- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Dense packings of polyhedra: Platonic and Archimedean solids

S. Torquato1,2,3,4,5,6 and Y. Jiao6

  • 1Department of Chemistry, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
  • 2Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
  • 3Princeton Institute for the Science and Technology of Materials, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
  • 4Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
  • 5School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA
  • 6Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. E 80, 041104 – Published 5 October, 2009Errata Phys. Rev. E 81, 049908 (2010); Phys. Rev. E 82, 059904 (2010)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.041104

Abstract

Understanding the nature of dense particle packings is a subject of intense research in the physical, mathematical, and biological sciences. The preponderance of previous work has focused on spherical particles and very little is known about dense polyhedral packings. We formulate the problem of generating dense packings of nonoverlapping, nontiling polyhedra within an adaptive fundamental cell subject to periodic boundary conditions as an optimization problem, which we call the adaptive shrinking cell (ASC) scheme. This optimization problem is solved here (using a variety of multiparticle initial configurations) to find the dense packings of each of the Platonic solids in three-dimensional Euclidean space R3, except for the cube, which is the only Platonic solid that tiles space. We find the densest known packings of tetrahedra, icosahedra, dodecahedra, and octahedra with densities 0.823…, 0.836…, 0.904…, and 0.947…, respectively. It is noteworthy that the densest tetrahedral packing possesses no long-range order. Unlike the densest tetrahedral packing, which must not be a Bravais lattice packing, the densest packings of the other nontiling Platonic solids that we obtain are their previously known optimal (Bravais) lattice packings. We also derive a simple upper bound on the maximal density of packings of congruent nonspherical particles and apply it to Platonic solids, Archimedean solids, superballs, and ellipsoids. Provided that what we term the “asphericity” (ratio of the circumradius to inradius) is sufficiently small, the upper bounds are relatively tight and thus close to the corresponding densities of the optimal lattice packings of the centrally symmetric Platonic and Archimedean solids. Our simulation results, rigorous upper bounds, and other theoretical arguments lead us to the conjecture that the densest packings of Platonic and Archimedean solids with central symmetry are given by their corresponding densest lattice packings. This can be regarded to be the analog of Kepler’s sphere conjecture for these solids. The truncated tetrahedron is the only non-centrally symmetric Archimedean solid, the densest known packing of which is a non-lattice packing with density at least as high as 23/24=0.958 333…. We discuss the validity of our conjecture to packings of superballs, prisms, and antiprisms as well as to high-dimensional analogs of the Platonic solids. In addition, we conjecture that the optimal packing of any convex, congruent polyhedron without central symmetry generally is not a lattice packing. Finally, we discuss the possible applications and generalizations of the ASC scheme in predicting the crystal structures of polyhedral nanoparticles and the study of random packings of hard polyhedra.

View figure in article

Corrections

16 November, 2010

Errata

Erratum: Dense packings of polyhedra: Platonic and Archimedean solids [Phys. Rev. E 80, 041104 (2009)]

S. Torquato and Y. Jiao
Phys. Rev. E 81, 049908 (2010)

Publisher's Note: Dense packings of polyhedra: Platonic and Archimedean solids [Phys. Rev. E 80, 041104 (2009)]

S. Torquato and Y. Jiao
Phys. Rev. E 82, 059904 (2010)

Article Text

References (51)

  1. J. D. Bernal, in Liquids: Structure, Properties, Solid Interactions, edited by T. J. Hughel (Elsevier, New York, 1965).
  2. R. Zallen, The Physics of Amorphous Solids (Wiley, New York, 1983).
  3. S. Torquato, Random Heterogeneous Materials: Microstructure and Macroscopic Properties (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002).
  4. P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, Principles of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2000).
  5. S. F. Edwards, Granular Matter, edited by A. Mehta (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994); E. R. Nowak, J. B. Knight, E. Ben-Naim, H. M. Jaeger, and S. R. Nagel, Phys. Rev. E 57, 1971 (1998); T. S. Majmudar and R. P. Behringer, Nature (London) 435, 1079 (2005); M. Schröter, D. I. Goldman, and H. L. Swinney, Phys. Rev. E 71, 030301(R) (2005).
  6. I. C. Kim and S. Torquato, J. Appl. Phys. 69, 2280 (1991); D. Cule and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. B 58, R11829 (1998); M. C. Rechtsman and S. Torquato, J. Appl. Phys. 103, 084901 (2008); T. Zohdi, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 76, 1250 (2008).
  7. J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane, Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998).
  8. H. Cohn and N. Elkies, Ann. Math. 157, 689 (2003); H. Cohn, Geom. Topol. 6, 329 (2002).
  9. G. Parisi and F. Zamponi, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2006), P03017; S. Torquato and F. H. Stillinger, Phys. Rev. E 73, 031106 (2006); S. Torquato, O. U. Uche, and F. H. Stillinger, ibid. 74, 061308 (2006).
  10. T. C. Hales, Ann. Math. 162, 1065 (2005).
  11. A. Bezdek and W. Kuperberg, in DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science Vol. 4, edited by P. Gritzmann and B. Sturmfels (AMS, Providence, RI, 1991); J. M. Wills, Mathematika 38, 318 (1991).
  12. A. Donev, F. H. Stillinger, P. M. Chaikin, and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 255506 (2004).
  13. J. H. Conway and S. Torquato, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 10612 (2006).
  14. P. Chaikin, S. Wang, and A. Jaoshvili, APS March Meeting Abstract (2007).
  15. E. R. Chen, Discrete Comput. Geom. 40, 214 (2008).
  16. Y. Jiao, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 245504 (2008).
  17. Y. Jiao, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. E 79, 041309 (2009).
  18. A. I. Kitaigorodskii, Molecular Crystal and Molecules (Academic, New York, 1973).
  19. It is well known that viral capsids often possess icosahedral symmetry; see, for example, R. Zandi, D. Reguera, R. F. Bruinsma, W. M. Gelbart, and J. Rudnick, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 15556 (2004).
  20. A. R. Kansal, S. Torquato, and F. H. Stillinger, Phys. Rev. E 66, 041109 (2002); this tiling-degeneracy example vividly illustrates a fundamental point made in Ref. [20], namely, packing arrangements of nonoverlapping objects at some fixed density can exhibit a large variation in their degree of structural order.
  21. In the physical sciences and engineering, this is referred to as a Bravais lattice. Unless otherwise stated, the term “lattice” will refer to a Bravais lattice only, not the more general classification of a periodic lattice with a basis.
  22. The overlap potential function of a pair of strictly convex and smooth particles is an analytic function of the positions, orientations, and shapes of the two particles, whose value indicates whether the two particles overlap or not, or whether they are tangent to one another; see also Ref. [23].
  23. A. Donev, S. Torquato, and F. H. Stillinger, J. Comput. Phys. 202, 737 (2005).
  24. A. Donev, S. Torquato, and F. H. Stillinger, J. Comput. Phys. 202, 765 (2005).
  25. S. Torquato and Y. Jiao, Nature (London) 460, 876 (2009).
  26. Note that in Fig. 1 of Ref. [25], “P6” should be “A1.”
  27. H. Minkowski, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Goettingen, Math.-Phys. Kl. 311 (1904).
  28. U. Betke and M. Henk, Comput. Geom. 16, 157 (2000).
  29. In this paper, a deformation refers to a volume-preserving shape change of the fundamental cell (i.e., a shear), which is to be distinguished from a volume change of the cell, which can either be a compression or an expansion of the cell.
  30. S. Torquato and Y. Jiao (unpublished).
  31. W. S. Jodrey and E. M. Tory, Phys. Rev. A 32, 2347 (1985); M. D. Rintoul and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. E 58, 532 (1998); O. U. Uche, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, Physica A 342, 428 (2004); A. Donev, J. Burton, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. B 73, 054109 (2006).
  32. S. Torquato and F. H. Stillinger, J. Phys. Chem. B 105, 11849 (2001); S. Torquato, A. Donev, and F. H. Stillinger, Int. J. Solids Struct. 40, 7143 (2003); A. Donev, S. Torquato, F. H. Stillinger, and R. Connelly, J. Appl. Phys. 95, 989 (2004).
  33. E. G. Golshtein and N. V. Tretyakov, Modified Lagrangians and Monotone Maps in Optimization (Wiley, New York, 1996).
  34. D. J. Hoylman, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 76, 135 (1970).
  35. In Ref. [13], the authors suggested (not conjectured) that the regular tetrahedron “may not be able to pack as densely as the sphere, which would contradict a conjecture of Ulam.” Indeed, the results of Ref. [15] verify that the tetrahedron does not violate Ulam’s conjecture.
  36. A. Donev, R. Connelly, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. E 75, 051304 (2007).
  37. The supplementary materials can be found at http://cherrypit.princeton.edu/pre-packings.html
  38. The fundamental cells of the initial configurations for the optimization algorithm involve periodic copies of the packings listed in Table I. Specifically, if the lattice vectors of the packings listed in Table I are denoted by e1, e2, and e3, then the lattice vectors associated with the initial configurations are given by e1L=n1e1, e2L=n2e2, and e3L=n3e3, where n1,n2,n3≥1 are integers. Thus, the number of tetrahedra in the fundamental cells of the initial configurations is an integral multiple, i.e., n1×n2×n3, of that for the corresponding packings given in Table I. For the optimal lattice packing, n1=n2=n3=3; for the uniform packing, n1=n2=n3=3; for the Welsh packing, n1=n2=n3=1; for the icosahedral packing, n1=n2=n3=1; and for the wagon-wheels packing, n1=n2=2,n3=1.
  39. This bound was motivated by a question posed by Connelly in May, 2005 at a Banff International Research Station Workshop entitled “Densest Packings of Spheres,” organized by K. Bezdek, H. Cohn, and C. Radin. Specifically, he asked whether an upper bound on the maximal density of congruent ellipsoid packings in R3 that is less than unity for any aspect ratios of the ellipsoid could be formulated. One of us in attendance (S.T.) provided the version of upper bound (14) for the special case of ellipsoids. Of course, for ellipsoids, bound (14) is less than unity provided that the eccentricity of the ellipsoid is sufficiently small. However, here we recognize that the same type of upper bound can yield a reasonably tight upper bound for other nonspherical shapes provided that the particle has a small asphericity γ.
  40. Although we cannot exclude the possibility that there exist other optimal packing particle arrangements that possess the same density as the optimal lattice packings, it is highly unlikely that those arrangements could be constructed in the same way as the stacking variants of the optimal fcc lattice packings for spheres (the so-called Barlow packings). The polyhedral shape of the particles does not allow them to fit snugly into the “holes” formed in the particle layers above and below a particular layer, as in the case of spheres, and hence stackings of the layers cannot result in packings with densities that are higher than that of the optimal lattice packing. If degenerate optimal packings exist, they cannot be of the “Barlow” type.
  41. L. Fejes Tóth, Regular Figures (Macmillan, New York, 1964).
  42. A. Bezdek, Intuitive Geometry, edited by L. Fejes Tóth (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1994), Vol. 63, p. 17; T. C. Hales, Discrete Comput. Geom. 36, 5 (2006).
  43. M. Gardner, The Colossal Book of Mathematics: Classic Puzzles, Paradoxes, and Problems (Norton, New York, 2001), p. 13.
  44. P. R. Cromwell, Polyhedra (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997).
  45. H. S. M. Coxeter, Regular Polytopes (Dover, New York, 1973).
  46. S. Torquato and F. H. Stillinger, Exp. Math. 15, 307 (2006); A. Scardicchio, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, J. Math. Phys. 49, 043301 (2008).
  47. E. C. Greyson, J. E. Barton, and T. W. Odom, Small 2, 368 (2006).
  48. Y. G. Sun and Y. N. Xia, Science 298, 2176 (2002).
  49. T. S. Ahmadi, Z. L. Wang, T. C. Green, A. Henglein, and M. A. El-Sayed, Science 272, 1924 (1996).
  50. R. Jin, Y. Cao, C. A. Mirkin, K. L. Kelly, G. C. Schatz, and J. G. Zeng, Science 294, 1901 (2001).
  51. S. Torquato, T. M. Truskett, and P. G. Debenedetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2064 (2000).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 80, 041104– Published 5 October, 2009
  • Received 11 July 2009
  • Corrected 16 November 2010

© 2009 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation