1: \documentclass[prl,preprint,showpacs,amssymb,floatfix,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{subfigure}
3:
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Universal Anisotropy in Force Networks under Shear}
8:
9: \author{Srdjan Ostojic} \altaffiliation[Present address: ]{Laboratoire de Physique Statistique, Ecole Normale Sup\'erieure, 24, rue Lhomond, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France}\affiliation{Institute for
10: Theoretical Physics, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Valckenierstraat 65,
11: 1018 XE Amsterdam, The Netherlands}
12:
13: \author{Thijs J. H. Vlugt} \affiliation{Condensed Matter and
14: Interfaces (CMI), Utrecht University, P.O.Box 80.000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands}
15:
16: \author{Bernard Nienhuis} \affiliation{Institute for
17: Theoretical Physics, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Valckenierstraat 65,
18: 1018 XE Amsterdam, The Netherlands}
19:
20: \date{\today}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: Scaling properties of patterns formed by large contact forces are
24: studied as a function of the applied shear stress, in two-dimensional
25: static packings generated from the force network ensemble. An
26: anisotropic finite-size-scaling analysis shows that the applied shear
27: does not affect the universal scaling properties of these patterns,
28: but simply induces different length scales in the principal directions
29: of the macroscopic stress tensor. The ratio of these length scales
30: quantifies the anisotropy of the force networks, and is found not to
31: depend on the details of the underlying contact network, in contrast
32: with other properties such as the yield stress.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \pacs{45.70.-n, 45.70.Cc, 46.65.+g}
36: \maketitle
37:
38:
39: Aggregates of macroscopic particles such as granular materials, foams
40: and emulsions are often found in a disordered, solid-like state whose
41: mechanical properties have attracted much attention in recent years
42: \cite{jaeger:rev,degennes:rev,bouch:rev,liu98,jamming:book,radjai98,geng03,majmudar05,atman05-2,snoeijer04-1,snoeijer05,tighe05,ostojic06}.
43: Under external stresses, these systems present a non-zero yield
44: threshold which is solely due to the intricate network formed by
45: contact forces between particles. One of the most remarked features of
46: these highly disordered {\em force networks} is the tendency for large
47: forces to align and form branching {\em force chains}. When these appear in response to an external stress, such as a global shear, their spatial inhomogeneity is most striking \cite{radjai98,geng03,majmudar05}.
48: As the applied shear stress is increased, the large forces orient in a
49: preferred direction, and the force network becomes more and more
50: anisotropic (c.f.~Fig.~\ref{fig1}), up to the point where the applied
51: stress can no longer be sustained, and the packing yields. While this
52: qualitative picture has been long established, due to a lack of
53: appropriate analytic and numerical tools, quantitative studies of
54: packings under static shear have been few
55: \cite{radjai98,geng03,majmudar05,atman05-2,snoeijer05}.
56:
57: Recently, a novel characterization has been introduced for the
58: geometrical patterns formed by large forces in isotropically
59: compressed force networks \cite {ostojic06}). The patterns, displayed by molecular
60: dynamics (MD) simulations of granular packings, turned out to have
61: scaling properties which are independent of the
62: pressure, polydispersity and friction. An intriguing question is
63: whether an analysis of scaling properties can provide insight into
64: the organization of force networks in packings under shear. This is a
65: much more difficult problem.
66:
67: Creating static packings under shear with MD is seriously
68: hindered by local rearrangements that seem to prevent the system from
69: reaching a clear mechanical equilibrium. To allow for systematic
70: examinations of the effects of shear, it has been proposed
71: \cite{snoeijer04-1,snoeijer05} to ignore the microscopic rearrangements of the
72: grains, and study the ensembles of force networks allowed on a given
73: contact network, as function of macroscopic stresses. This purely
74: statistical approach was found to account well for the properties of
75: packings under shear such as the existence of a yield threshold
76: \cite{snoeijer05}, as well as for the scaling properties of clusters
77: of large forces in packings without shear \cite{ostojic06}.
78: It also describes remarkably well the distribution of force magnitudes
79: \cite{snoeijer04-1,tighe05,snoeijer05} and the response to an external
80: overload \cite{ostojic06-2}.
81:
82: \begin{figure}
83: \begin{center}
84: \begin{minipage}{0.32\linewidth}
85: \includegraphics [width=0.95\linewidth]{fig1a}
86: \end{minipage}
87: \begin{minipage}{0.32\linewidth}
88: \includegraphics [width=0.95\linewidth]{fig1b}
89: \end{minipage}
90: \begin{minipage}{0.32\linewidth}
91: \includegraphics [width=0.95\linewidth]{fig1c}
92: \end{minipage}
93:
94: \begin{minipage}{0.32\linewidth}
95: \includegraphics [width=0.95\linewidth]{fig1d}
96: \end{minipage}
97: \begin{minipage}{0.32\linewidth}
98: \includegraphics [width=0.98\linewidth]{fig1e}
99: \end{minipage}
100: \begin{minipage}{0.32\linewidth}
101: \includegraphics [width=0.98\linewidth]{fig1f}
102: \end{minipage}
103: \caption{Effect of shear on force networks: (a-c) Force networks
104: obtained from the force ensemble, for three different values of shear:
105: (a) $\tau=0$, (b) $\tau=0.2$, (c) $\tau=0.4$. The forces are
106: represented as bonds connecting centers of grains of contact, the
107: width of each bond being proportional to the magnitude of the
108: force. The underlying contact network is the same for all values of
109: $\tau$. (d-f) Clusters of forces larger than a threshold $f$ (bold
110: bonds), obtained for $f$ close to the critical value. \label{fig1}}
111: \end{center}
112: \end{figure}
113:
114: In this Letter, we study the geometry of patterns of large forces in
115: two-dimensional, static packings under shear generated from the force
116: network ensemble. We find that applying shear stress leaves unchanged
117: the universal scaling properties of the patterns, but introduces two
118: different length scales in the two directions of principal stress
119: axes. We characterize the anisotropy of the force networks by the
120: ratio $r$ of these length scales. An anisotropic finite-size scaling
121: analysis allows us to determine $r$ as function of the applied shear
122: stress $\tau$ and the coordination number of the packing. In contrast with
123: other properties such as the yield stress, $r(\tau)$ turns out to be
124: independent of the underlying contact geometry, and thus provides a universal characterization of shear-induced anisotropy.
125:
126:
127:
128:
129: {\em Force networks---} To study systematically the influence of the
130: shear stress on the geometry of large forces we examined force
131: networks generated from the force network ensemble pertaining to
132: packings of frictionless, non-attracting particles. This approach
133: relies on the fact that in a typical packing, the number of unknown
134: contact forces is larger than the number of equations for mechanical
135: balance \cite{snoeijer04-1}. For a given, fixed, contact geometry,
136: the force network ensemble consists of all force networks with repulsive
137: contact forces in mechanical balance on each grain, and
138: consistent with the tensor $\sigma$ of applied macroscopic stress. The
139: considered contact networks are isotropic, and the coordinates are
140: such that the pressure is isotropic,
141: i.e.~$\sigma_{xx}=\sigma_{yy}$, while the dimensionless shear stress
142: $\tau=\sigma_{xy}/\sigma_{xx}$ is varied.
143:
144: The ensemble is sampled numerically using two different methods : (i)
145: the wheel-move algorithm \cite{tighe05} for ordered, hexagonal packings
146: ($z=6$); (ii) the procedure outlined in \cite{snoeijer05} for
147: disordered packings of various coordination numbers $z$. Both methods
148: efficiently generate very large packings ($10^5$ and $5.10^4$
149: particles respectively), from which smaller sub-systems were extracted
150: and analyzed. Note that the ensemble is non-empty only for $\tau$
151: smaller than a maximal value $\tau_{max}(z)$, which has been identified as
152: the yield stress \cite{snoeijer05}.
153:
154: {\em Force chains---} To study the geometry of patterns formed by
155: large forces, we follow the method introduced in \cite{ostojic06},
156: which we here briefly recall and then extend to packings under
157: shear. The force network in a packing of frictionless particles can be
158: represented as a set of bonds connecting grains in contact, where each
159: bond carries the magnitude of the corresponding contact force
160: (c.f.~Fig.~\ref{fig1} (a-c)). A natural way to isolate the force
161: chains in such a network is to choose a threshold $f$, and consider
162: only the subgraph formed by bonds carrying forces larger than $f$
163: (c.f.~Fig.~\ref{fig1} (d-f)). Varying this threshold allows to study
164: patterns of large forces at different scales: for small values, most
165: of the grains remain connected, but as the threshold is increased, the
166: extracted subgraph breaks into disconnected clusters. The extent of
167: each chain of forces larger than the threshold can be characterized by
168: the size of the corresponding cluster, quantified by the number $s$ of
169: mutually connected bonds.
170:
171: In an ensemble of packings, a statistical description of the
172: fluctuating patterns of large forces is given by the statistics of the
173: clusters obtained at different thresholds. Following the methods of
174: percolation theory \cite{stauffer:book}, the geometry of an ensemble
175: of packings can be characterized by $P(s,f)$, the number (per bond) of
176: clusters of size $s$ at the threshold $f$. For packings under
177: isotropic pressure, it is moreover natural to describe the clusters by
178: a single characteristic length, the cluster correlation length
179: $\xi(f)$, which corresponds to the typical linear size of the
180: clusters at a given threshold (not considering clusters percolating
181: through the whole system).
182:
183: {\em Scaling analysis---}Analogously to percolation and other lattice
184: models of critical phenomena, the system is critical around the value
185: $f_c$ of the threshold above which no infinite cluster is found. At
186: this value, $\xi(f)$ diverges as $|f-f_c|^{-\nu}$, and $P(s,f)$
187: becomes a power-law, its moments $\langle s^n \rangle$ diverging as
188: powers of $\xi(f)$: $\langle s^n \rangle\sim \xi^{\phi_n}$. For
189: systems of finite size, the correlation length is naturally bounded by
190: the linear size of system, $L$, and for $\xi$ comparable to $L$, the
191: behavior of $\langle s^n \rangle$ is given by a scaling function of
192: $L/\xi$ \cite{privman:book,binder89}:
193: \begin{equation}
194: \langle s^n(f,L) \rangle \sim L^{\phi_n}\Sigma_n[(f-f_c)L^{1/\nu}], \label{iso-fss}
195: \end{equation}
196: where $\phi_n$ and $\nu$ are universal critical exponents, and
197: $\Sigma_n$ universal scaling functions. For force networks under
198: isotropic pressure, $\phi_2=1.89$, $\nu=1.65$, and $\Sigma_2$ is
199: independent of pressure, polydispersity, friction and force law
200: \cite{ostojic06}. From now on, we will only consider the case $n=2$,
201: and omit the indices $n$ in the right-hand-side. Note that the scaling
202: function $\Sigma_2$ varies smoothly and displays a single maximum
203: close to zero.
204:
205: Equation (\ref{iso-fss}) assumes that the size of the examined
206: domains is isotropic. In the following, we will need to consider
207: % More generally, for
208: rectangular domains of size
209: $L_1\times L_2$, in which case the scaling function $\Sigma$ also depends on the aspect ratio $L_2/ L_1$. Considering only the
210: maximum of $\langle s^2(f,L_1,L_2) \rangle$ with respect to $f$, which
211: is equivalent to looking only at the behavior at the effective
212: critical point, Eq.~(\ref{iso-fss}) reduces to
213: \begin{equation}
214: \langle s^2(L_1,L_2)\rangle _{max}=L_2^{\phi}{\bar \Sigma}\left(\frac{L_1}{L_2}\right).\label{eq:ch4-fss2}
215: \end{equation}
216: The scaling function ${\bar \Sigma}(x)$ simply expresses the fact
217: that if $L_1\ll L_2$, the effective correlation length is set by
218: $L_1$, so that $\langle s^2\rangle _{max}\sim L_1^{\phi}$,
219: and correspondingly if $L_2\ll L_1$, $\langle s^2\rangle _{max}\sim
220: L_2^{\phi}$. We therefore have (with $y=L_1/L_2$)
221: \begin{equation}
222: {\bar \Sigma}(y) \sim\left\{
223: \begin{array}{ll}
224: y^{\phi} & \textrm{for $y \ll 1$}\\
225: 1 & \textrm{for $y \gg 1$}
226: \end{array}\right.
227: \end{equation}
228: For $L_1\sim L_2$, there is a crossover between the two asymptotic trends, and the precise
229: behavior is determined by the scaling function.
230:
231: {\em Shear-induced anisotropy---} The analysis presented so far
232: pertains to the case of isotropic pressure. In packings under shear,
233: the force networks become increasingly anisotropic as the shear stress
234: is increased, the large forces aligning preferentially in the
235: direction of the maximal stress axis (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig1}). In
236: consequence, close to the percolation threshold the clusters
237: can no longer be described by a single length scale. Instead two
238: correlation lengths $\xi_M$ and $\xi_m$ must be distinguished,
239: in the direction of maximal and minimal stress axes respectively. In
240: principle, at criticality these two length scales could diverge with
241: two different exponents $\nu_M$ and $\nu_m$. A finite-size scaling
242: analysis as in \cite{ostojic06}, but now varying independently
243: the system sizes $L_M$ and $L_m$ in the directions of principal
244: stresses, shows that $\nu_M=\nu_m=\nu$, the exponents $\phi$ and $\nu$
245: being equal to those of isotropically compressed packings.
246:
247: Although they diverge with the same exponent, the values of the
248: correlation lengths $\xi_M$ and $\xi_m$ clearly differ. This implies
249: that, to leading order,
250: \begin{equation}
251: \xi_{M}=\xi_{M}^{(0)}|f-f_c|^{-\nu} \,\,\,\mathrm{ and}\,\,\,
252: \xi_{m}=\xi_{m}^{(0)}|f-f_c|^{-\nu}. \label{eq:ch4-xi0}
253: \end{equation}
254: where the length scales $\xi_{M}^{(0)}$ and $\xi_{m}^{(0)}$ depend on
255: the shear stress $\tau$ but not on the threshold $f$. In the language
256: of critical phenomena, this situation is called {\em weakly anisotropic
257: scaling}, as opposed to the case where the two correlation-length
258: exponents differ \cite{binder89}.
259:
260: To quantify the anisotropy of force networks as function of shear
261: stress, from Eq.~(\ref{eq:ch4-xi0}), it appears natural to use the
262: anisotropy ratio $r(\tau)$ defined as
263: \begin{equation}
264: r(\tau)=\frac{\xi_{m}^{(0)}}{\xi_{M}^{(0)}}.
265: \end{equation}
266: Clearly, for $\tau=0$, $r=1$, and as $\tau$ is increased, $r$
267: decreases below one.
268:
269: The anisotropy ratio $r$ as function of $\tau$ can be determined using
270: an anisotropic scaling analysis. The central observation is that, in
271: the context of conventional critical phenomena, a weakly anisotropic
272: system can be made isotropic simply by rescaling the lengths in the
273: two directions of principal axes. In the present setting, this
274: property suggests that if the actual lengths $L_M$ and $L_m$ are
275: replaced by properly rescaled effective lengths $\tilde{L}_M$ and
276: $\tilde{L}_m$, the scaling properties of the sheared force networks
277: should be identical to those of isotropically compressed
278: networks. This property allows us to determine the ratio of length scales
279: $\xi_{M}^{(0)}$ and $\xi_{m}^{(0)}$.
280:
281: More specifically, the scaling of the maximum of $\langle s^2\rangle$ is
282: described by Eq.~(\ref{eq:ch4-fss2}) with an additional dependence on
283: the shear stress $\tau$ in the right hand side. Our hypothesis is
284: that the scaling function ${\bar \Sigma}$ does not depend explicitly
285: on $\tau$, and that the anisotropy can be eliminated simply by
286: replacing $L_M$ and $L_m$ by rescaled lengths $\tilde{L}_M$ and
287: $\tilde{L}_m$ given by
288: \begin{equation}
289: \tilde{L}_M =b_M(\tau) L_M \nonumber\,\,\, \mathrm{ and} \,\,\,
290: \tilde{L}_m=b_m(\tau) L_m \label{eq:ch4-bs}
291: \end{equation}
292: with $b_M=1/\xi_{M}^{(0)}$ and $b_m=
293: 1/\xi_{m}^{(0)}$, and therefore
294: $r(\tau)=b_M/b_m$. Substituting into Eq.~(\ref{eq:ch4-fss2}), the
295: scaling relation becomes
296: \begin{equation}
297: \langle s^2(L_M,L_m,\tau)\rangle _{max}=(b_m L_m)^{\phi}{\bar
298: \Sigma}\left(\frac{b_M L_M}{b_m L_m}\right).\label{eq:ch4-fss3}
299: \end{equation}
300: where the dependence on $\tau$ occurs only through the scale factors
301: $b_m$ and $b_M$.
302:
303:
304: The validity of the scaling relation (\ref{eq:ch4-fss3}) can be
305: checked directly from the numerical
306: data. Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4-b4_collapse} illustrates the behavior of
307: $\langle s^2 \rangle_{max}$ as function of $L_m$, for three different
308: values of $\tau$, and in each case three different values of
309: $L_M$. For fixed $L_M$ and $\tau$, as $L_m$ increases, at first a
310: clear power-law can be observed. For larger values of $L_m$, a
311: crossover occurs and $\langle s^2 \rangle_{max}$ reaches a plateau. As
312: $L_M$ is increased, the behavior in the scaling regime is unchanged,
313: but the crossover occurs at larger $L_m$, and the value of the plateau
314: increases. According to Eq.~(\ref{eq:ch4-fss2}), the value of the
315: crossover should scale as $L_M$, and the value of the plateau as
316: $L_M^{\phi}$. Rescaling both axes appropriately, the data for
317: different $L_M$ indeed collapse on the same curves as shown in
318: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4-b4_collapse}~(b).
319:
320: For different values of the shear stress, the exponents in the scaling
321: regimes appear to be identical, however the prefactors of the power
322: laws clearly depend on $\tau$. From Eq.~(\ref{eq:ch4-fss3}), these
323: prefactors correspond to $b_M$ and $b_m$, which can thus be determined
324: respectively from the value reached at the plateau and the intercept
325: of the power law. Replacing $L_M$ and $L_m$ by rescaled lengths
326: $\tilde{L}_M$ and $\tilde{L}_m$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ch4-bs}), if
327: the scaling function ${\bar \Sigma}$ is independent of $\tau$, all the
328: data must collapse on a single curve. Note that as $\tau$ is
329: increased, the cross over occurs at smaller $L_m$, and the domain of
330: power-law scaling shrinks, so that $b_m$ can be extracted only
331: for $\tau$ sufficiently smaller than the yield stress $\tau_{max}$ (beyond which the force network ensemble is empty).
332:
333:
334: \begin{figure}
335: \begin{center}
336: \includegraphics [width=0.8\linewidth]{fig2}
337: \caption{(color online) Scaling of the maximum of the second moment of cluster sizes:
338: (a) $\langle s^2\rangle_{max}(L_M, L_m)$ as function of $L_m$. Three different values of $L_M$ are
339: represented with circles, squares and triangles, while three
340: different values of the shear stress are shown in three different
341: colors. The displayed data corresponds to hexagonal packing of
342: disks, i.e.~ $z=6$. (b) Collapses of data corresponding to same
343: $\tau$, obtained by rescaling the axes by
344: $L_M$. The curves are colored in the order of the legend. \label{fig:ch4-b4_collapse}}
345: \end{center}
346: \end{figure}
347:
348:
349:
350:
351:
352: \begin{figure*}
353: \begin{center}
354: \includegraphics [width=0.45\linewidth]{fig3}
355: \end{center}
356: \caption{(color online) The anisotropic scaling function ${\bar \Sigma}$
357: (cf.~Eq.~(\ref{eq:ch4-fss2})): collapse of data obtained for
358: different values of shear stress $\tau$ and different packing
359: geometries. Each symbol corresponds to data for a different
360: coordination number $z$ ($z=6$: regular, hexagonal packing, already displayed in Fig.~
361: \ref{fig:ch4-b4_collapse}; all others: disordered packings). Each value of $\tau$ is represented
362: by a different color. The inset shows the anisotropy parameter
363: $r=\frac{b_M}{b_m}$ as function of $\tau$, for different $z$. The
364: black solid line is a quadratic fit.\label{fig:ch4-tau_collapse}}
365: \end{figure*}
366:
367:
368:
369:
370:
371: Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4-tau_collapse} displays the results obtained for all
372: considered values of shear stress $\tau$, on several packing
373: geometries of different coordination number $z$ ($z=6$ corresponds to
374: the ordered hexagonal case, while the other packings are
375: disordered). All the data clearly collapses on the same curve, in
376: agreement with the hypothesis
377: that the scaling function does not depend on $\tau$. As
378: postulated, a simple rescaling of the length scales in the two
379: directions of anisotropy is thus sufficient to recover isotropic
380: scaling in force networks under shear.The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:ch4-tau_collapse} displays the anisotropy
381: parameter $r=\frac{b_M}{b_m}$ as function of $\tau$. Unexpectedly,
382: $r(\tau)$ appears to be independent of the coordination number and
383: geometry of the
384: underlying contact network.
385:
386:
387:
388:
389:
390: {\em Discussion---} Our results show that applying an external shear
391: stress on a force network does not affect the universal scaling
392: properties of the force chains, but only induces two different length scales
393: in the directions of the two principal stress axes. While these
394: typical lengths and their ratio $r$ are not a priori expected to be
395: universal, we find that they are identical for various contact
396: networks we considered, which include the regular hexagonal packing,
397: and disordered networks of different coordination numbers, and in this
398: sense universal.
399:
400: %In experimental studies \cite{geng03,majmudar05}, the anisotropy of
401: %force networks under shear was described using the force-force
402: %correlation function. While in absence of shear the correlations are
403: %isotropic and decay fast, in presence of shear it was observed that
404: %the correlations in the direction of maximal stress are of much
405: %longer range than in the perpendicular direction. We have evaluated
406: %the same quantities in networks generated from the force ensemble. Although the
407: %anisotropy can be clearly seen, we nevertheless find that the
408: %correlations in the direction of maximal stress vanish after a couple
409: %of grain diameters, even for very large shear. As far as correlations
410: %are concerned, the isotropy of the underlying contact network might
411: %thus play a role.
412:
413: An important remaining question is the behavior close to the yielding
414: point. If yielding is analogous to a phase transition, as suggested by
415: the jamming picture \cite{liu98,jamming:book}, it could be
416: expected that close to it a cross-over occurs, and the scaling
417: properties of clusters of large forces change significantly. The
418: value of the yield stress $\tau_{max}$ was found to be strongly dependent on the
419: coordination number $z$ of the contact network \cite{snoeijer05}. On the other hand, we
420: find that $r(\tau)$ is completely independent of $z$ up to $\tau_{max}(z)$.
421: This observation suggests the absence of any diverging or vanishing
422: length scale which would accompany the cross-over close to
423: $\tau_{max}$. Moreover, we have not observed any dramatic change in
424: the scaling properties close to $\tau_{max}$, but additional work is
425: necessary to clarify these issues.
426:
427: TJHV acknowledges financial support from the Netherlands Organization
428: for Scientific Research (NWO-CW) through a VIDI grant. SO is financially supported by the Dutch research organization FOM.
429:
430: \begin{thebibliography}{19}
431: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
432: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
433: \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
434: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
435: \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
436: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax
437: \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi
438: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
439: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
440: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
441: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
442: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
443:
444: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Jaeger et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Jaeger, Nagel, and
445: Behringer}}]{jaeger:rev}
446: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~M.} \bibnamefont{Jaeger}},
447: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~R.} \bibnamefont{Nagel}}, \bibnamefont{and}
448: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~P.} \bibnamefont{Behringer}},
449: \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}},
450: \bibinfo{pages}{1259} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).
451:
452: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{de~Gennes}(1999)}]{degennes:rev}
453: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.-G.} \bibnamefont{de~Gennes}},
454: \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}},
455: \bibinfo{pages}{374} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).
456:
457: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bouchaud}(2003)}]{bouch:rev}
458: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-P.} \bibnamefont{Bouchaud}}, in
459: \emph{\bibinfo{booktitle}{Les Houches, Session LXXVII}}, edited by
460: \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Barrat}}
461: (\bibinfo{publisher}{EDP Sciences}, \bibinfo{year}{2003}).
462:
463: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Liu and Nagel}(1998)}]{liu98}
464: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~J.} \bibnamefont{Liu}} \bibnamefont{and}
465: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~R.} \bibnamefont{Nagel}},
466: \bibinfo{journal}{Nature} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{396}}, \bibinfo{pages}{21}
467: (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).
468:
469: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Liu and Nagel}(2001)}]{jamming:book}
470: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Liu}} \bibnamefont{and}
471: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Nagel}},
472: \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Jamming and rheology}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Taylor \&
473: Francis}, \bibinfo{year}{2001}).
474:
475: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Radjai et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Radjai, Wolf, Jean,
476: and Moreau}}]{radjai98}
477: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Radjai}},
478: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{Wolf}},
479: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Jean}}, \bibnamefont{and}
480: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-J.} \bibnamefont{Moreau}},
481: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{80}},
482: \bibinfo{pages}{61} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).
483:
484: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Geng et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Geng et~al.}}]{geng03}
485: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Geng}},
486: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Reydellet}},
487: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Clement}}, \bibnamefont{and}
488: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~P.} \bibnamefont{Behringer}},
489: \bibinfo{journal}{Physica D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{182}},
490: \bibinfo{pages}{274} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
491:
492: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Majmudar and Behringer}(2005)}]{majmudar05}
493: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~S.} \bibnamefont{Majmudar}} \bibnamefont{and}
494: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~P.} \bibnamefont{Behringer}},
495: \bibinfo{journal}{Nature} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{435}},
496: \bibinfo{pages}{1079} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).
497:
498:
499: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Atman and {\it et al.}}(2005)}]{atman05-2}
500: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Atman}} \bibnamefont{and}
501: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{{\it et al.}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys.
502: Cond. Mat.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{17}}, \bibinfo{pages}{S2391}
503: (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).
504:
505: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Snoeijer et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Snoeijer, Vlugt,
506: van Hecke, and van Saarloos}}]{snoeijer04-1}
507: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~H.} \bibnamefont{Snoeijer}},
508: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~J.~H.} \bibnamefont{Vlugt}},
509: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{van Hecke}},
510: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{van
511: Saarloos}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
512: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{92}}, \bibinfo{pages}{054302}
513: (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
514:
515:
516: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Snoeijer et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Snoeijer,
517: Ellenbroek, Vlugt, and van Hecke}}]{snoeijer05}
518: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~H.} \bibnamefont{Snoeijer}},
519: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~G.} \bibnamefont{Ellenbroek}},
520: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~J.~H.} \bibnamefont{Vlugt}},
521: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{van
522: Hecke}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{96}},
523: \bibinfo{pages}{098001} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
524:
525:
526: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tighe and {\it et al.}}(2005)}]{tighe05}
527: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Tighe}} \bibnamefont{and}
528: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{{\it et al.}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E}
529: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{72}}, \bibinfo{pages}{031306}
530: (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).
531:
532:
533: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ostojic et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Ostojic, Somfai, and
534: Nienhuis}}]{ostojic06}
535: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Ostojic}},
536: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Somfai}}, \bibnamefont{and}
537: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Nienhuis}},
538: \bibinfo{journal}{Nature} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{439}},
539: \bibinfo{pages}{828} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
540:
541: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ostojic and Panja}()}]{ostojic06-2}
542: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Ostojic}} \bibnamefont{and}
543: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Panja}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett. in press}
544: , \eprint{cond-mat/0606349}.
545:
546: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Stauffer and Aharony}(1991)}]{stauffer:book}
547: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Stauffer}} \bibnamefont{and}
548: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Aharony}},
549: \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Introduction to Percolation Theory}}
550: (\bibinfo{publisher}{Taylor \& Francis}, \bibinfo{year}{1991}).
551:
552: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Privman}(1990)}]{privman:book}
553: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Privman}},
554: \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Finite Size Scaling and Numerical Simulations of
555: Statistical Physics}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{World Scientific},
556: \bibinfo{year}{1990}).
557:
558: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Binder and Wang}(1989)}]{binder89}
559: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Binder}} \bibnamefont{and}
560: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-S.} \bibnamefont{Wang}},
561: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Stat. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{55}},
562: \bibinfo{pages}{87} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}).
563:
564: \end{thebibliography}
565:
566: \end{document}
567: