Small Angle Scattering by Fractal Aggregates: A Numerical Investigation of the Crossover Between the Fractal Regime and the Porod Regime
Extracted source text ยท arXiv cond-mat/9504053
\documentstyle[prb,aps]{revtex}
\begin{document}
\draft
\title{Small Angle Scattering by Fractal Aggregates:
A Numerical Investigation of the Crossover Between
the Fractal Regime and the Porod Regime}
\author{Anwar Hasmy, Ren\'e Vacher and R\'emi Jullien}
\address{Laboratoire de Science des Mat\'eriaux Vitreux, UA 1119 CNRS,
Universit\'e Montpellier II, Place Eug\`ene Bataillon,
34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France}
\date{\today}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Fractal aggregates are built on a computer using off-lattice
cluster-cluster aggregation models. The aggregates are made of
spherical particles of different sizes distributed according
to a Gaussian-like distribution characterised by a mean $a_0$ and
a standard deviation $\sigma$. The wave vector dependent scattered
intensity $I(q)$ is computed in order to study the influence of
the particle polydispersity on the crossover between the
fractal regime and the Porod regime. It is shown that, given
$a_0$, the location $q_c$ of the crossover decreases as $\sigma$ increases.
The dependence of $q_c$ on $\sigma$ can be understood from the evolution
of the shape of the center-to-center interparticle-distance
distribution function.
\end{abstract}
\pacs{PACS numbers: 61.12.-q, 61.43.Bn, 61.43.Hv}
Small-angle X-ray scattering as well as small-angle neutron
scattering have been widely used to study the structure of
disordered systems \cite{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}. In particular they have allowed to
demonstrate that silica aerogels are made of connected fractal
``blobs''\cite{3,4}. In such materials, the wave vector dependent
scattered intensity $I(q)$ exhibits two crossovers related to
the two characteristic lengths, mean particle diameter $a_0$ and
mean blob size $\xi$. The first one separates the low-$q$ ($q<<\xi^{-1}$)
saturation, called the Guinier regime \cite{9}, from the
intermediate power-law behaviour \cite{3,4}, called the fractal
regime. The second one, on which we will focus in this letter,
separates the fractal regime from the high-$q$ ($q>>a_0^{-1}$) $q^{-4}$
behaviour, called the Porod regime\cite{9}.
In some previous studies, it was assumed that the crossover
between the fractal regime and the Porod regime was always
exactly located at $q_c=2\pi/a_0$. This assumption was even used by
some authors to quantitatively determine the average diameter
\cite{5,6} or the gyration radius \cite{4,7} of the particles. In
several other papers, an average particle radius was extracted
from a fit of the scattered intensity $I(q)$ to analytical
expressions which do not include polydispersity \cite{2,8}. Such
kind of analysis has been done in the case of base catalysed
and neutrally reacted silica aerogels where the particle size
polydispersity impedes the determination of $a_0$ by conventional
methods such as electron micrography. In this letter we show
that such an assumption is only valid when the standard
deviation $\sigma$ of the particle size is small compared to the
average $a_0$ .
In previous papers \cite{10,11} it has been shown that cluster-
cluster aggregation models \cite{12} can satisfactorily reproduce
the structure of aerogels. Furthermore, if we are only
interested in short range correlations, it is sufficient to
consider a single aggregate obtained with a simplified
aggregation process: the hierarchical cluster-cluster model
\cite{13}.
Here for simplicity we have considered the case of
chemically limited cluster-cluster aggregation (CLCA) \cite{14}
using a three dimensional off-lattice hierarchical procedure.
The hierarchical scheme is an iterative method which starts
with a collection of $N_p=2^p$ particles at iteration $i=0$ and ends
with a unique aggregate of $N_p$ particles at iteration $p$. At an
intermediate iteration $i$, one has a collection of $N_c=2^{p-i}$
independent aggregates, each of them containing $N=2^i$
particles. To proceed to the next iteration, the $2^{p-i}$
aggregates are grouped into pairs and is built a new aggregate
with each pair according to a specific sticking rule. As soon
as it is obtained, the new aggregate is randomly disoriented
and is stored in the collection for the next iteration. The
sticking rules depend on the chosen aggregation process. In
the CLCA case the sticking rule is as follows: A particle of
one cluster and a particle of another cluster are chosen at
random as well as a random direction in space. The two
clusters are disposed such that these two particles are in
contact with their centers aligned along a random direction.
Then a test of overlap is made for the other particles. If an
overlap is found, the trial is discarded and another choice is
made for both particles and random direction. Then, the
resulting aggregate is stored for the next iteration. In this
model, the resulting fractal dimension \cite{15} is equal to about
2.
In this work the hierarchical procedure is initialised with
a collection of $N$ polydisperse particles whose diameters $a_i$
are distributed according to a truncated Gaussian
distribution. We use a standard library subroutine which
generates a set of random variables $x_i$ of zero mean and
standard deviation equal to one, distributed according to the
normal probability law:
\begin{eqnarray}
g(x)={1\over{\sqrt{2\pi}}}e^{-{x^2\over 2}}
\label{E1}
\end{eqnarray}
The diameters $a_i$ are calculated by:
\begin{eqnarray}
a_i=1+sx_i\label{E2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $s$ is an input parameter and where all the $x_i$'s leading
to negative $a_i$'s have been discarded. Then we calculate the
average $a_0$ and the standard deviation $\sigma$ from the usual
formulae:
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
a_0={1\over N}\sum\limits_{i=1}^N{a_i}\label{E3}
\end{eqnarray}
{\parindent 0mm \rm and}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^2={1\over N}\sum\limits_{i=1}^N{(a_i-a_0)^2} \label{E4}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
By varying the parameter $s$, one can vary the effective
standard deviation $\sigma_{eff}(=\sigma/a_0)$ which is the only relevant
dimensionless parameter in our problem. Note that $\sigma_{eff}$ is
practically equal to $s$ for $s \leq 0.17$, where $a_0\simeq 1$. In figure 1
we show typical histograms for different values of $\sigma_{eff}$.
In the general case (where the standard deviation may be
large) one can no longer calculate the scattered intensity
$I(q)$ as a product of a form factor $P(q)$ and the structure
factor $S(q)$. One should go back to the calculation of the
scattered amplitude \cite{16}, which is proportional to:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{A}=\sum\limits_i\int\limits_v{e^{i\vec{q}.(\vec{r}_i+\vec{x})}{\rm d}^3x} \label{E5}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec{r}_i$ refers to the center of the $i$-th particle and $\vec{x}$ refers
to a running point inside the volume of the $i$-th particle with
respect to its center. The integral inside the sum, which
should be performed over the volume of the $i$-th particle, can
be calculated as a function of $a_i$, assuming isotropy and
homogeneity inside the sphere, leading to:
\begin{mathletters}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{A}=\sum\limits_i{e^{i\vec{q}.\vec{r}_i}A_i(q)} \label{E6}
\end{eqnarray}
{\parindent 0mm \rm with:}
\begin{eqnarray}
A_i(q)=4\pi{\sin({qa_i\over 2})-({qa_i\over 2})\cos({qa_i\over 2})\over {q^3}}\label{E7}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
Then, assuming a random orientation of the aggregate over the
direction of $\vec{q}$, the scattered intensity $I(q)=|\tilde{A}|^2$ can be
written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
I(q)=\sum\limits_{i,j}{A_iA_j{\sin(qr_{ij})\over qr_{ij}}}
\label{E8}
\end{eqnarray}
where $r_{ij}=|\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_j|$.
Note that, since the $i$ and $j$ dependent product $A_i A_j$ appears
inside the sum, the result cannot be split in two parts. In
particular one cannot use the distance distribution function $f(r)=\sum\limits_{i,j}\delta(r-r_{ij})$
to calculate an intermediate structure factor $S(q)$. Here the
double sum has been calculated directly.
The numerical results are reported in figure 2 where we have
plotted the intensity $I(q)$ as a function of the ``reduced'' wave
vector $qa_0$. In figure 2a is shown the $I(q)$ curve obtained for
$\sigma_{eff}$=0, in this curve we can observe the three regimes
mentioned above. Figure 2b shows three $I(q)$ curves
corresponding to three aggregates of different $\sigma_{eff}$ values. In
this figure, in order to better see the crossover between the
fractal and the Porod regime, we use the convenient $I(q)q^4$
representation where the first maximum corresponds to the
crossover. As indicated by the arrows on the left of figure
2b, the location of the crossover between the Guinier and the
fractal regime is the same in all cases. Also, the slope of
the fractal regime is unchanged. These two results mean that
the particle size polydispersity does not affect the intra-
aggregate long range particle correlations as well as the
overall size of the aggregate. However, the location of the
maximum corresponding to the crossover between the fractal and
the Porod regime strongly depends on $\sigma_{eff}$. In the monodisperse
case ($\sigma_{eff}$=0), one has $q_ca_0=2\pi$, as expected, but, for
increasing $\sigma_{eff}$ values, $q_ca_0$ is pushed towards low values. On
the other hand, in figure 2b, one observes how the
oscillations of the Porod regime are more and more damped as
the degree of polydispersity increases.
In figure 3 we report the variation of $q_ca_0$ as a function of
$\sigma_{eff}$. There is first a quite slow decrease, but after a
sigmoidal-like behaviour, $q_ca_0$ reaches, for $\sigma_{eff}>0.1$, a net
linear behaviour which can be approximated by:
\begin{eqnarray}
q_c={2\pi\over a_0}(1-1.6\sigma_{eff})
\label{E9}
\end{eqnarray}
The overall decrease of $q_ca_0$ when increasing polydispersity
can be attributed to the fact that larger particles dominate
the scattering.
In order to understand the small change of regime observed
near $\sigma_{eff}$=0.1 in figure 3, we have calculated the center-to-
center interparticle distribution function $f(r)$ for aggregates
of different degrees of polydispersity, which has been
normalised as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\int\limits_0^{\infty}{f(r)4\pi r^2{\rm d}r}={N-1\over 2}
\label{E10}
\end{eqnarray}
where $N$ is the number of particles of the aggregate.
In practice, to calculate $f(r)$, we choose a given path $\delta r$,
and we calculate the number of interparticle distances lying
between $r$ and $r+\delta r$. Then we divide the result by $4\pi r^2N\delta r$. In figure 4 we compare $f(r)$ curves
with $\sigma_{eff}$=0.1 and with $\sigma_{eff}=0.16$
with the monodisperse curve ($\sigma_{eff}$=0). The delta peak at
$r/a_0=1$ as well as the discontinuity at $r/a_0=2$, which has
been attributed to short range interparticle correlations in a
previous publication \cite{11}, are progressively washed out when
introducing polydispersity. Even if $I(q)$ and $f(r)$ are not
directly related, it is worth noticing that the bump observed
in figure 3 occurs at the value $\sigma_{eff}$=0.1 at which the two
peaks merge into a single broad peak. Therefore the change of
behaviour occurring near $\sigma_{eff}$=0.1 can be attributed to a
modification of the short range correlations due to
polydispersity. Note that such effects have nothing to do with
the truncation of the Gaussian distribution that we have
considered since this truncation becomes effective for $\sigma_{eff}>
0.17$. On the other hand, we can understand why the $I(q)$ curve
presents only one maximum at high-$q$ for $\sigma_{eff}>0.1$ (see figure
2b).
We have considered other aggregation models: the diffusion
limited cluster-cluster aggregation (DLCA) \cite{17,18} and
chemically limited particle-cluster aggregation (the so-called
Eden model \cite{19}). The first model gives fractal aggregate with
a fractal dimension $D\simeq 1.78$, and the second model corresponds
to a homogeneous aggregate of dimension equal to 3. In figure
5 we show the two $I(q)$ resulting curves for a fixed value of
$\sigma_{eff}$, in comparison with the CLCA case. In this figure, we see
that the crossover between the fractal regime and Porod regime
remains at the same $q_ca_0$ value. This fact is due to the common
short range correlations in all the considered cases, meaning
that relation (7) is valid for a wide range aggregated
systems.
In summary, we have demonstrated that the crossover between
the fractal regime and the Porod regime is very sensitive to
the particle polydispersity. An empirical relation between the
crossover wave vector $q_c$, the particle average diameter $a_0$
and the standard deviation $\sigma$ was obtained. We have also shown
that the results are almost independent on the aggregation
mechanism.
We acknowledge interesting discussions with M. Foret. One of
us (A.H.) would like to acknowledge support from CONICIT
(Venezuela).
% References
\begin{references}
\bibitem{1} S. H. Chen and J. Teixeira, Phys. Rev. Letters, {\bf 57},
2583 (1986)
\bibitem{2} T. Freltoft, J. K. Kjems, and S. K. Sinha, Phys Rev. B,
{\bf 33}, 269 (1986)
\bibitem{3} G. Dietler, C. Aubert, and D. S. Cannell, Phys. Rev.
Letters, {\bf 57}, 3117 (1986)
\bibitem{4} R. Vacher, T. Woigner, J. Pelous, and E. Courtens, Phys.
Rev. B, {\bf 37}, 6500 (1988)
\bibitem{5} D. W. Schaefer and K. D. Keefer, Phys. Rev. Letters, {\bf 56},
2199 (1986)
\bibitem{6} A. Boukenter, D. Champagnon, J. Dumas, E. Duval, J. F.
Quinson, J. L. Rousset, J. Serughetti, S. Etienne, and C. Mai,
Revue Phys. Appl. (Paris), {\bf 24}, C4-133 (1989)
\bibitem{7} F. Chaput, A. Lecomte, A. Dauger, and J. P. Boilot,
Revue Phys. Appl. (Paris), {\bf 24}, C4-137 (1989)
\bibitem{8} D. Posselt, J. S. Pedersen, and K. Mortensen, J. of Non-
Cryst. Solids, {\bf 145}, 128 (1992)
\bibitem{9} A. Guinier and J. Fournet, {\it Small Angle Scattering of X-
rays}, (Wiley Interscience, New York, 1955)
\bibitem{10} A. Hasmy, E. Anglaret, M. Foret, J. Pelous, and R.
Jullien (pre-print)
\bibitem{11} A. Hasmy, M. Foret, J. Pelous, and R. Jullien, Phys.
Rev. B, {\bf 48}, 9345 (1993)
\bibitem{12} R. Jullien and R. Botet, {\it Aggregation and Fractal
Aggregates}, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)
\bibitem{13} R. Botet, R. Jullien, and M. Kolb, J. Phys. A, {\bf 17}, L75
(1983)
\bibitem{14} R. Jullien and M. Kolb, J. Phys. A, {\bf 17}, L639 (1984)
\bibitem{15} B. B. Mandelbrot, {\it Fractals: Form Chance, and
Dimension} (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977)
\bibitem{16} L. A. Feigin and P. I. Svergun, {\it Structure Analysis by
Small Angle X-rays and Neutron Scattering}, (Plenum, New York
and London, 1987)
\bibitem{17} P. Meakin, Phys. Rev. Letters, {\bf 51}, 1119 (1983)
\bibitem{18} M. Kolb, R. Botet, and R. Jullien, Phys. Rev. Letters,
{\bf 51}, 1123 (1983)
\bibitem{19} M. Eden, {\it Proc. 4th Berkeley Symp. Math. Stat. Prob.},
{\bf 4}, 223 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961)
\end{references}
% FIGURE CAPTIONS
\begin{figure}
\caption{Histograms of the particle size Gaussian-like distribution for three different $\sigma_{eff}$ values.}\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\caption{
(a) Log-log plot of $I(q)$ versus $qa_0$ for $\sigma_{eff}$=0.
(b) Log-log plot of $I(q)q^4$ versus $qa_0$ for three different $\sigma_{eff}$ \
values. The white arrows indicate the crossover between the
Guinier and the fractal regime. The black arrows indicate the
crossover between the fractal and the Porod regime. All these
curves result from an average over 32 simulations with $N=128$
particles.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\caption{Plot of $q_ca_0$ versus $\sigma_{eff}$.}\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\caption{
Plots of $f(r)$ versus $r$ for three $\sigma_{eff}$ values. All
these curves result from an average over 32 simulations with
$N=128$ particles.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\caption{
Log-log plots of $I(q)q^4$ versus $qa_0$ for three
different models with $\sigma_{eff}$=0.34. All these curves result
from an average over 32 simulations with $N=128$ particles.
}
\end{figure}
\end{document}