- 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

Nonstationary dynamics of the Alessandro-Beatrice-Bertotti-Montorsi model

Alexander Dobrinevski*, Pierre Le Doussal, and Kay Jörg Wiese

  • CNRS–Laboratoire de Physique Théorique de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure, 24 rue Lhomond, 75005 Paris Cedex, France

  • *alexander.dobrinevski@lpt.ens.fr
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 85, 031105 – Published 5 March, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.85.031105

Abstract

We obtain an exact solution for the motion of a particle driven by a spring in a Brownian random-force landscape, the Alessandro-Beatrice-Bertotti-Montorsi (ABBM) model. Many experiments on quasistatic driving of elastic interfaces (Barkhausen noise in magnets, earthquake statistics, shear dynamics of granular matter) exhibit the same universal behavior as this model. It also appears as a limit in the field theory of elastic manifolds. Here we discuss predictions of the ABBM model for monotonous, but otherwise arbitrary, time-dependent driving. Our main result is an explicit formula for the generating functional of particle velocities and positions. We apply this to derive the particle-velocity distribution following a quench in the driving velocity. We also obtain the joint avalanche size and duration distribution and the mean avalanche shape following a jump in the position of the confining spring. Such nonstationary driving is easy to realize in experiments, and provides a way to test the ABBM model beyond the stationary, quasistatic regime. We study extensions to two elastically coupled layers, and to an elastic interface of internal dimension d, in the Brownian force landscape. The effective action of the field theory is equal to the action, up to one-loop corrections obtained exactly from a functional determinant. This provides a connection to renormalization-group methods.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (69)

  1. B. Alessandro, C. Beatrice, G. Bertotti, and A. Montorsi, J. Appl. Phys. 68, 2901 (1990).
  2. B. Alessandro, C. Beatrice, G. Bertotti, and A. Montorsi, J. Appl. Phys. 68, 2908 (1990).
  3. F. Colaiori, Adv. Phys. 57, 287 (2008).
  4. P. Le Doussal, K. J. Wiese, S. Moulinet, and E. Rolley, Europhys. Lett. 87, 56001 (2009).
  5. S. Moulinet, C. Guthmann, and E. Rolley, Eur. Phys. J. E 8, 437 (2002).
  6. E. Rolley, C. Guthmann, R. Gombrowicz, and V. Repain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2865 (1998).
  7. D. Fisher, K. Dahmen, S. Ramanathan, and Y. Ben-Zion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4885 (1997).
  8. Y. Ben-Zion and J. R. Rice, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 14109 (1993).
  9. Y. Ben-Zion and J. R. Rice, J. Geophys. Res. 102, 17 (1997).
  10. H. Barkhausen, Phys. Zeits. 20, 401 (1919).
  11. G. Durin and S. Zapperi, The Barkhausen Effect, in The Science of Hysteresis, edited by G. Bertotti and I. Mayergoyz (Academic, Amsterdam, 2006), p. 51.
  12. A. Ruina, J. Geophys. Res. 88, 359 (1983).
  13. J. H. Dieterich, Tectonophysics 211, 115 (1992).
  14. C. H. Scholz, Nature (London) 391, 37 (1998).
  15. J. P. Sethna, K. A. Dahmen, and C. R. Myers, Nature (London) 410, 242 (2001).
  16. B. Gutenberg and C. F. Richter, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 34, 185 (1944).
  17. B. Gutenberg and C. F. Richter, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 46, 105 (1956).
  18. Y. Y. Kagan, Geophys. J. Int. 148, 520 (2002).
  19. O. Narayan and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 46, 11520 (1992).
  20. O. Narayan and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 48, 7030 (1993).
  21. S. Zapperi, P. Cizeau, G. Durin, and H. E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. B 58, 6353 (1998).
  22. S. Papanikolaou, F. Bohn, R. L. Sommer, G. Durin, S. Zapperi, and J. P. Sethna, Nat. Phys. 7, 316 (2011).
  23. P. Le Doussal and K. J. Wiese, EPL (Europhysics Letters 97, 46004 (2012).
  24. P. Le Doussal and K. J. Wiese (to be published).
  25. F. Colaiori, S. Zapperi, and G. Durin, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 272-276, E533 (2004).
  26. P. Cizeau, S. Zapperi, G. Durin, and H. Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4669 (1997).
  27. G. Durin and S. Zapperi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4705 (2000).
  28. Exactly at d=dc, there are logarithmic corrections to the mean-field behavior [23,24], similar to those discussed in [66] and [67], Sec. VI.
  29. K. J. Wiese and P. Le Doussal, Markov Proc. Relat. Fields 13, 777 (2007).
  30. G. Bertotti, F. Fiorillo, and M. P. Sassi, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 23, 136 (1981).
  31. G. Durin and S. Zapperi, J. Stat. Mech.: Theor. Exp. (2006) P01002.
  32. D. Spasojevic, S. Bukvic, S. Milosevic, and H. Stanley, Phys. Rev. E 54, 2531 (1996).
  33. P. Le Doussal and K. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. E 79, 051106 (2009).
  34. P. Le Doussal and K. J. Wiese, e-print arXiv:1111.3172.
  35. P. Le Doussal, A. A. Middleton, and K. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. E 79, 050101(R) (2009).
  36. P. Le Doussal, M. Müller, and K. J. Wiese, Europhys. Lett. 91, 57004 (2010).
  37. P. Le Doussal, M. Müller, and K. J. Wiese, e-print arXiv:1110.2011.
  38. G. Bertotti, Hysteresis and Magnetism (Academic Press, San Diego, 1998).
  39. This is true even if u̇(t) vanishes in some time interval, both sides being zero when both t,t′ belong to this interval, or exhibits a jump.
  40. This is a corollary of Middleton's theorem or “no-passing rule” [48,49]. As a mathematical theorem, it has been known since [68].
  41. P. Chauve, P. Le Doussal, and K. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1785 (2001).
  42. P. Le Doussal, K. J. Wiese, and P. Chauve, Phys. Rev. B 66, 174201 (2002).
  43. In the following, we use dimensionless units: m2=1, σ=1. Units can be restored by replacing t→tm2, ũ→(σ/m2)ũ, λ→λ(σ/m4) in the dimensionless solution for ũ.
  44. Compare formula (202) in [46]. There, S was obtained as S=u(w)−u(0) from the “quasistatic” position u(w), where the velocity vanishes for the first time, i.e., the largest solution of u′(u)=F(u)−m2(u−w)=0. Since F(u)−m2(u−w)=0 is a Brownian motion with drift, this is a standard first-passage problem. Thus, observing the avalanche size S alone, one cannot distinguish a nonstationary kick from quasistatic driving.
  45. One notes the similarity of this formula with the one arising in the real-space RG for the Brownian landscape in [69]. It identifies with the square of Eq. (11) there, up to a global factor. It would be interesting to understand this connection further.
  46. P. Le Doussal and K. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. E 79, 051105 (2009).
  47. M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions: With Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, 1st ed. (Dover, New York, 1965).
  48. A. A. Middleton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 670 (1992).
  49. C. Baesens and R. S. MacKay, Nonlinearity 11, 949 (1998).
  50. P. Le Doussal and K. J. Wiese, Europhys. Lett. 77, 66001 (2007).
  51. However, two- and higher-loop corrections still vanish.
  52. A. Fedorenko, P. Le Doussal, and K. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. E 74, 041110 (2006).
  53. S. Zapperi, C. Castellano, F. Colaiori, and G. Durin, Nat. Phys. 1, 46 (2005).
  54. G. Schehr and P. Le Doussal, Europhys. Lett. 71, 290 (2005).
  55. A. B. Kolton, G. Schehr, and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160602 (2009).
  56. A. B. Kolton, A. Rosso, and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 047002 (2005).
  57. A. B. Kolton, A. Rosso, E. V. Albano, and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B 74, 140201 (2006).
  58. D. Cule and T. Hwa, Phys. Rev. B 57, 8235 (1998).
  59. P. Le Doussal and K. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. E 67, 016121 (2003).
  60. Y.-J. Chen, S. Papanikolaou, J. Sethna, S. Zapperi, and G. Durin, Phys. Rev. E 84, 061103 (2011).
  61. If the equation of motion is ∂tu(t)=F(u(t)), then ∫t[∂tu(t)]2=∫tF(u(t))∂tu(t)=−∫t∂tE(u(t)), where F(u)=−∂uE(u). Thus this term, in the nonperturbed equation of motion, is related to the dissipation of energy.
  62. P. Chauve, T. Giamarchi, and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. B 62, 6241 (2000).
  63. A. Fedorenko, P. Le Doussal, and K. J. Wiese (private communication).
  64. Generally, one should write the flow of all terms in Γ, e.g., flow of the inverse response function R−1 to O(Δ̃), but to lowest order in ε it is sufficient to consider only the friction ηm. Similarly, the higher cumulants of the disorder, and the nonlocal part of the second cumulant, are of higher order in ε.
  65. This may appear to be in contradiction to the discussion in Sec. VI B of [46]. Note, however, that the Δ appearing in Eq. (226) of [46] is defined as a two-point correlation function of u. The Δ we compute here is the û2 term in Γ. It remains nonanalytic at finite v, but to go to the correlation function one needs to convolve it with two propagators. This smoothes the linear cusp to the subcusp discussed in [46].
  66. A. Fedorenko and S. Stepanow, Phys. Rev. E 68, 056115 (2003).
  67. P. Le Doussal and K. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. E 68, 046118 (2003).
  68. M. W. Hirsch, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 16, 423 (1985).
  69. P. Le Doussal, C. Monthus, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. E 59, 4795 (1999).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 85, 031105– Published 5 March, 2012
  • Received 29 December 2011

©2012 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation