 3.4$ \mu m$ with a radius range between 1$
200: \mu m$ and 10$ \mu m$. This relatively
201: narrow droplet size distribution is achieved by applying high shear
202: rates ($7000s^{-1}$) to a coarsely mixed parent emulsion using a
203: Linkam shear stage \cite{Perrin2000}.
204: To provide contrast between the phases in
205: the microscope, the dispersed oil phase is fluorescently labelled by
206: adding 0.1mM solution of Nile Red dye, predissolved in acetone.
207: The
208: emulsion system prepared in this way remains stable to coalescence for
209: at least a year.
210:
211:
212: The threshold volume fraction for the onset of elasticity depends on
213: the polydispersity of the emulsion, or in other words, the efficiency
214: of the packing. The sequence of images in Fig. \ref{slices} shows 2D
215: slices from the middle of the sample volume after: (a) creaming under gravity, (b) centrifugation at 6000g for 20 minutes and (c) centrifugation at 8000g for 20 minutes. The samples were left to equilibrate for several hours prior to measurements being taken.
216: The
217: volume fraction at the onset of droplet deformation
218: for our polydisperse system is $\phi= 0.90$,
219: determined by image analysis.
220: This high volume fraction obtained at a relatively small
221: osmotic pressure of 125 Pa is achieved due to the polydispersity of
222: the sample.
223:
224:
225: Confocal imaging of the static sample revealed an
226: effect which occurs upon emulsion compression. The areas of contact
227: between the droplets fluoresce with a higher intensity than the
228: undeformed perimeters on the bodies of the droplets, thus highlighting
229: the regions of interest. Images presented in Fig. \ref{slices}
230: illustrate this trend
231: as the
232: osmotic pressure is increased. This effect can be attributed to the
233: increase in dye concentration at the regions of deformation as
234: two droplet surfaces are pushed together to distances smaller than the
235: resolution of the microscope.
236: The fluorescent dye has an
237: affinity for the surfactant so that an enhanced surfactant
238: concentration leads to an enhanced dye concentration and thus higher
239: fluorescence.
240: Future work will involve a more thorough investigation
241: of this effect.
242:
243:
244:
245: \subsection{The Force Model}
246: \label{forcemodel}
247:
248:
249:
250: The forces between the droplets are
251: calculated from the 3D images (of size 256$\times$256$\times$64 voxels)
252: by means of existing interdroplet force models.
253: We extract the positions and
254: radii of all the droplets with subvoxel accuracy using a Fourier Filtering
255: Method (FFM) \cite{Parker,faraday}.
256: The areas of contact patches shown in Fig. \ref{slices}(b)
257: are extracted based on an intensity threshold, since they are brighter
258: than either the droplets or the aqueous background.
259:
260: The determination
261: of an accurate force model for the compression of two droplets is not
262: trivial, but can be simplified within certain limits. For small
263: deformations with respect to the droplet surface area, the Laplace
264: pressure remains unchanged and all the energy of the applied stress is
265: presumed to be stored in the deformation of the surface. Hence, at the
266: microscopic level, two spherical droplets in contact with radii $R_1$
267: and $R_2$ interact with a normal force
268: \begin{equation}
269: \label{force}
270: f = \frac{\sigma}{\tilde{R}} ~A
271: \end{equation} This is the Princen model \cite{Princen1983}, where $A$ is the area of deformation, $\sigma$ is the interfacial tension of the droplets and
272: $\tilde{R}$ is the geometric mean of the radii of the undeformed
273: droplets, $\tilde{R}=2 R_1 R_2/(R_1+R_2)$. The normal force acts
274: only in compression, i.e. $f = 0$ when there is no overlap.
275:
276: The above force corresponds to an energy of deformation which is
277: quadratic in the area of deformation, analogous to a harmonic
278: oscillator potential that describes a spring satisfying Hooke's
279: law. There have been several more detailed
280: calculations \cite{Witten1993} and numerical
281: simulations \cite{Lacasse1995} to improve on this model and allow for
282: anharmonicity in the droplet response by also taking into
283: consideration the number of contacts by which the droplet is
284: confined. Typically these improved models lead to a force law for
285: small deformations of the form $f \propto A^\alpha$ , where $\alpha$
286: is a coordination number dependent exponent in the range 1-1.5.
287: Nevertheless, this work assumes the Princen model, the validity of which was tested by the summation of all the forces on a single droplet. Since the sum on each droplet could be approximated to zero we consider the method adequate.
288:
289:
290: \subsection{Experimental results}
291: \label{exp-results}
292:
293: Figure \ref{pf} shows the probability distribution of interdroplet
294: forces, $P(f)$, for the sample shown in Fig. \ref{slices}(b). We use
295: the Princen model (Eq. (\ref{force}), $\sigma = 9.8 \times 10^{-3}$N/m
296: \cite{Mason1995}) to obtain the interdroplet forces from the contact
297: area data extracted from the image analysis described above.
298:
299: The forces are calculated from the bright, fluorescent patches that
300: highlight the contact areas between droplets.
301: The radii of the droplets needed to obtain the forces
302: according to Eq. (\ref{force}) are obtained with the FFM.
303: The distribution data shown are extracted from
304: 1234 forces arising from 450 droplets. The data shows an exponential
305: distribution at large forces, consistent with results of many
306: previous experimental and simulation data on granular matter, foams,
307: and glasses. The behaviour in the low force regime indicates a small
308: peak, although the power law decay tending towards zero is not well
309: pronounced. The best fit to the data gives a functional form
310: of the distribution $P(f)\propto {f}^{0.9}e^{-1.9f/\bar{f}}$,
311: consistent with the theoretical model proposed in Section \ref{theory}
312: and the existing literature \cite{Coppersmith95}. It is inappropriate
313: to draw conclusions on the physical significance of these
314: coefficients, since the geometry of the packing in the experiment is
315: very different to our simple theoretical model.
316:
317:
318: Our experimental data allows us to examine the spatial distribution of the forces in the compressed emulsion, shown in Fig. \ref{chains}.
319: In this admittedly small sample volume, the forces appear to be uniformly distributed in space and do not show evidence of localisation of forces
320: within the structure. Moreover, we find that the
321: average stress
322: is independent of direction, indicating isotropy.
323: Other experiments are underway to probe the existence of force chains in compressed emulsion systems.
324:
325: \section{Theory}
326: \label{theory}
327:
328: Although the experimental system consists of polydisperse particles
329: which are deformable, in order to get a tractable theory, we simply
330: consider spheres in multiple contact greater than or equal to
331: four in 3-D. Even though this is a gross simplification we
332: believe that a theory that can be carried through to an analytic
333: solution is worthwhile. The reader is referred to more comprehensive
334: theories such as the q-model \cite{Coppersmith95} or force-splitting
335: models \cite{Bouchaud} for more detailed analysis, which are
336: correspondingly more difficult to solve.
337:
338: By Newton's laws, in equilibrium the sum of all the forces exerted on a
339: particle by its nearest neighbours is zero. In three dimensions the
340: average shape of a particle is a sphere, and the minimum co-ordination
341: number $N$ is four \cite{Z}.
342: Consequently the force
343: $\vec{f}$ exerted by a particle on one of its neighbours will equal
344: the sum of the forces $\vec{f}_1+\vec{f}_2+\vec{f}_3$
345: of the other neighbours in
346: contact with it. To simplify we consider the scalar $f=|\vec{f}|$
347: since it will have a very similar distribution on every grain. The
348: distribution of the vector $\vec{f}$ will differ even on adjacent
349: grains, therefore we calculate $P(f)$, not $P(\vec{f})$. It is
350: important to note that only those forces which are pushing on each
351: particle are taken into account in the calculation of $P(f)$, a fact which will appear in the range of integration.
352:
353: Our model takes into account the direction cosines of
354: each of the forces.
355: Excluded
356: volume is also an important factor as particles cannot overlap
357: and the four particle force correlation function should be
358: included. All these effects can be crudely modelled by blurring the
359: contribution from each of the pushing forces
360: by a factor $\lambda_i \in[0,1] (i=1, 2, 3)$,
361: which plays the role of
362: the direction cosine and the other correlation factors.
363:
364: A force balance equation which is capable of analytic solution is
365: \begin{equation}
366: f=\lambda_1^2 f_1 +\lambda_2^2 f_2+\lambda_3^2 f_3.
367: \end{equation}
368: This gives rise to an equation of the Boltzmann form:
369:
370: \begin{equation}
371: P(f)=\int_0^{\infty} df_1 df_2 df_3
372: \int_0^1
373: d\lambda_1 ~d\lambda_2 ~d\lambda_3~\delta(f-\lambda_1^2 f_1-\lambda_2^2
374: f_2-\lambda_3^2 f_3) P(f_1)P(f_2) P(f_3)
375: \end{equation}
376:
377: It is convenient to work with the Fourier transform of the probability
378: distribution ${\cal{P}}(k)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{ikf} P(f) df$
379: which gives
380: \begin{equation}
381: {\cal{P}}(k)=(\int_0^1 d\lambda{\cal{P}}( \lambda^2 k))^3,
382: \end{equation}
383: which can be solved to give the normalised distribution
384: \begin{equation}
385: P(f)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{f^{1/2}}{p^{3/2}} e^{-f/p},
386: \end{equation}
387: where $p \propto \bar{f}$ and the
388: proportionality constant depends on the exponent of the power law rise
389: at low forces. More generally, if there are $N$ contacts arising from
390: differing geometric configurations, similar calculations give
391: \begin{equation}
392: P(f) \propto f^{1/(N-2)} e^{-f/p}.
393: \end{equation}
394:
395: Note that for a large number of contacts, $P(f)$ reaches zero very near $f=0$.
396: In Fig. \ref{pf}
397: we see a comparison between the theoretical form and the experimental
398: data in good agreement.
399: There are many improvements which are essential for belief in
400: coefficients, but the functional form, starting at zero and ending
401: with an exponential decay, seems well founded.
402:
403: \section{Simulations}
404:
405: We perform molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to gain insight into
406: the effects of osmotic pressure, polydispersity, and other microstructural
407: features such as the coordination number and force chains on the
408: probability distribution, $P(f)$.
409: The numerical protocol is designed to mimic the experimental
410: procedure used to prepare compressed emulsion systems at different
411: osmotic pressures, described in Section \ref{exper}.
412: Our model considers an assembly of deformable spherical droplets
413: interacting via repulsive normal forces given by
414: the Princen model in Eq. (\ref{force}).
415: The continuous liquid phase is modeled in its simplest form,
416: as a viscous drag
417: force acting on every droplet, proportional to its velocity.
418: The dynamical evolution of the droplets is obtained by solving Newton's
419: equation for an assembly constrained by a given osmotic pressure.
420: Our model is
421: similar to the Discrete Element Method (DEM)
422: \cite{cundall,Makse2000}
423: used in
424: MD simulations of granular materials. However, we
425: adjust the DEM for the system of compressed emulsions by
426: exclusion of transversal forces (tangential elasticity and
427: Coulomb friction)
428: and by computation of interparticle
429: forces using the principles of interfacial mechanics described by the
430: Princen model instead of the Hertz model, often used in contact mechanics
431: of solid particles $(f\sim \xi^{3/2}$).
432:
433:
434: The simulations begin with a set of non-overlapping
435: 2000 spherical particles located at
436: random positions in a periodically repeated cubic cell of side
437: $L$.
438: At the outset, a
439: series of strain-controlled isotropic compressions and expansions are
440: applied until a volume fraction slightly below the critical density of
441: jamming is reached
442: \cite{Makse2000}. The system is then compressed and extended slowly until a
443: specified value of the stress and volume fraction is achieved at
444: static equilibrium. The distribution of forces within the static
445: structure is calculated and
446: then directly compared to that obtained from
447: experiments and theory.
448:
449: We first consider a quasi-monodisperse system composed of 1000 droplets
450: of radius 1.05 $\mu$m and 1000 droplets of radius $0.95\mu$m.
451: Then the effect of polydispersity is investigated by
452: consideration of the radii distribution obtained from our
453: experiments characterized by a Gaussian distribution
454: with a mean value
455: $<R>=3.4\mu$m and standard deviation 1.44$\mu$m, and a distribution
456: range between 1$\mu$m and $6.6\mu$m.
457: The osmotic pressure, $\Pi$,
458: is varied between 1 Pa and 1 kPa,
459: again mimicking the experiments.
460:
461: Figure \ref{simulations} shows the results of the simulations. We
462: see that the simulated data for monodisperse and polydisperse
463: systems at low osmotic pressure agrees with the experiments
464: and the theory. At low pressures the system is close to jamming (near
465: RCP at $\phi \sim 0.64$) and the average coordination number is close
466: to its minimal value $<N>=6$ for particles interacting by normal
467: forces only as given by constraint arguments \cite{Z,Makse2000}. At
468: large pressures, when the coordination number significantly departs
469: from its minimal value, the probability distribution departs from the
470: prediction of the theory and crosses-over to a Gaussian-like
471: distribution in the case of the monodisperse system. In the case of
472: the polydisperse system, the distribution at large pressures departs
473: from the exponential decay at large forces, but its form cannot be
474: fitted by a Gaussian-like distribution.
475:
476:
477: The numerical simulation performed under the same conditions as in the
478: experiment yields a $P(f)$ of the same functional form for the
479: appropriate osmotic pressure ($\Pi\sim 100$ Pa) and polydispersity
480: (Fig. \ref{simulations}b), although
481: the fitting coefficients obtained numerically
482: do not correspond to those obtained experimentally. Moreover, the
483: monodisperse system shows similar results as long as the system is at
484: low osmotic pressure. Our results indicate that the significant
485: feature is not the detail of the system, but its proximity to the
486: jamming transition.
487:
488:
489: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
490:
491: We have presented experimental data showing the force distribution in
492: three dimensions of a lightly compressed emulsion, close to the
493: jamming transition. These data show an exponential distribution of
494: interdroplet forces $P(f)$ at large $f$. At low $f$, a peak in the
495: distribution function is observed. We have fitted the experimental
496: data with a function of the form $P(f)\propto
497: {f}^{0.9}e^{-1.9f/\bar{f}}$, suggested by the simple theoretical model
498: proposed for such a system. In addition we have carried out
499: simulations to determine the effect of polydispersity and osmotic
500: pressure on the force distribution function and these results are in
501: good agreement with the experimental data. They indicate that the
502: $P(f)$ is not sensitive to polydispersity, however the exponential
503: decay only fits the data well in distributions close to 'jamming', at
504: low confining pressures.
505:
506: The theoretical model predicts a general distribution of the form
507: $P(f)\propto f^n e^{-(n+1)f/\bar{f}}$, where the power law coefficient
508: $n$ is determined by the packing geometry of the system. It is too
509: crude a model to account for the complexity of the emulsion system,
510: and it is therefore inappropriate to draw conclusions from direct
511: comparisons of the coefficients obtained from theory with those
512: arising from experimental and simulation data. Nevertheless, the
513: agreement in the functional form for all three methods is an important
514: result. Curiously, we observe that the fitting coefficients agree for
515: the experimental data, the 2D theoretical model and the
516: quasi-monodisperse emulsion system at a comparable pressure to the
517: experiment.
518:
519:
520: In the future we hope to determine the mechanism by which the contact
521: patches between droplets exhibit enhanced fluorescence and also to use
522: the experimental data to test the validity of various force models for
523: compressible droplets. In the experimental section we used the
524: Princen model to obtain the interdroplet force from the contact area
525: between particles. However in principle, we should be able to extract
526: the force law from the data. This study gives supporting evidence to
527: the universality of the concept of jamming and provides a very
528: reliable experimental way of investigating microstructural elements
529: within the bulk of any refractive index matched, closely packed system
530: of an appropriate size.
531:
532:
533: We thank D. Bruji\'c, D. Grinev,
534: J. Bibette, M. Shattuck, A. Tolley, J. Melrose, and R. Blumenfeld
535: for inspirational discussions. We are greatfull to the EPSRC and the Petroleum Research Fund for support of this work.
536:
537:
538: \newpage
539:
540:
541: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
542:
543: \begin{thebibliography}{}
544:
545: \bibitem{Jamming}
546: A. Liu and S. R. Nagel, (eds.), {\it Jamming and Rheology:
547: Constrained Dynamics on Microscopic Scales}, Taylor \& Francis, London, 2001.
548:
549: \bibitem{sam-zero}
550: S. F. Edwards and D. Grinev, {\it
551: Advances in Complex Systems}, 2001, {\bf 4}, 1.
552:
553: \bibitem{Cipelletti2001}
554: V. Trappe, V. Prasad, L. Cipelletti, P. N. Segre and D. A. Weitz, {\it Nature}, 2001, {\bf 411}, 772.
555:
556: \bibitem{Cates1999}
557: M. E. Cates, J. P. Wittmer, J. -P. Bouchaud and P. Claudin, {\it Chaos}, 1999,
558: {\bf 9}, 511.
559:
560: \bibitem{dantu} P. Dantu, {\it G\'eotechnique}, 1968, {\bf 18}, 50.
561:
562: \bibitem{Liu1995}
563: C. H. Liu, S. R. Nagel, D. A. Schechter, S. N. Coppersmith, S. Majumdar, O.
564: Narayan, and T. A. Witten, {\it Science}, 1995, {\bf 269}, 513.
565:
566: \bibitem{Radjai1996}
567: F. Radjai, M. Jean, J. Moreau, and S. Roux, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 1996,
568: {\bf 77}, 274.
569:
570: \bibitem{Thornton}
571: C. Thornton, {\it KONA Powder and Particle}, 1997, {\bf 15}, 81.
572:
573: \bibitem{Makse2000}
574: H. A. Makse, D. L. Johnson, and L. M. Schwartz, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 2000,
575: {\bf 84}, 4160.
576:
577: \bibitem{Antony2001}
578: S. J. Antony, {\it Phys. Rev. E}, 2001, {\bf 63}, 011302.
579:
580:
581: \bibitem{Ohern00}
582: C. S. O'Hern, S. A. Langer, A. J. Liu, and S. R. Nagel,
583: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 2001, {\bf 86}, 111.
584:
585: \bibitem{Coppersmith95}
586: S. N. Coppersmith, C.-H. Liu, S. Majumdar, O. Narayan and T. A. Witten,
587: {\it Phys. Rev. E}, 1995, {\bf 53}, 4673.
588:
589: \bibitem{Mueth1998}
590: D. M. Mueth, H. M. Jaeger and S. R. Nagel, {\it Phys. Rev. E}, 1998,
591: {\bf 57}, 3164.
592:
593: \bibitem{Lovoll1999}
594: G. Lovoll, K. N. Maloy, E. G. Flekkoy, {\it Phys. Rev. E}, 1999,
595: {\bf 57}, 5872.
596:
597: \bibitem{Blair2001}
598: D. L. Blair, N. W. Mueggenburg, A. H. Marshall, H. M. Jaeger, and S. R. Nagel,
599: {\it Phys. Rev. E}, 2001, {\bf 63}, 041304.
600:
601: \bibitem{Sexton1999}
602: M. G. Sexton, J. E. S. Socolar, and D. G. Schaeffer, {\it
603: Phys. Rev. E}, 1999, {\bf 60},
604: 1999.
605:
606: \bibitem{Princen1983}
607: H. M. Princen, {\it J. Colloid Interface Sci.}, 1983, {\bf 91}, 160.
608:
609: \bibitem{Bouchaud}
610: J.-P. Bouchaud, P. Claudin, D. Levine, and M. Otto, {\it Eur. J. Phys. E},
611: 2001, {\bf 4}, 451.
612:
613: \bibitem{faraday}
614: J. Bruji\'c, S. F. Edwards, D. V. Grinev, I.
615: Hopkinson, D. Bruji\'c, and H. A. Makse, submitted to {\it Faraday Disc.}
616: (2002).
617:
618: \bibitem{Mason1995}
619: T. G. Mason, J. Bibette, and D. A. Weitz, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 1999,
620: {\bf 75}, 2051.
621:
622: \bibitem {Perrin2000}
623: T. G. Mason, and J. Bibette, {\it Langmuir}, 1997, 13, 4600.
624:
625: \bibitem{Parker}
626: J. R. Parker, in {\it Algorithms for Image Processing and Computer Vision},
627: Wiley, New York, Chichester, 1997.
628:
629: \bibitem{Witten1993}
630: D. C. Morse and T. A. Witten, {\it Europhys. Lett.}, 1993, {\bf 22}, 549.
631:
632: \bibitem{Lacasse1995}
633: M-D. Lacasse, G. S. Grest, D. Levine, T. G. Mason, and D. A. Weitz, {\it Phys.
634: Rev. Lett.}, 1996, {\bf 76}, 3448.
635:
636: \bibitem{Z}
637: S. F. Edwards and D. V. Grinev, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 1999, {\bf 82}, 5397.
638:
639: \bibitem{cundall}
640: P. A. Cundall and O. D. L. Strack, {\it G\'eotechnique}, 1979,
641: {\bf 29}, 47.
642:
643: \end{thebibliography}
644:
645: \newpage
646:
647:
648: \begin{figure}
649: \centering
650: {\resizebox{10cm}{!}{\includegraphics{slikecopy.eps}}}
651: \caption{2D slices of emulsions under varying compression rates:
652: 1g(a), 6000g(b) and 8000g(c).}
653: \label{slices}
654: \end{figure}
655:
656:
657: \begin{figure}
658: \centering
659: {\resizebox{10cm}{!}{\includegraphics{graph1.eps}}}
660: \caption{Probability distribution of the contact forces for the
661: compressed emulsion system shown in Fig. \protect\ref{slices}(b).
662: We also show a fit to the theory developed in Section \protect\ref{theory}.}
663: \label{pf}
664: \end{figure}
665:
666: \begin{figure}
667: \centering
668: %{\resizebox{10cm}{!}{\includegraphics{chains.eps}}}
669: \caption{[See http://lisgi1.engr.ccny.cuny.edu/$\sim$makse/edwards/emulsions.html for this figure]
670: Plot of the interdroplet forces
671: inside the packing of droplets. We plot only the forces larger than the
672: average for better visualisation.
673: Each rod joining the centers of two droplets in contact
674: represents a force. The thickness and the colour of the
675: rod is proportional to the magnitude of the force,
676: as obtained from the area of contact using Eq. (\protect\ref{force}).
677: }
678: \label{chains}
679: \end{figure}
680:
681: %\clearpage
682: \begin{figure}
683: \centering
684: {\resizebox{10cm}{!}{\includegraphics{pfmono.ps}}}
685: \centering
686: {\resizebox{10cm}{!}{\includegraphics{pfpoly.ps}}}
687: \caption{Numerical results for $P(f)$ for a system
688: of (a) monodisperse and (b) polydisperse emulsions at different
689: osmotic pressure, $\Pi$ , and mean coordination number $<N>$.
690: }
691: \label{simulations}
692: \end{figure}
693: \end{document}
694:
695:
696: \end{document}
697:
698:
699:
700: