text:
# Submarine Landslides and Local Tsunami Waves (Corinthos Gulf, Greece)

## Abstract

It is considered a problem of submarine sediment slide which generates the surface water waves. To simulate numerically the landslide motion it is used the method which permits to take into account detailed rheological properties of slide body constituents. The numerical simulation of landslide-generated surface water waves is performed on the basis of nonlinear shallow water equations. It is studied a landslide behavior for two values of maximal friction angle. The detailed comparison of landslide dynamics and evolution of landslide-generated surface water waves during sliding is performed. Also, the evolution of dipolar water wave generated in the beginning of sediment sliding is studied. It is obtained that this dipolar wave is then transformed in two wave groups: crest and trough coming seaward and trough accompanied by crest coming to the shoreline. The second wave group leads firstly to sea recession from the beach and only then to large runup (tsunami wave with first negative phase).

Large water waves produced by submarine landslides were observed in many regions of the world for last 50 years (local tsunamis) ( see, e.g. GLKM ). For numerical simulation of landslide-generated tsunami there were proposed a number of models, main of which are a rigid-body model and viscous (visco-plastic) model (for review, see, e.g. Fine2 ). First model, because of its specifics, overestimates the water surface response to the submarine perturbation while second model underestimates it. To simulate adequately the landslide-induced tsunami it is necessary to use methodics which take into account the both detailed structure of landslide body and mechanical characteristics of slide-body constituents during sliding (see, e.g.MulAl ). The character of disconsolidation of constituents in sediment surface layer appears to be a key factor which controls the localization process of the plastic strain and thus the slope instability. The model numerical simulation of sliding process at the continental slope was carried out for a number of slope parameters. In particular, such simulation of landslide induced tsunami was performed for parameters of Corinthos Gulf, Greece (see fig.1, 2) where in 7 February 1963 it was observed a damaging tsunami wave formed without any seismic events: mass of unconsolidated sediments slumped into the sea water around of the local river KP .

It is considered layer-by-layer sliding of upper part of elastically-plastic sediment layer on the slope surface which is formed during the landslide process. It is proposed a distinct interface between water and landslide body with water density $`\rho _w(x,z)=const`$, and landslide density is a function of coordinate $`\rho _s=\rho _s(x,z)`$ (see, fig.1). The coordinate origin is taken at the coastline, with $`x`$-axis at the undisturbed seawater level and directed seaward and with $`z`$-axis directed upward. In the fig.1 $`z=h(x,t)`$ is a variable depth of seawater, $`z=h(x,0)=h_s(x,0)`$ is a submarine slope profile before initial action ($`t=0`$). $`D(x,t)`$ is a landslide body thickness: $`h(x,t)=h_s(x,t)D(x,t)`$. The shape of seawater surface $`z=\eta (x,t),\eta (x,0)=0`$.

At simulation it was used explicit finite-difference scheme which permits to simulate the nonlinear behavior of pore saturated sediments under conditions of plastic flow above yield stress. Also, possible initial action at the process (adequate to some seismic action) was taken into account (see fig.2, where it is presented a geometrical scheme for numerical simulation of landslide (fig.2a) under the action of earthquake with moderate size magnitude (equivalent to slumping volume $`57.000m^3`$ in Corinthos Gulf), fig.2b).

It was used a layered model of sediments rested on relatively rigid base. For each layer there were taken a layer density, shear modulus, bulk modulus, cohesion, maximal friction angle, and tensile strength. At the first stage, it was made the simulation of initial, preliminary stressed state of slope with sediments formed under action of its own weight and saturation with the water under sea pressure. At the second stage, it was taken into account the rheological effect of decrease sediment mass strength above yield stress, pore saturation of sediment mass and possibility of landslide-mass liquefaction under conditions of a seismic or any external action. And finally, it was performed numerical simulation of surface water waves (evolution and runup) on the basis of nonlinear system of shallow water equations with using of constructed explicit difference scheme with fulfilled stability conditions. Dynamical interaction between landslide motion and surface waves was taken into account via continuity equation. The results are consistent with those in conventional (rigid-body and viscous-fluid) model and agree qualitatively with natural data. So, it was really observed the sea recession (first negative tsunami wave) in the region of estuary of the local river in Corinthos Gulf, Greece where coastal strip have been slumped into the sea water (see above).

In the work there are presented results of numerical simulation for two values of maximal friction angle $`\varphi _s:20^o`$ and $`32^o`$ (see below). In fig.3a, b there are presented a picture of successive position of landslide surface for several times with 10 sec interval (dashed curves) calculated for maximal friction angle $`\varphi _s`$: $`20^o`$ and $`32^o`$, respectively. Solid line corresponds to initial landslide shape ($`t=0`$). At given values of parameters in the case $`\varphi _s=20^o`$, landslide comes only finite distance, equal to $`1200m`$. The duration of sliding process may be determined from the time instant when velocity of forefront reaches zero, and is near 50 sec. Maximal velocity of landslide forefront in this case is reached at near 40 sec and its value is near $`6m/sec`$. In contrast, rear part of the landslide shifts to lower $`x`$. In the case $`\varphi _s=32^o`$, landslide comes only near 750 m (fig. 3b) and its maximal velocity is essentially lower though it is reached also at near 40 sec.

In fig. 4a, b there are presented a shear strain distribution in landslide body for maximal friction angles $`\varphi _s=20^o`$ for time 10 sec and 40 sec, respectively. From numerical results, it’s seen that in the case $`\varphi _s=20^o`$ landslide forefront reaches level of horizontal bottom, and horizontal region near shoreline disappears so that landslide is plane up to shoreline. In the case of $`\varphi _s=32^o`$ landslide don’t reach a horizontal bottom level so that landslide shape is plane only in the middle part of slope, and horizontal region near shoreline persists (see, GLKM ).

For numerical simulation of landslide-generated surface water waves it was used a system of shallow water nonlinear equations with taking into account the friction and Coriolis force

$$\frac{u}{t}+u\frac{u}{x}+v\frac{u}{z}=g\frac{\eta }{x}\frac{r}{H}u\sqrt{u^2+v^2}+fv,$$

$$\frac{v}{t}+v\frac{v}{z}+u\frac{v}{x}=g\frac{\eta }{z}\frac{r}{H}v\sqrt{u^2+v^2}fu,$$
$`(1)`$
where $`x,z`$ are real space coordinates, $`t`$ is the time, $`u(x,t),v(x,t)`$ are velocity vector components, $`\eta `$ is the surface elevation amplitude relative to undisturbed state, $`g`$ is a gravity acceleration, $`H(x,t)=h(x,t)+\eta (x,t)`$ is a total depth, ($`h`$ is a depth measured from undisturbed seawater level), $`r`$ is a bed friction coefficient, $`f`$ is a Coriolis force parameter.

Surface water waves were in fact generated by moving submarine landslide because of continuity equation in the form

$$\frac{(h+\eta )}{t}=\frac{}{x}((h+\eta )u)\frac{}{z}((h+\eta )v)$$
$`(2)`$
To solve the system numerically it was used a scheme constructed in analogy with those used in one-dimensional case. Numerical simulation process was based on splitting of difference operator: equations on $`x`$ and $`z`$ are integrated separately at two semi-steps in time. It was used a space dispersed pattern for different presentation of variables. Th avoid the appearance of numerical instability problem and necessity to use a filtration scheme it was applied a method with first order in time scheme. The Cartesian coordinate system is taken so that total depth is positive in the region of liquid phase and is equal to zero at the phase interface ($`\eta =h`$). So, negative values of $`H`$ indicate to solid phase (beach). To localize the boundary it was used a linear extrapolation procedure. Since it is known that upstream oriented schemes are usually stable then it was used a conventional procedure for advective terms of equations of motion and continuity. The procedure is based on choosing of direction of space discretization.

In fig.5 it is presented an evolution of surface water waves (upper curves) generated by moving submarine landslide (lower curves) for the case of maximal friction angle $`\varphi _s=20^o`$. The numbers near upper curves (surface waves) correspond to those near lower curves (position of landslide). There arise two distinct wave groups: crest and trough moving seaward, and second trough moving to a beach. It is seen that wave crest velocity is noticeably higher than that of landslide forefront. The picture is consistent with results of numerical simulation in conventional models (rigid body, viscous fluid, visco-plastic fluid).

In fig.6 there is presented an evolution of landslide-induced surface water waves corresponding to maximal friction angle $`\varphi _s=20^o`$ with time step 10 seconds. In the beginning, it is generated a dipolar wave with trough oriented to a beach. This dipolar wave moves in the deep water derection. But soon an additional crest in the region of the trough appears which moves to a beach. Such recession of the sea water indeed was observed in the region where landslide occurs which phenomena leads to anomalous tsunami with first negative phase MP ; SM (depressive wave).

In conclusion, in contrast to kinematic method, complete solution of problem with stress strained state of slope at seismic action gives the possibility to estimate the distribution of residual strain and displacement in overall sediment volume with taking into account its possible liquefaction and disconsolidation GL . Numerical code FLAC, in contrast to finite element method realizes an explicit finite difference scheme for solution of three-dimensional (3D) problems in continuum mechanics that permits one to simulate nonlinear behavior of pore saturated mass under conditions of plastic flow above yield stress. For calculations, material was divided to polyhedral elements in the limit of grid corresponding to shape of calculated object. Each element behaves itself according to action of applied forces and edge’s restrictions. The grid is frozen in material and moves together with it being undergone to finite strain and displacement. Explicit Lagrange scheme of calculations guarantees an accurate simulation and material flow. A key factor to control the process of localization of plastic strain and related instability is a character of constituents composing the surface sediment layer. The essence of this phenomena is that straining of real sediment layer after reaching of destruction point is continued at decreasing stress, i.e. it occurs decrease of limit of strength at increase of strain up to stress reaches some finite or residual level. Process of sediment mass sliding is essentially determined by friction angle. According to experiments, submarine sediments are disconsolidated when reaching maximal strength. Firstly, sediment mass is strained elastically but when limit condition $`\tau =\tau _s=ccos\varphi _s\sigma sin\varphi _s`$ is fulfilled it begins to move. In result, friction angle decreases from the peak value $`\varphi =\varphi _s`$ in the maximal strain point, and it is established a new equilibrium state at the level $`\tau =\tau _k=ccos\varphi _k\sigma sin\varphi _k`$ at residual value $`\varphi =\varphi _k`$ GL . Moreover, strength decrease of sediment mass during the development of plastic strain at static action is a key factor to control a slope stability. In the case of neglecting of the effect of sediment mass strength decrease slope displacements remains to be small which fact leads to mistake conclusions. And for further agreement of numerical simulation results with natural data it is necessary to attract the detailed data about inner structure of sediment formations in landslide dangerous regions of slopes and landslide constituent properties.

This work was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant No. 01-05-64548).


format: text

text:
# Percolation in a Multifractal

## I 1- Introduction

Percolation theory has been used in several fields such as chemistry, epidemics, science of materials, transport of fluids in porous media, branched polymers, and econophysics perc1 ; stauffer ; stanley ; perc3 ; bp1 ; bp2 ; perc4 . The original percolation model based on a square lattice has been extended to several kinds of regular and random lattices, to continuous media where the objects overlap in space, and to other complex systems complex1 ; complex2 ; sahimi1 ; sahimi2 . In this work we generalize the percolation theory to cover an even broader range of complex systems. We devised an approach to investigate how percolation occurs in a support that is itself a multifractal. For this purpose we have constructed an easy assembling multifractal immersed in a $`2D`$ space.

Our work is inspired in the modeling of geophysical natural objects that show multifractal properties Muller1 ; Muller2 ; Riedi ; Hubert . The model can be applied to transport of fluid in a multifractal porous media such as sedimentary strata. Oil reservoirs are possible candidates to be modeled in such a way since that the measurement of some physical quantities in well-logs show multifractal behavior Lovejoy ; Hermann . Despite the potential applications inspiration, this problem is important by itself in the scientific context. The study of percolation phenomena in multifractal lattices is relevant in Statistical Physics specially when the size of the blocks and their number of neighbors can vary.

In order to make this analysis we create a multifractal object that can be used as a toy model and a laboratory for percolation theory. An important characteristic of this object is that its topologic properties (e.g. number of neighbors of each block) change over the object. In the reference sahimi3  an algorithm that has some resemblance with ours is used. That multifractal is built from the partition of the square, but the object has a trivial topology. Besides, the object used in sahimi3  is aleatory and ours is deterministic. Although both models present multifractality, our model has the following differences: it shows a non-trivial topology, we can determine analytically its spectrum of fractal dimensions, it generalizes the square lattice, and it shows simplicity in the construction.

The multifractal object we have developed is a natural generalization of the regular square lattice once we consider the algorithmic point of view. The algorithm that generates a square lattice with $`2^n\times 2^n`$ cells starting with a square of fixed size is the following. We begin with a $`L\times L`$ square and we cut if in $`4`$ identical pieces (cells). At each step all the cells are equally divided in $`4`$ parts using vertical and horizontal segments. This process produces a lattice as a partition of the square. The multifractal we create is also a partition of the square, but the ratio we divide the cells is different from $`L/2`$. The parameter characterizing the multifractal, $`\rho `$, is related to the ratio of this division.

What makes this problem new and appealing to physics is the following. The support of the percolation clusters is composed by subsets of different fractal dimensions. It is important to know how these different subsets are connected and how they participate in the conducting process. There are intriguing features in the network due to the fact that all cells have rectangular shape but the area and the number of neighbors can vary, forming an exotic tilling.

In section $`2`$ we present the multifractal object that we construct to study percolation, and we analyze how its multifractal partition maps into the square lattice. In section $`3`$ we expose the algorithm we use to estimate percolation threshold and derive the multifractal spectrum of the multifractal object. In section $`4`$ we show numerical results and discuss the histograms of percolating lattices versus occupation probability. Finally in section $`5`$ we summarize the main differences between percolation in a regular lattice and in a multifractal support.

## II 2- The multifractal object $`Q_{mf}`$

The central object of our analysis is a multifractal object that we call $`Q_{mf}`$. Before defining it we enumerate some of its properties.

* $`Q_{mf}`$ is a multifractal, it means, $`Q_{mf}`$ has an infinite number of $`k`$-subsets each one with a distinct fractal dimension $`D_k`$.
* It is possible to determine analytically the spectrum of all $`D_k`$.
* The sum of all the families of $`k`$-subsets fills the square. This fact enables us to study its percolation properties using procedures similar to the ones applied in the site percolation in the square lattice.
* The algorithm of construction of $`Q_{mf}`$ has just one parameter $`\rho `$.
* For the special choice $`\rho =1`$ the object $`Q_{mf}`$ degenerates into the square lattice. In this case we compare our results with the square lattice site percolation.
* The object $`Q_{mf}`$ shows self-affinity or self-scaling depending on the region of the object.
* Finally, the algorithm for construction of $`Q_{mf}`$ is simple and it is of easy implementation in the computer.

We define $`Q_{mf}`$ through the following algorithm. We start with a square of linear size $`L`$ and choose a parameter $`0<\rho <1`$, where $`\rho =\frac{s}{r}`$ for $`r`$ and $`s`$ integers. In the first step, $`n=1`$, the square is cut in two pieces of area $`\frac{r}{s+r}=\frac{1}{1+\rho }`$ and $`\frac{s}{s+r}=\frac{\rho }{1+\rho }`$ by a vertical line (we use $`L^2`$ units). In other words, the square is cut according to a given $`\rho `$. This step is shown in figure 1 (a), in this figure we use $`\rho =\frac{s}{r}=\frac{2}{3}`$.

In the second step, $`n=2`$, we cut the two rectangles of figure 1 (a) by the same $`\rho `$, but using two horizontal lines as shown in figure 1 (b). This partition of the square generates four rectangular blocks: the smallest one of area $`(\frac{\rho }{1+\rho })^2`$, two of them of area $`\frac{\rho }{(1+\rho )^2}`$ and the largest one of area $`(\frac{1}{1+\rho })^2`$, in the figure $`\rho >0.5`$.

The third step, $`n=3`$, is shown in figure 1 (c) and the fourth step, $`n=4`$, in (d). As observed in figure, at level $`n=4`$ there are $`2^4`$ blocks and the distribution of areas among the blocks follows the binomial law:

$$1=(\frac{\rho }{1+\rho })^4+4(\frac{\rho }{1+\rho })^3(\frac{1}{1+\rho })+6(\frac{\rho }{1+\rho })^2(\frac{\rho }{1+\rho })^2+4(\frac{\rho }{1+\rho })(\frac{1}{1+\rho })^3+(\frac{1}{1+\rho })^4.$$
(1)
We call the elements with the same area as a $`k`$-set. In the case $`n=4`$ we have five $`k`$-sets.

At step $`n`$ the square has $`2^{n1}`$ line segments, $`(n+1)`$ $`k`$-sets and $`2^n`$ blocks. The partition of the area $`A=1`$ (using $`L^2`$ units) of the square in different blocks follows the binomial rule:

$$A=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}C_k^n(\frac{\rho }{1+\rho })^k(\frac{1}{1+\rho })^{nk}=(\frac{1+\rho }{1+\rho })^n=1.$$
(2)
As $`n\mathrm{}`$ each $`k`$-set (a subset made of cells of same area) determines a monofractal whose dimension we calculate in the next section. The ensemble of all $`k`$-sets engenders the multifractal object $`Q_{mf}`$.

## III 3- The algorithm of percolation and the multifractal spectrum

In this section we show the algorithm used to study the percolation properties of $`Q_{mf}`$ and the analytic derivation of its spectrum of fractal dimensions. The estimation of the spectrum, $`D_k`$, is performed using the box counting method barnsley  whose measure elements came from the percolation algorithm.

The concept of the percolation algorithm for $`Q_{mf}`$ consists in mapping it into the square lattice. The square lattice should be large enough that each line segment of $`Q_{mf}`$ coincides with a line of the lattice. Therefore we consider that the square lattice is more finely divided than $`Q_{mf}`$. In this way all blocks of the multifractal are composed by a finite number of cells of the square lattice.

To explain the percolation algorithm we suppose that $`Q_{mf}`$ construction is at step $`n`$. We proceed the percolation algorithm by choosing at random one among the $`2^n`$ blocks of $`Q_{mf}`$. Once a block is chosen all the cells in the square lattice corresponding to this block are considered as occupied. Each time a block of $`Q_{mf}`$ is chosen the algorithm check if the occupied cells at the underlying lattice are connected in such a way to form an $`infinite`$ percolation cluster. The algorithm to check the percolation is similar to the one used in ziff ; freitas0 ; freitas1 ; freitas2 .

For the estimation of the spectrum $`D_k`$ of an object $`X`$ we use the box counting method barnsley . The object $`X`$ is immersed in the plane of real numbers $`\mathrm{}^2`$, we use the trivial metric. Cover $`\mathrm{}^2`$ by just-touching square boxes of side length $`ϵ`$. Let $`N(X)`$ denote the number of square cells of side length $`ϵ`$ which intersect $`X`$. If

$$D_X=lim_{ϵ0}\frac{logN(X)}{log\frac{1}{ϵ}}=lim_L\mathrm{}\frac{logN(X)}{logL},$$
(3)
is finite, then $`D_X`$ is the dimension of the $`X`$.

In our case the object $`X`$ is a $`k`$-set. Remember that the $`k`$-set corresponds to a set of rectangles of the same area. For a $`k`$-set we have that $`N_k`$ is given by:

$$N_k=C_n^ks^kr^{(nk)},$$
(4)
where $`C_n^k`$ is the binomial coefficient that express the number of elements $`k`$-type, and $`s^kr^{(nk)}`$ is the area of each element of this set. If the square is partitioned $`n`$ times ($`\frac{n}{2}`$ horizontal cuts and $`\frac{n}{2}`$ vertical cuts) its size is $`L=(s+r)^{n/2}`$. Combining all this information we have for the fractal dimension of each $`k`$-set:

$$D_k=lim_n\mathrm{}\frac{logC_n^ks^kr^{(nk)}}{log(s+r)^{\frac{n}{2}}},$$
(5)
In the $`r=s=1`$ case all subsets of $`Q_{mf}`$ are composed by elements of the same area, square cells. In this way the object is formed by a single subset with dimension:

$$D=lim_n\mathrm{}\frac{log(1+1)^n}{log(1+1)^{\frac{n}{2}}}=2,$$
(6)
This result is expected once in this particular case $`Q_{mf}`$ degenerates into the square lattice that has dimension $`2`$.

In figure 2 we show the picture of $`Q_{mf}`$ for $`\rho =\frac{2}{3}`$. We have used $`n=12`$, in (a) the full object is shown, in (b) a zoom of an internal square of the object is illustrated. We have used the same color to indicate the elements of a same $`k`$-set. The funny tilling depicted in the figure is common to $`Q_{mf}`$ with different values of $`\rho `$.

Figure 3 shows the spectrum of $`D_k`$ for $`n=400`$ calculated from equation (5). The use of increasing $`n`$ does not change the shape of the curve, it only increases the number of $`k`$ and makes the curve appear more dense. We use $`(s,r)=(2,3)`$ to illustrate the asymmetry of the distribution. The spectrum has a maximum close to $`\rho n`$. In this case $`\frac{2}{3}400270`$. It means that the majority of mass of the multifractal is concentrated in the $`k`$-sets around this value. The spectrum $`D_k`$ is typically asymmetric around its maximum. Only the case $`(s,r)=(1,1)`$ is symmetric and the asymmetry of $`D_k`$ increases as $`\frac{s}{s+r}1`$, which is related to the area distribution among the blocks as we shall see in the next chapter.

## IV 4- Numerical Simulations

In this chapter we focus our attention on the numerical results obtained from the algorithm exposed above. We are interested mainly in analyzing the percolating properties of $`Q_{mf}`$. Figure 4 (a) shows the histogram of percolating lattices versus the occupation probability $`p`$. The area under the histogram is normalized to unity. We use $`n=10`$ and average the results over $`40000`$ samples. We consider that a lattice percolates when it percolates from top to bottom or from left to right. The histogram of percolating lattices at both directions is similar but slightly shifted to the right. This shift is common in percolation (see the reference ziff  for percolation in the square lattice).

We show in figure 4 (a) the results of simulations for the following values of $`(s,r)`$: $`(1,1)`$, which degenerates into the square lattice; and $`(2,1)`$, $`(4,1)`$, $`(6,1)`$ which correspond to truly multifractals. In this figure the histograms corresponding to $`(2,1)`$, $`(4,1)`$ and $`(6,1)`$ are shifted to the left compared to the histogram of $`(1,1)`$. The peak of the histogram for $`(1,1)`$ corresponds, as expected, to the square lattice size percolation threshold, $`p_c=0.597`$, stauffer , since this case matches exactly the square lattice. The other values of $`p_c`$ are shown in Table $`I`$.

The reason why $`Q_{mf}`$, for diverse $`\rho `$, shows roughly the same $`p_c`$ comes from the topology of the multifractal. The topology of a set of blocks is related with the coordination number, $`c`$, which is defined as the number of neighbors of each block stauffer . $`Q_{mf}`$ has the property that $`c`$ changes along the object and with $`\rho `$. However, we compute the average coordination number $`c_{ave}`$. These results do not depend significantly on $`\rho `$, neither on $`n`$, the number of steps to build $`Q_{mf}`$, which determines the number of blocks. The value found, $`c_{ave}=5.436`$, for the multifractal is close to the value of $`c`$ of the triangular percolation problem which has $`c=6`$ and whose analytic percolation threshold is $`p_c=0.5`$. The situation $`(s,r)=(1,1)`$, the square lattice, shows trivially $`c=4`$. Because the square lattice has a different $`c`$ it configures a particular situation compared to other $`Q_{mf}`$ and it shows a different $`p_c`$ as depicted in figure 4 (a).

In table $`I`$ we show $`p_c`$ and the fractal dimension of the percolating cluster, $`d_f`$, for diverse $`\rho `$. We have done an average over $`100000`$ samples and $`n=16`$. The estimation of $`d_f`$ is done by the relation $`ML^{d_f}`$ for the ‘mass ’ ,$`M`$ , of the percolation cluster, that means, the area of the cluster measured in units of the underlying square lattice, and $`L`$, the size of the underlying lattice. Based on the values of $`d_f`$ of table $`I`$ we conclude that the percolation on a multifractal support (imbeded in two dimensions) belong to the same class of universality than the usual percolation in two-dimensions. The calculated value of $`d_f`$ for the $`(6,1)`$ case is smaller compared to the others because of finite size effects. We discuss in detail this effect in the following paragraphs.

Percolation shows critical phenomena and several scaling relations are observed. The critical exponent $`\beta `$ is defined from the equation:

$$R_L\left(p_c(L)p_c\right)^\beta ,$$
(7)
where $`p_c`$ is the exact occupation probability value in contrast to $`p_c(L)`$ which is the finite size value. The power-law (7) is verified for $`p_c(L)`$ obtained from $`R_L`$. The numerical estimation of $`\beta `$ is based in equation (7) where $`R_L`$ is a key element of the analysis. For $`Q_{mf}`$ the probability $`R_L`$ is not a well behaved function of $`p`$ for low $`L`$ as we shall see in the next paragraphs. Actually, $`R_L`$ can show, depending on $`\rho `$, an inflection point at $`p_c`$ in this regime. However, in the case where $`L\mathrm{}`$ the scaling of $`\left(p_c(L)p_c\right)`$ recovers an usual behavior. In this regime we find the same $`\beta `$ characteristic of two dimension case, $`\beta =\frac{5}{36}=0.13888`$. We checked in our simulations that for $`n=18`$, $`\beta `$ is around $`5\%`$ of the exact value. The full set of values of $`\beta `$ is in table $`I`$.

Table I

| $`(s,r)`$ | (1,1) | (2,1) | (3,1) | (3,2) | (4,1) | (5,1) | (6,1) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`p_c`$ | 0.593 | 0.527 | 0.526 | 0.526 | 0.525 | 0.525 | 0.530 |
| $`d_f`$ | 1.895 | 1.900 | 1.911 | 1.890 | 1.902 | 1.929 | 1.842 |
| $`\beta `$ | 0.127 | 0.128 | 0.140 | 0.141 | 0.141 | 0.118 | 0.109 |

It is worth to say that, despite small fluctuations in the values shown in the table, there is no tendency in the numbers. The conclusion we take from this data is that the errors are caused by finite size effects and low-number statistics.

The dispersion of the histogram changes significatively with $`(s,r)`$ as intuitively expected. To illustrate the changing in the width of the histogram of a generic $`(s,r)`$ multifractal we analyze the area of its blocks. At step $`n`$ of the construction of $`Q_{mf}`$ the largest element has the area $`\frac{s^n}{(s+r)^n}`$ and the smallest $`\frac{r^n}{(s+r)^n}`$ (using $`L^2`$ units). In this way the largest area ratio among blocks increases with $`(\frac{s}{r})^n`$. As the occupation probability, entering in the percolation algorithm, is in general proportional to the area of the blocks we expect that the width of the histograms in figure 4 (a) increases with $`(\frac{s}{r})^n`$. This increase in the dispersion is visualized clearly in the curves $`(2,1)`$ and $`(4,1)`$ of the figure.

The most singular curve in figure 4 (a) is $`(6,1)`$ which shows clearly two peaks. We stress this point when we comment figure 5. Figure 4 (b) uses the same data of figure (a), but instead of the histogram of percolating lattices we show the cumulative sum, $`R_L`$. As $`R_L`$ is normalized, this parameter is also called the fraction of percolating lattices. As in 4 (a) the case $`(s,r)=(1,1)`$, the square lattice, reproduces the results of literature ziff . In this situation the lattice size, $`L`$, is $`L=(s+r)^{10}=1024`$. For this special case the number of blocks is equal to the number of unit boxes covering the surface. The double peak case $`(s,r)=(6,1)`$ shows an inflection point in the graphic of $`R_L`$ versus $`p`$. In the following figure we explore in detail this point.

The most noticeable signature of percolation in the multifractal $`Q_{mf}`$ is the double peak observed for $`(s,r)=(6,1)`$ in figure 5. In this figure the histograms of percolating lattices versus $`p`$ is plotted for diverse $`n`$ as indicated in the figure. The distance between the peaks decreases as $`n`$ increases. This picture indicates that the double peak is a phenomenon that is relevant for percolation in the multifractal, when $`\rho `$ is low, in the finite lattice size condition used in the simulation. From an analytic point of view the curve $`(6,1)`$ in figure 5 is different from curve $`(1,1)`$. In curve $`(6,1)`$ there are three extrema points while in the $`(1,1)`$ case the curve shows a single maximum point. We conjecture that in the limit of $`n\mathrm{}`$ these three points coalesce into a single one and all the curves show a similar behavior.

The two peaks in the histogram come from the huge difference among the area of the blocks of $`Q_{mf}`$. For large $`(\frac{s}{r})^n`$ the area difference is so accentuated that we model the histogram of percolating lattices as a bimodal statistics. In the case of the largest block be chosen the multifractal easily percolates compared with the opposite possibility. To estimate the effect of the largest area block on the statistic we make Table $`II`$. The difference between the first peak at $`p_1`$ and the second one at $`p_2`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{max}`$. In Table $`II`$ we compare $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{max}`$ with the fraction of the largest block over the total square area $`(\frac{s}{s+r})^n`$. This comparison is made for different steps in the construction of the multifractal $`n`$, as $`n`$ increases the area difference decreases as well as the distance between peaks. Table $`II`$ shows a good agreement between both values, we conclude that the bimodal statistic is caused by the huge mass of the largest block.

Table II

| $`n`$ | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{max}`$ | $`0.29`$ | $`0.22`$ | $`0.15`$ | $`0.11`$ | $`0.070`$ | $`0.040`$ |
| $`(\frac{s}{s+r})^n`$ | $`0.291`$ | $`0.211`$ | $`0.157`$ | $`0.115`$ | $`0.084`$ | $`0.062`$ |

We notice, however, that the agreement between $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_{max}`$ and $`(\frac{s}{s+r})^n`$ decreases as $`n`$ increases. We interpret the disagreement between the bimodal statistics hypothesis and the numerics for high $`n`$ as the limit of the hypothesis. Actually, the largest block is not the only one that produces anisotropy in the multifractal, and as $`n`$ increases this fact becomes more accentuated. For small $`n`$ the large block can be taken as the main factor of anisotropy, and the bimodal statistics apply. Large $`n`$ implies, however, truly multifractals and a more complex statistics should be used to treat the problem.

## V 5- Conclusion

In this work we develop a multifractal object, $`Q_{mf}`$ to study percolation in a multifractal support. Besides of $`Q_{mf}`$ being a multifractal, it shows several interesting properties. The sum of all its fractal subsets fills a square and it is possible to determine the spectrum of its fractal dimensions. In addition, the algorithm that generates $`Q_{mf}`$ has only one free parameter $`\rho `$, and in the $`\rho =1`$ case $`Q_{mf}`$ becomes the square lattice.

We observe that percolation in a multifractal presents different features from percolation in a regular lattice. There are two reasons for that: the heterogeneous distribution of weight (area) among the blocks and the variation of the coordination number of the topologic structure. The weight of each block in a multifractal counts diversely in the mass of the infinite percolating cluster. The difference in weight of the blocks changes the dispersion of the histogram of percolating lattices. The phenomenon of two peaks appearing in the histogram is also connected with the weight difference. We model the distance between peaks using a bimodal statistics. In the limit of $`n\mathrm{}`$ all the histograms of multifractals seems to collapse into a single curve.

For all cases in which $`\rho 1`$ the multifractal $`Q_{mf}`$ shows a coordination number (number of neighbors of each block) that changes along the object. The average coordination number of $`Q_{mf}`$ is around $`5.436`$. In contrast, the situation $`(s,r)=(1,1)`$ (the square lattice particular case) has a coordination number constant and equal to $`4`$. This suggests that the case $`\rho 1`$ represents a break of the symmetry of the system. In this sense the coordination number (topology) is much more complex for $`Q_{mf}`$ than for a regular lattice. Despite these differences, we have done numerical estimations of the fractal dimension of the percolating cluster in the multifractal, obtaining values which are around $`1.89`$, the same dimension found for the incipient percolation cluster in a two-dimensional regular lattice. The numerical simulation of the $`\beta `$ critical exponent, also show the same value of two-dimensional regular case, and point to the same conclusion that we have regular percolation.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)-Brazil, FINEP and CTPETRO. We also thanks to D. M. Tavares for the helpeful comments.

FIGURE LEGENDS


text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

Let $`P`$ be a convex polyhedron in the hyperbolic space $`H^3`$.

###### Definition 1.

A polyhedron $`P`$ is called a Coxeter polyhedron if all dihedral angles of $`P`$ are integer parts of $`\pi `$.

###### Definition 2.

A polyhedron $`P`$ admits a Coxeter decomposition if $`P`$ can be tiled by finitely many Coxeter polyhedra such that any two tiles having a common face are symmetric with respect to this face.

In this paper we classify Coxeter decompositions of bounded convex pyramids and triangular prisms in the hyperbolic space $`IH^3`$.

### Basic definitions

If $`P`$ admits a Coxeter decomposition we also say that $`P`$ is a quasi-Coxeter polyhedron. The tiles in Definition 2 are called fundamental polyhedra and denoted by $`F`$. Clearly, any two fundamental polyhedra are congruent to each other. A plane $`\alpha `$ containing a face of a fundamental polyhedron is called a mirror if $`\alpha `$ contains no face of $`P`$.

In this paper any polyhedron is either a quasi-Coxeter polyhedron or a polyhedron bounded by the mirrors of some Coxeter decomposition. By the ”decomposition” we always mean a Coxeter decomposition.

###### Definition 3.

Given a Coxeter decomposition of a polyhedron $`P`$, a dihedral angle of $`P`$ formed up by facets $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is called fundamental if no mirror contains $`\alpha \beta `$. In this case the edge $`\alpha \beta `$ of $`P`$ is called fundamental too.
A vertex $`A`$ is called fundamental if no mirror contains $`A`$.

## 1 Fundamental polyhedron

Let $`P`$ be a bounded quasi-Coxeter polyhedron. From now on $`P`$ is either a bounded pyramid or a bounded triangular prism in $`IH^3`$.

Notation.
Denote by $`\alpha \beta `$ the intersection of the sets $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in the inner part of $`IH^3`$.
Let $`\alpha `$ be a face of a polyhedron, denote by $`\overline{\alpha }`$ a plane containing $`\alpha `$.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`F`$ be a Coxeter polyhedron.
Then either $`F`$ is a tetrahedron or $`F`$ has two faces $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ such that $`\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }=\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

For any polyhedron without obtuse angles we have

$$\alpha \beta =\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }=\mathrm{}$$

(see ). Any Coxeter polyhedron has no obtuse angles. Thus, it is enough to prove that $`F`$ has faces $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ such that $`\alpha \beta =\mathrm{}.`$

Suppose that $`\alpha \beta \mathrm{}`$ for any faces $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of $`F`$. Let $`A`$ be an arbitrary vertex of $`F`$. Let $`\alpha _1`$,…,$`\alpha _k`$ be all the faces of $`F`$ containing $`A`$. Let $`\beta `$ be any face of $`F`$ such that $`A\beta `$. By the assumption, $`\alpha _i\beta \mathrm{}i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Therefore, $`F`$ has no faces except $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta `$, i.e. $`F`$ is a pyramid.

Suppose that $`A`$ is not an ideal vertex of $`F`$. Then $`A`$ is incident exactly to three faces of $`F`$ and $`F`$ is a tetrahedron. Suppose that $`A`$ is an ideal vertex of $`F`$ and the pyramid $`F`$ is not a tetrahedron. Consider two faces (say, $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _3`$) having no common edges. Since $`AIH^3`$, we have $`\alpha _1\alpha _3=\mathrm{}`$.

###### Lemma 2.

If $`P`$ is a bounded pyramid, then $`F`$ is a tetrahedron.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`F`$ is not a tetrahedron. By Lemma 1, $`F`$ has two faces $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ such that $`\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`F_0`$ be a fundamental polyhedron in $`P`$; let $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\beta _0`$ be its disjoint faces. Consider a sequence of fundamental polyhedra $`F_iP`$, $`i𝐙`$, such that $`\alpha _i=\alpha _{i+1}`$, if $`i`$ is odd, and $`\beta _i=\beta _{i+1}`$, if $`i`$ is even (see Fig. 1).

The sequence is finite, since $`P`$ contains finitely many fundamental polyhedra. The polyhedra $`F_i`$ cannot make a cycle, since $`\alpha _i\beta _i=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`F_k`$ and $`F_s`$ be the endpoints of the sequence. Then $`\alpha _k`$ or $`\beta _k`$ belongs to some face $`\gamma `$ of $`P`$. Similarly, $`\alpha _s`$ or $`\beta _s`$ belongs to some face $`\delta `$ of $`P`$. Obviously, $`\overline{\alpha }_i\overline{\beta }_j=\mathrm{}`$ for any $`i,j`$. But $`\gamma `$ intersects $`\delta `$, since $`P`$ is a bounded pyramid. The contradiction shows that $`F`$ is a tetrahedron.

Remark. The idea of the proof of Lemma 2 belongs to O. V. Schwarzman.

Let $`\alpha `$ be a mirror in a Coxeter decomposition of the triangular prism $`P`$. Then $`\alpha `$ intersects $`P`$ as shown in one of Fig. 2.1–2.16.

###### Definition 4.

We say that a mirror is pentagonal if it intersects the prism as shown in Fig. 2.16.

###### Definition 5.

We say that a triangular quasi-Coxeter prism $`P`$ is minimal if any prism $`P^{}`$ inside $`P`$ is fundamental.

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`P`$ be a minimal prism and $`F`$ be a fundamental polyhedron. Suppose that $`F`$ is neither a tetrahedron nor a triangular prism. Then any mirror is pentagonal and any dihedral angle of $`P`$ is fundamental.

###### Proof.

Suppose that the decomposition contains a tetrahedron or a pyramid. Then by Lemma 2 $`F`$ is a tetrahedron. Hence, $`P`$ contains neither pyramid nor tetrahedron. Since $`P`$ is minimal, $`P`$ contains no smaller triangular prisms. Therefore, any mirror is pentagonal (see Fig. 2). Clearly, all dihedral angles of $`P`$ are fundamental.

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`P`$ be a triangular prism. Then $`F`$ is either a tetrahedron or a triangular prism.

###### Proof.

It is sufficient to prove the lemma for a minimal prism $`P`$. Suppose that $`F`$ is neither a tetrahedron nor a triangular prism. Then by Lemma 3 any mirror is pentagonal and any dihedral angle of $`P`$ is fundamental.

Let $`ABCDE`$ be any pentagonal mirror (see Fig. 3). This mirror separates the points $`M_1`$, $`N_1`$, $`N_3`$ from the points $`M_2`$, $`M_3`$, $`N_2`$.

We say that a polyhedron $`W`$ is good if it contains the points $`M_2`$, $`M_3`$, $`N_2`$ and if it can be cut out of $`P`$ by a single pentagonal mirror. Let $`W`$ be a minimal good polyhedron (i.e. no polyhedron inside $`W`$ is good). The minimal polyhedron exists, since the decomposition contains finitely many mirrors. Suppose that $`W`$ has vertices $`M_2M_3N_2ABCDE`$ (see Fig. 3).

Suppose that $`W`$ has a non-fundamental dihedral angle $`\alpha `$. By Lemma 3 $`\alpha `$ is an angle formed up by $`ABCDE`$ and some face of $`P`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be a mirror decomposing the angle $`\alpha `$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ does not separate the points $`M_1`$, $`N_1`$ and $`N_3`$ one from another. Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is pentagonal, it separates all the points above from the points $`M_2`$, $`M_3`$, $`N_2`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ cuts out of $`P`$ a good polyhedron contained in $`W`$. This contradicts to the minimal property of $`W`$.

Thus, any dihedral angle of $`W`$ is fundamental, and $`W`$ is a Coxeter polyhedron. The prolongations of two disjoint faces cannot intersect each other (see ). This property is broken in the polyhedron $`W`$ (consider the faces $`AEN_2`$ and $`CDM_3`$ which prolongations have a common line $`N_1N_3`$). The contradiction shows that $`F`$ is either a tetrahedron or a triangular prism.

## 2 Decompositions of pyramids.

This section describes the way to classify all Coxeter decompositions of bounded hyperbolic pyramids.

Suppose that a pyramid $`P`$ has only five vertices $`OA_1A_2A_3A_4`$ (where $`A_1A_2A_3A_4`$ is a base of $`P`$ and $`O`$ is an apex). By Lemma 2 $`F`$ is a tetrahedron. Suppose that any edge $`OA_i`$ is fundamental. Consider a small sphere $`s`$ centered in $`O`$. The intersection $`sP`$ is a spherical quadrilateral $`q`$. Any angle of $`q`$ is fundamental. This contradicts to the fact that the sum of the angles of a spherical quadrilateral should be greater than $`2\pi `$.

Hence, we can assume that there is a mirror $`m`$ through $`OA_1`$. This mirror decomposes the pyramid into two smaller pyramids. One of the smaller pyramids is a tetrahedron and another is either a tetrahedron or a small quadrilateral pyramid. Thus, any minimal quadrilateral pyramid consists of two tetrahedra (not necessary fundamental). The Coxeter decompositions of hyperbolic tetrahedra are classified in . Therefore, we can find all decompositions of minimal quadrilateral pyramids. Using the decompositions of minimal pyramids we can find the decompositions of greater pyramids too. So, using this algorithm, it is possible to find all decompositions of quadrilateral pyramids.

Analogously, it is possible to classify the decompositions of pyramids with bigger number of vertices. Any pyramid $`OA_1\mathrm{}A_n`$ has a decomposed edge $`OA_i`$. So, the pyramid is decomposed into two smaller pyramids which possible decompositions we should enumerate at the previous steps.

This procedure realized by a computer leads to a large list of quadrilateral quasi-Coxeter pyramids, several pentagonal quasi-Coxeter pyramids, and exactly one hexagonal quasi-Coxeter pyramid. See Table 2 for the result.

## 3  Decompositions of prisms into prisms

In this section both $`P`$ and $`F`$ are triangular prisms. For any prism we say that a triangular face is a base and a quadrilateral face is a side.

###### Lemma 5.

No base of $`F`$ belongs to a side of $`P`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that a side $`s`$ of $`P`$ contains a base of a fundamental prism $`F_1`$. Consider a sequence of fundamental prisms $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$,…,$`F_n`$,…, such that $`F_iP`$, and $`F_i`$ and $`F_{i+1}`$ have a common base. This chain is finite, since $`P`$ contains finitely many fundamental prisms. The prolongations of the bases of $`F_1`$ have no common points, since $`F_1`$ is a Coxeter prism. So, the prolongations of the bases of two different prisms $`F_i`$ have no common points. Therefore, the prisms $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$,…,$`F_n`$, cannot make a cycle and the sequence has an endpoint $`F_n`$. One of the bases of $`F_n`$ belongs to some face $`b`$ of $`P`$ (otherwise the sequence has a prolongation). The face $`s`$ cannot intersect the face $`b`$, since these faces are prolongations of the bases of $`F_i`$. This contradicts to the fact that the side $`s`$ intersects each face of $`P`$.

###### Lemma 6.

No side of $`F`$ belongs to a base of $`P`$.

###### Proof.

Denote by $`b`$ and $`s`$ the bases of $`P`$. Suppose that a side $`a_0`$ of a fundamental prism $`F_0`$ belongs to $`b`$. Consider a sequence of fundamental prisms $`F_k`$,…,$`F_0`$,…$`F_l`$, $`F_iP`$, such that $`F_i`$ and $`F_{i+1}`$ have a common base. The sequence is finite, and the prisms $`F_i`$ cannot make a cycle. Let $`a_k`$ and $`b_l`$ be the bases of the endpoints $`F_k`$ and $`F_l`$. By Lemma 5 the bases $`a_k`$ and $`b_l`$ belong to two different bases of $`P`$. If $`a_k`$ belongs to the base $`s`$ then the prolongations of $`a_k`$ and $`a_0`$ have a common point (see Fig. 4). This is impossible, since the prolongations of the bases have no common points.

###### Lemma 7.

Let $`b`$ be a base of $`P`$, $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ be the bases of $`F`$. Suppose that $`b`$ is non-fundamental. Then the tiling of $`b`$ by the faces of $`F`$ is a Coxeter decomposition. A fundamental polyhedron of this decomposition is a triangle $`b_1`$ or $`b_2`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 6 any tile is a triangle. The adjacent tiles of the tiling are the faces of $`F`$ having a common edge. Thus, if one of the tiles is a base $`b_1`$ then the other tiles are the copies of this base. Clearly, this tiling is a Coxeter decomposition.

By Lemma 5 any side $`s`$ of $`P`$ is tiled by the sides of $`F`$. This tiling is not necessary a Coxeter decomposition, but Lemma 8 and 9 show that this tiling is very simple.

###### Lemma 8.

Let $`s`$ be a side of $`P`$. Then the tiling of $`s`$ is a ”lattice” (see Fig. 5a), i.e. the tiling has the following properties:
iii (1) any vertex of the face $`s`$ belongs to a unique tile;
iii (2) any point of any edge of the quadrilateral $`s`$ belongs to either one or two tiles.
iii (3) any point in the inner part of $`s`$ belongs to one, two or four tiles.

###### Proof.

We say that an edge $`AB`$ of a tile is horizontal  if $`AB`$ belongs to a base of a fundamental prism; otherwise we say that $`AB`$ is vertical. Let $`ABCD`$ be any tile which vertical edges are $`AB`$ and $`CD`$. Consider a sequence of tiles such that this sequence contains $`ABCD`$, and any two neighboring tiles have a common horizontal edge. We say that this sequence is vertical. By the same way construct a horizontal sequence where the neighboring tiles have a common vertical edge. Evidently, the vertical sequence ends at two different horizontal edges of $`s`$ and the horizontal sequence ends at two different vertical edges. Let us show that this condition is broken if the lemma is false.

1). Let $`A`$ be a vertex of the face $`s`$. Suppose that $`A`$ belongs to more then one tile (see Fig. 5b). Consider a vertical sequence through the tile $`ABCD`$. No pair of tiles from this sequence can be separated from each other by the line $`AB`$. Therefore, this sequence cannot reach the horizontal edge $`AE`$, and (1) is proved.

2). Let $`A`$ be an inner point of a horizontal edge $`MN`$. Suppose that $`A`$ belongs to more then two tiles. Then one of these tiles has no edges in $`MN`$ (see Fig. 5c). At least two lines through $`A`$ are vertical edges of some tiles. Consider a vertical sequence through the tile $`ABCD`$. It is evident that the angle $`\mathrm{}BAE`$ contains any tile from this sequence. Thus, the sequence cannot reach the horizontal edge $`MN`$.

The same reasoning works for the points on the vertical edges, and (2) is proved.

3). Let $`A`$ be an inner point of the tile $`s`$. Clearly, $`A`$ cannot be incident to exactly three tiles. Suppose that $`A`$ is a vertex of five or more tiles.

Let $`a_1`$ be any tile and $`a_1`$,…,$`a_k`$ be an upper part of the vertical sequence containing $`a_1`$ (i.e. $`a_k`$ is the upper endpoint of the sequence). We say that $`a_1`$ is a tile of the level $`k`$. We say that a point $`A`$ is a point of the level $`k`$, if $`A`$ belongs to a tile of the level $`k`$. If $`A`$ belongs to several tiles, we define the level of $`A`$ as a maximum.

The part 2) of this proof establishes the lemma for the points of level 0. The same reasoning shows that if the lemma is true for the tiles of the level $`k`$ then it is true for the tiles of the level $`k+1`$. Therefore, the lemma is true for a tile of any level.

###### Lemma 9.

Any side of $`P`$ is tiled as shown in Fig. 6.

###### Proof.

Let $`s`$ be a side of $`P`$ and $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$, $`b_3`$ be the sides of $`F`$. Since $`F`$ is a Coxeter polyhedron, no angle of $`b_i`$ is obtuse. Therefore, any horizontal line is perpendicular to any vertical line (where the word ”line” means an intersection of $`s`$ with some mirror). By the same reason the lines are perpendicular to the edges of $`s`$. At most one line may be perpendicular to the pair of opposite edges of a quadrilateral in $`IH^2`$. Thus, there is at most one vertical line and at most one horizontal line.

###### Lemma 10.

The bases of $`P`$ are tiled as shown in Fig. 7.

###### Proof.

Let $`s`$ be a base of $`P`$. By Lemma 7 $`s`$ is either fundamental or a quasi-Coxeter. The Coxeter decompositions of triangles are classified in . By Lemma 9 no edge of the triangle $`s`$ may be decomposed into more than two parts. The decompositions satisfying this condition are listed in Fig. 7.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`P`$ be a quasi-Coxeter triangular prism such that $`F`$ is a triangular prism. Then the decomposition is one of the decompositions listed in Table 1.

###### Proof.

It follows from Lemma 8 that two bases of $`P`$ are decomposed in the same way. By Lemma 10 there are five possibilities for decompositions of bases. Consider two cases.

1). Suppose that the bases are fundamental. Then the sides are either fundamental or decomposed like in Fig. 6(c). Obviously all the sides of $`P`$ are decomposed in the same way. This leads to the decomposition shown in the upper part of Table 1 (since any mirror intersects a boundary of $`P`$, there cannot be another decomposition).

2). Suppose that the bases are decomposed. Each decomposition of the base corresponds to two possible decompositions of the sides (with the horizontal line or without). Thus, each decomposition of the base corresponds to two decompositions of $`P`$. Some of the dihedral angles of $`F`$ are uniquely determined by the combinatorial structure of the decomposition. We need only to check that the rest dihedral angles of $`F`$ can be prescribed in such a way that the dihedral angles satisfies the condition of Andreev’s theorem(see ). If the bases are decomposed as in Fig. 7(a) or 7(c), then it is possible to satisfy the Andreev’s theorem. Otherwise, it is impossible.

## 4  Decompositions of prisms into tetrahedra

In this section $`P`$ is a triangular prism and $`F`$ is a tetrahedron.

Any face of $`P`$ is obviously tiled by triangles, but in most cases this tiling is not a Coxeter decomposition. At first, we derive some information about tilings of bases.

###### Definition 6.

Let $`ABCD`$ be a fundamental tetrahedron. An edge $`AB`$ is called $`k`$-edge if the dihedral angle formed by $`ABC`$ and $`ABD`$ equals $`\frac{\pi }{k}`$.

###### Lemma 11.

Let $`p`$ be a base of $`P`$. If any flat angle of $`p`$ is fundamental then the tiling of $`p`$ consists of a unique triangle. If $`p`$ has a flat angle decomposed into three parts then $`p`$ is bounded by 2-edge, 3-edge and 5-edge.

###### Proof.

Let $`f`$ be a face of $`F`$ and $`\overline{f}`$ be a plane containing $`f`$. Obviously, $`\overline{f}`$ is tiled by triangles congruent to the faces of $`F`$. To find this tiling consider a face $`f`$ and the adjacent to $`f`$ triangles $`f_1`$, $`f_2`$ and $`f_3`$ at the plane $`\overline{f}`$. These triangles $`f_i`$ are congruent either to $`f`$ or to the other faces of $`F`$ (we obtain the same face if the dihedral angle is equal to $`\frac{\pi }{k}`$, where $`k`$ is even, otherwise we obtain another face). Adding face by face we can prolong the tiling. The only problem is how many triangles are incident to a fixed vertex.

To solve this problem suppose that $`A`$ is a vertex of $`F`$ incident to $`k`$-edge, $`l`$-edge and $`m`$-edge. Suppose that $`\overline{f}`$ contains $`A`$. Then a decomposition of a small three-dimensional spherical neighborhood of $`A`$ is similar to a Coxeter decomposition of a sphere with fundamental triangle ($`\frac{\pi }{k},\frac{\pi }{l},\frac{\pi }{m}`$). An intersection of the neighborhood with $`\overline{f}`$ corresponds to a spherical line in the decomposition of the sphere. So, to find how many rays starting from $`A`$ belong to $`\overline{f}`$, it is sufficient to count a number of vertices incident to a corresponding spherical line.

Thus, for any face of any Coxeter tetrahedron we can find a tiling of the corresponding plane. In these tilings any triangle with fundamental angles is a face of $`F`$. This proves the first part of the lemma. A triangle with an angle decomposed into three parts was found in one of these tilings only. This triangle is bounded by 2-edge, 3-edge and 5-edge and tiled as shown in Fig. 8.

###### Lemma 12.

Let $`A`$ be a non-fundamental vertex of $`P`$. Then there exists a non-fundamental edge incident to $`A`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that any edge incident to $`A`$ is fundamental (i.e. three dihedral angles incident to $`A`$ are fundamental). Consider a small sphere $`s`$ centered in $`A`$. The decomposition of $`P`$ restricted to $`s`$ is a Coxeter decomposition of a spherical triangle $`p=sP`$. Evidently, any angle of $`p`$ is fundamental. It is easy to check that in this condition $`p`$ is decomposed as shown in Fig. 9(a). Any angle of $`p`$ is a right angle.

Thus the neighborhood of $`A`$ is decomposed as shown in Fig. 9(b). Any edge of $`P`$ incident to $`A`$ is a 2-edge. Consider a base $`ABC`$ of the prism $`P`$. The angle $`A`$ of this triangle is decomposed into three parts by the lines $`AN`$ and $`AM`$. It follows from Lemma 11 that the sides of $`ABC`$ should be 2-edge, 3-edge and 5-edge. This contradicts to the fact that $`AB`$ and $`AC`$ are 2-edges.

###### Lemma 13.

Let $`P`$ be a triangular prism admitting a Coxeter decomposition into tetrahedra. Then $`P`$ has a non-fundamental dihedral angle.

###### Proof.

Suppose that any dihedral angle of $`P`$ is fundamental. Then by Lemma 12 any vertex of $`P`$ is fundamental. By Lemma 11 any base of $`P`$ is congruent to a single face of $`F`$. Consider a fundamental tetrahedron $`F_0`$ containing a base $`\alpha `$. Since any dihedral angle of $`P`$ is fundamental, the sides of $`P`$ are the faces of $`F_0`$. This is impossible.

### How to find all decompositions of prisms into tetrahedra

We have already proved that any prism with tetrahedral fundamental polyhedron has a non-fundamental dihedral angle. It follows from Fig. 2(1)–(4) that any prism consists of the tetrahedra, the smaller prisms and the quadrilateral pyramid. If we know the decompositions of the smaller parts we can find the decomposition of the whole prism.

Recall that a prism $`P`$ is called minimal if $`P`$ is non-fundamental and any prism inside $`P`$ is fundamental.

###### Definition 7.

We say that a minimal prism is a prism of level 0. A non-fundamental prism $`P`$ is a prism of level $`k+1`$ if $`P`$ contains a prism of level $`k`$ but any prism inside $`P`$ contains no prism of level $`k`$.

At first, we classify decompositions of minimal prisms. Evidently, a minimal prism contains no mirrors shown in Fig. 2(2)–2(4). Thus, it contains a mirror shown in Fig. 2(1). Let this mirror be $`A_1B_2B_3`$ in Fig. 10. Then $`A_1`$ is a non-fundamental vertex, and by Lemma 12 there is a mirror containing an edge ended in $`A_1`$. This edge cannot be $`A_1B_1`$, since the prism is minimal. Hence, one of the edges $`A_1A_2`$ and $`A_1A_3`$ (say, $`A_1A_2`$) is non-fundamental. Therefore, the prism is decomposed into three tetrahedra. Decompositions of tetrahedra are classified in . Thus, we can classify decompositions of minimal prisms.

Suppose that we know the classification of decompositions for the prisms of the levels smaller than $`k+1`$. Now we can show how to find a classification for the prisms of the level $`k+1`$. Suppose that $`P`$ has a dihedral angle decomposed as shown in Fig. 2(2)–2(4). By the definition, any prismatic part is a prism of the level smaller than $`k+1`$. Thus, we know the list of possible decompositions of prismatic parts. Decompositions of tetrahedral parts are known too. Therefore, we can classify all possible decompositions of $`P`$. Suppose now that $`P`$ has no mirrors shown in Fig. 2(2)–2(4). Then $`P`$ has a mirror shown in Fig. 2(1). Moreover, there are two mirrors of this type decomposing $`P`$ into three tetrahedra (we use Lemma 12 again). Combining the decompositions of these tetrahedra we can find all possible decompositions of $`P`$.

Thus, we have an algorithm leading to the classification of decompositions for the prisms which level is smaller than any fixed number. In fact, there is no prism of level eight; hence, there cannot be prism of greater level. Therefore, this algorithm classifies all decompositions of bounded triangular prisms. See Table 2 for the classification.

## Tables

Table 1 contains all decompositions of bounded triangular prisms which fundamental polyhedron is a triangular prism. Table 2 contains the list of decompositions of convex bounded pyramids and triangular prisms which fundamental polyhedron is a tetrahedron. Here we describe the structure of Table 2.

* Horizontal lines separate polyhedra with different fundamental tetrahedra. For any fundamental tetrahedron the table contains three columns. The left column contains the list of decompositions of bounded tetrahedra (the tetrahedron number 0 is the fundamental one). The right column lists decompositions of bounded triangular prisms. The column at the middle contains bounded pyramids. At first we list quadrilateral pyramids which can be combined from two (possibly non-fundamental) tetrahedra. Then, after a dotted line, we list the rest quadrilateral pyramids. After a new dotted line we list pentagonal pyramids and at last we list hexagonal pyramids. (There is no Coxeter decomposition of heptagonal pyramid).

The polyhedra and their decompositions are represented in Table 2 as it is described below.

* A tetrahedron with dihedral angles $`\frac{k_i\pi }{q_i}`$ $`i=1`$,…,6 is represented by the following diagram: the nodes of the diagram correspond to the faces of the tetrahedron, two nodes are connected by a $`q`$-fold edge decomposed into $`k`$ parts if the corresponding faces form up a dihedral angle $`\frac{k\pi }{q}`$.
The numerator $`k_i`$ is a number of parts in the dihedral angle (for example, a fraction $`\frac{2}{4}`$ denotes a right angle decomposed into two parts). The faces of the tetrahedron are numbered by the following way: the nodes of the diagram have the numbers 0,1,2,3 from the left to the right. (The numeration will be used below).
* A quadrilateral pyramid $`OA_1A_2A_3A_4`$ with the base $`A_1A_2A_3A_4`$ is represented by eight dihedral angles

$$(\widehat{A_1A_2},\widehat{A_2A_3},\widehat{A_3A_4},\widehat{A_4A_1};\widehat{OA_1},\widehat{OA_2},\widehat{OA_3},\widehat{OA_4}).$$

The dihedral angles are the rational fractions, where the numerator $`q`$ means that the corresponding dihedral angle is decomposed into $`q`$ parts (we always omit a multiple $`\pi `$). A triangular face $`OA_iA_{i+1}`$ has a number $`i`$.
* By the same way we represent pentagonal and hexagonal pyramids (we use ten and twelve angles correspondingly).
* A triangular prism $`A_1A_2A_3B_1B_2B_3`$ (where $`A_1A_2A_3`$ and $`B_1B_2B_3`$ are the bases) is represented by nine dihedral angles

$$(\widehat{A_3B_3},\widehat{A_1B_1},\widehat{A_2B_2};\widehat{A_1A_2};\widehat{A_2A_3},\widehat{A_3A_1};\widehat{B_1B_2},\widehat{B_2B_3},\widehat{B_3B_1}).$$

The dihedral angles are the rational fractions, where the numerator is a number of parts in the dihedral angle and the multiple $`\pi `$ is omitted. The faces are numbered in the following way: $`A_1A_2A_3`$ has number 0, $`B_1B_2B_3`$ has number 1, nd $`A_iA_{i+1}B_{i+1}B_i`$ has number $`i+1`$.
* Any decomposition which is a superposition of some other decompositions is labeled by a star.

Remark. In this notation each pyramid or triangular prism can be written by several ways (for instance, the order of angles changes while we rotate the polyhedron). To unify the notation we choose a record which stands first in the alphabetical order.

* For any polyhedron except fundamental tetrahedra we need some way to reconstruct the decomposition. For this aim we put some numbers under the diagram of the polyhedron. These seven numbers (denoted by $`t`$,$`k`$,$`l`$ and $`m`$,$`n`$,$`p`$,$`q`$) show the following:
$`t`$ is a number of the polyhedron (for any fundamental tetrahedron we start a new numeration),
$`k`$ is a number of fundamental tetrahedra in the decomposition,
$`l`$ is a number of gluings used to obtain this decomposition (if the decomposition was obtained by a gluing of two polyhedra with $`l=l_1`$ and $`l=l_2`$ then $`l=1+\mathrm{max}\{l_1,l_2\}`$),
$`m`$ and $`n`$ are the numbers of the polyhedra which should be glued together to obtain the decomposition.
$`p`$ and $`q`$ are the numbers of the glued faces of the polyhedra $`m`$ and $`n`$ respectively,
The numbers $`m`$ and $`n`$ are accompanied by the labels: we write ”tet”, ”pyr” or ”pri” to show that a corresponding polyhedron is a tetrahedron, a quadrilateral pyramid or a triangular prism. (Any tetrahedron admitting a Coxeter decomposition consists of two smaller tetrahedra, so we omit the label ”tet” in the left column.)

Table 2. Coxeter decompositions of pyramids and prisms

which fundamental polyhedron is a tetrahedron

| tetrahedra | pyramids | triangular prisms |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |
|  |  |  |
|  |  |  |

| tetrahedra | pyramids | triangular prisms |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |
|  |  |  |
|  |  |  |

| tetrahedra | pyramids | triangular prisms |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |

| tetrahedra | pyramids | triangular prisms |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |

| tetrahedra | pyramids | triangular prisms |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |

| tetrahedra | pyramids | triangular prisms |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |

| tetrahedra | pyramids | triangular prisms |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |
|  |  |  |


text:
# Untitled Document

Comment on ”Quasideterministic Generation of Entangled Atoms in a Cavity ” This paper has been withdrawn by the author(s), due a crucial sign error in conclusion .


text:
# Dilatometry study of the ferromagnetic order in single-crystalline URhGe

## I Introduction

Recently, the intermetallic compound URhGe has attracted much attention because superconductivity ($`T_c`$ = 0.25 K) was found to coexist with ferromagnetism (Curie temperature $`T_C`$ = 9.5 K). Aoki et al. (2001) The surprising discovery of superconductivity at ambient pressure in this itinerant ferromagnet was preceded by the discovery of (pressure-induced) superconductivity in the itinerant ferromagnets UGe2 Saxena et al. (2000) and ZrZn2. Pfleiderer et al. (2001) Until these discoveries, it was generally believed that ferromagnetic order excludes superconductivity. This is nicely demonstrated by experiments on systems like ErRh4B4 Fertig et al. (1977); Moncton et al. (1980) and HoMo6S8, Ishikawa and Fischer (1977) where standard BCS singlet-type superconductivity is suppressed when ferromagnetic order sets in. The most likely explanation for the appearance of superconductivity in these weak itinerant ferromagnets is that the superconducting state is mediated by ferromagnetic spin fluctuations, giving rise to Cooper pairs with parallel spins ($`S=1`$). Karchev et al. (2001); Machida and Ohmi (2001); Kirkpatrick et al. (2001); Suhl (2001) This type of pairing is relatively insensitive to a local magnetic field and can therefore coexist with ferromagnetic order. The pressure-dependent experiments on UGe2 and ZrZn2 suggest that in these systems superconductivity emerges near a ferromagnetic quantum critical point, i.e. when the ferromagnetic transition temperature is tuned to $`T_C=0`$. At the quantum critical point the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations are strongly enhanced. One may therefore expect that ferromagnetic order in URhGe is also very sensitive to pressure.

URhGe crystallizes in the orthorhombic TiNiSi-type structure (space group $`P_{nma}`$). Sechovsky and Havela (1998) The unit cell, with dimensions $`a=6.87`$ Å, $`b=4.33`$ Å, and $`c=7.51`$ Å, contains 4 formula units. Neutron-diffraction experiments on single-crystalline URhGe Prokes et al. (2002) revealed a collinear ferromagnetic order below $`T_C`$ = 9.6 K with ordered U moments of 0.35 $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ confined to the $`bc`$ plane. No component of the ordered moment was observed along the $`a`$ axis, which acts as the hard magnetic direction for the magnetization. In addition to the neutron-diffraction experiments, the ferromagnetic order in single-crystalline URhGe was studied by specific-heat, magnetization, and electrical resistivity, Prokes et al. (2002); Hagmusa et al. (2000) which showed a sizeable influence of applied magnetic fields on the ferromagnetic order and on the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations in the $`bc`$ plane. In the low-temperature limit, the specific heat is characterized by the electronic contribution of the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations with a moderately enhanced linear term of $`\gamma =164`$ mJ/molK2. The magnetic properties of single-crystalline URhGe are in good agreement with the results from earlier measurements on polycrystalline and powder samples, Tran and Troc (1998); Tran et al. (1998); de Boer et al. (1990); Buschow et al. (1990); Chevalier et al. (1990); Troc and Tran (1988) which have been reviewed by Sechovsky and Havela. Sechovsky and Havela (1998) Recently, band-structure calculations were performed by Divis and co-workers Shick (2002) and Shick Divis (2002) to study the origin of the magnetic order in URhGe. These calculations suggest a substantial hybridization between the U-$`5f`$ and Rh-$`4d`$ states and a relatively small Uranium magnetic moment of 0.3 $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ due to a partial cancellation of the spin and orbital components. The calculated moments are in good agreement with the measured values.

In this paper we report thermal expansion measurements of single-crystalline URhGe in the temperature range from $`T`$ = 2 to 200 K. Our principal aim was to determine the pressure dependence of the ferromagnetic transition temperature $`T_C`$. For a second-order phase transition, the uniaxial pressure dependence of $`T_C`$ (at ambient pressure) can be determined with the Ehrenfest relation from the anomalies in the linear coefficient of thermal expansion and the specific heat. The initial pressure dependence may give an estimate of the critical pressure needed to suppress the ferromagnetic order and reach the quantum critical point at $`T_C`$ = 0. In addition, we have determined the electronic Grüneisen parameter, which characterizes the volume dependence of the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations at low temperatures.

## II Experimental

The dilatometry experiments were performed on a single-crystalline URhGe sample with dimensions $`a\times b\times c=2.4\times 5.0\times 2.4`$ mm3. The sample was cut from the material used in earlier specific-heat measurements performed by Hagmusa and co-workers. Hagmusa et al. (2000) The crystal has been grown from a stoichiometric melt of at least 99.95 % pure materials by means of a modified tetra-arc Czochralski technique in a continuous gettered Ar atmosphere. No subsequent heat treatment was given to the crystal. Due to the relatively high residual resistivity at low temperatures no superconductivity was observed in this particular crystal. Prokes et al. (2002) The coefficient of linear thermal expansion $`\alpha (T)=(1/L)(dL/dT)`$ was measured using a sensitive parallel-plate capacitance dilatometer de Visser (1986) along the orthorhombic $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ axis of the crystal. From these measurements the volume expansion $`\alpha _v=\alpha _a+\alpha _b+\alpha _c`$ was determined.

## III Results

In Fig. 1

the coefficient of linear thermal expansion $`\alpha `$ along the $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ axis of single-crystalline URhGe is shown as a function of temperature in the range from $`T`$ = 2 to 200 K. The temperature dependence of the volume expansion $`\alpha _v=\alpha _a+\alpha _b+\alpha _c`$ is shown for comparison (notice the figure shows $`\alpha _v/3`$). At high temperatures the thermal expansion is governed by the phonon contribution for all three orientations. Around a temperature of 25 K a remarkable crossing of the curves for the thermal expansion along the $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ axis is observed. This crossing is a clear sign for the development of an additional contribution from ferromagnetic spin fluctuations at low temperatures. It is interesting to note that this additional contribution from ferromagnetic spin fluctuations mainly affects the anisotropy of the thermal expansion in the $`bc`$ plane, which acts as the easy plane for the magnetization. At $`T_C`$ = 9.7 K the ferromagnetic order sets in and a peak in the coefficient of linear thermal expansion is observed for all three directions.

The low-temperature behavior of the coefficients of linear thermal expansion along the $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ axis is shown in more detail in Fig. 2.

The observed steps in the coefficients of linear thermal expansion have the same sign but different sizes for the three orthorhombic axes of single-crystalline URhGe. The values of the steps are listed in Table 1.

In Fig. 3 the low-temperature volume expansion divided by temperature $`\alpha _v/T`$ is shown as a function of temperature and compared with the specific heat divided by temperature, $`c/T`$, measured on a sample prepared from the same single-crystalline batch. Hagmusa et al. (2000)

## IV Discussion

The temperature dependence of the thermal expansion at high temperatures is governed by the phonon contribution and closely resembles a Debye curve. The estimated Debye temperature of $`\theta _D200`$ K is in good agreement with the specific heat data. Prokes et al. (2002); Hagmusa et al. (2000) At low temperatures the Debye curve for the phonon contribution is expected to show a $`T^3`$ temperature dependence. Below $`T=30`$ K the thermal expansion along the $`a`$ axis shows a clear deviation of this behavior, which is even more pronounced along the $`b`$ axis. This deviation indicates the development of an additional contribution due to ferromagnetic spin fluctuations. This additional contribution was also observed in the specific heat measurements and described in terms of an enhanced electronic contribution. Prokes et al. (2002) In the ferromagnetically ordered state below $`T_C=9.7`$ K the temperature dependence of the volume expansion closely resembles that of the specific heat, as shown in Fig. 3. In line with the analysis of the specific heat measurements Prokes et al. (2002) three different contributions to the thermal expansion can be identified in the ferromagnetically ordered state, namely contributions due to phonons, ferromagnetic spin waves, and ferromagnetic spin fluctuations. As discussed, the phonon contribution shows a $`T^3`$ power-law behavior at low temperatures. The ferromagnetic spin-wave contribution is expected to obey a $`T^{3/2}`$ power-law behavior, while the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations lead to an enhanced linear term at low temperatures. Both the phonon and spin-wave contributions to the volume expansion divided by temperature $`\alpha _v/T`$ (and the specific heat divided by temperature $`c/T`$) vanish at low temperatures and, as a consequence, the extrapolated value of $`\alpha _v/T=5.8(2)\times 10^7K^2`$ at $`T=0`$ is solely due to the contribution of the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations. As expected for an itinerant ferromagnetic system, no indications of a crystal field contribution were observed in the temperature dependence of the coefficients of linear thermal expansion.

In order to determine the uniaxial and hydrostatic pressure dependence of the ferromagnetic transition temperature we have applied the Ehrenfest relation. For a second order phase transition, the uniaxial pressure dependence of the transition temperature is directly related to the step anomalies in the coefficient of linear thermal expansion and the specific heat by the Ehrenfest relation:

$$\frac{dT_C}{dp_i}=\frac{V_m\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(c/T\right)},$$
(1)
where the index $`i`$ refers to the orthorhombic axis, $`V_m=3.36\times 10^5`$ m3/mol is the molar volume and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(c/T\right)`$ = 0.22(1) J/molK2 is the anomaly in the specific heat divided by temperature. Prokes et al. (2002) By applying this relation to the experimental step anomalies in the coefficients of linear thermal expansion, the uniaxial pressure dependence of $`T_C`$ along the $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ axis is obtained. The calculated values are listed in Table 1. The hydrostatic pressure dependence of $`T_C`$ can be obtained by inserting the volume expansion for the coefficient of linear expansion in Eq. (1), or by summing the three contributions of the uniaxial pressure dependence. The different pressure dependencies of $`T_C`$ as listed in Table 1 are all positive. This strongly suggests that the ferromagnetic order cannot be suppressed by moderate mechanical hydrostatic or uniaxial pressures, like in the case of UGe2 and ZrZn2. Instead a negative uniaxial pressure is needed to suppress $`T_C`$ for all crystallographic directions. Using a simple linear extrapolation of the initial pressure dependence calculated from the Ehrenfest relation, we arrive at a negative critical hydrostatic pressure of $`p_{cr}80`$ kbar. It is important to note that this value should be regarded as an upper bound for the negative critical pressure as the pressure dependence of $`T_C`$ is expected to show significant non-linear corrections to the initial pressure dependence at ambient pressure. A negative critical pressure of the order of $`p_{cr}80`$ kbar might be achieved by suitable chemical substitutions.

In order to characterize the volume dependence of the electron correlations we have calculated the effective Grüneisen parameter of URhGe. The effective Grüneisen parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is calculated from the temperature-dependent volume expansion $`\alpha _v(T)`$ and specific heat $`c(T)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}(T)=\frac{V_m\alpha _v(T)}{\kappa c(T)}$$
(2)
where $`\kappa `$ = -(1/$`V`$)($`dV/dp`$) is the isothermal compressibility. As the compressibility of URhGe is unknown we will use an estimated value $`\kappa =0.8`$ Mbar-1. Experimental values for the compressibility of other UTX compounds vary from $`\kappa =0.6`$ to $`1.0`$ Mbar-1. Havela et al. (2001)

In Fig. 3

the effective Grüneisen parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, calculated from the experimental volume expansion and the reported specific heat Hagmusa et al. (2000), is shown as a function of temperature. At high temperatures the effective Grüneisen parameter shows a small constant value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ph}}=2`$ and describes the volume dependence of the characteristic energy scale for the phonons. Below 30 K the effective Grüneisen parameter rapidly increases and reaches a value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}14`$ just above $`T_C`$. Below $`T_C`$ a weak suppression of the effective Grüneisen parameter is observed with a slow increase for decreasing temperatures. In the low temperature limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ corresponds to the enhanced electronic Grüneisen parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sf}}=d\mathrm{ln}\gamma /d\mathrm{ln}V14`$ of the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations. The corresponding relative pressure dependence of the electronic specific heat amounts to $`d\mathrm{ln}\gamma /dp=\kappa \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{sf}}18`$ Mbar-1.

The relation between magnetic order and the spin fluctuations can further be studied by comparing the volume dependence of the energy scales for the ferromagnetic order ($`T_C`$) and the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations ($`T_{\mathrm{sf}}`$). It turns out that the Grüneisen parameter for the ferromagnetic order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{F}=d\mathrm{ln}T_C/d\mathrm{ln}V=(1/\kappa T_C)(dT_C/dp)16`$ is of the same order of magnitude and has the same sign as the Grüneisen parameter for the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sf}}=d\mathrm{ln}T_{\mathrm{sf}}/d\mathrm{ln}V=d\mathrm{ln}\gamma /d\mathrm{ln}V14`$. This situation is in strong contrast to pressure-induced antiferromagnetic superconductors like CePd2Si2 van Dijk et al. (2000) where the antiferromagnetic order competes with the spin fluctuations with an opposite scaling behavior with volume. It can therefore be expected that the spin-mediated superconductivity of URhGe exists over a wide pressure range, as observed for the ferromagnetic superconductor ZrZn2. Pfleiderer et al. (2001) This in contrast to the situation in the ferromagnetic superconductor UGe2, Saxena et al. (2000) where superconductivity is only observed in a small pressure region close to the critical pressure where the ferromagnetic order is suppressed.

## V Conclusions

We have performed thermal expansion measurements on a single-crystalline sample of the ferromagnet URhGe. Below the ferromagnetic ordering temperature of $`T_C=9.7`$ K an increase in the coefficient of linear thermal expansion was observed along all three orthorhombic axes. The uniaxial pressure dependence of the ferromagnetic transition temperature was determined by the Ehrenfest relation from the anomalies in the coefficients of linear thermal expansion and the specific heat. We find positive values of $`dT_C/dp`$ for all principal axes. Consequently, the hydrostatic pressure dependence is also positive and amounts to $`dT_C/dp`$ = 0.12 K/kbar. This contrasts the behavior reported for UGe2 and ZrZn2. In addition, the effective Grüneisen parameter was determined. The resulting low-temperature behavior points to an enhanced volume dependence of the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations at low temperatures and an equal volume scaling of the energy scales for the ferromagnetic order and the ferromagnetic spin fluctuations.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank B. Fåk and P.C.M. Gubbens for stimulating discussions.